|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Francis;
Click here:
http://www.newsday.com/media/flash/2006-06/23671673.swf and be sure to put the sound up. It's worth it.
Tito
This
process began in Korea after 1950, where the war ended in a stand off
despite the nominal vast superiority of America's military power, and
the Pentagon discovered that great space combined with guerrilla
warfare was more than a match for it in Vietnam, where the U.S. was
defeated. Both wars caused the American military and establishment
strategists to reflect on the limits of high tech warfare, and for a
time it seemed as if appropriate lessons would be learned and costly
errors not repeated.
The
conclusion drawn from these major wars should have been that there were
decisive limits to American military and political power, and that the
U. S. should drastically tailor its foreign policy and cease
intervening anywhere it chose to. In short, it was necessary to accept
the fact that it could not guide the world as it wished to. But such a
conclusion, justified by experience, was far too radical for either
party to fully embrace, and defense contractors never ceased promising
the ultimate new weapon. America's leaders and military establishment
in the wake of 9/11 argued that technology would rescue it from more
political failures. But such illusions -- fed by the technological
fetishism which is the hallmark of their civilization -- led to the
Iraq debacle.
There
has now been a qualitative leap in technology that makes all inherited
conventional wisdom, and war as an instrument of political policy,
utterly irrelevant, not just to the U.S. but to any other nation that
embarks upon it.
Technology
is now moving much faster than the diplomatic and political resources
or will to control its inevitable consequences -- not to mention
traditional strategic theories. Hezbollah has far better and more
lethal rockets than it had a few years ago, and American experts
believe that the Iranians compelled them to keep in reserve the far
more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess.
Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American
experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft
carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these
rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and
anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of
effort and billions of dollars, unreliable. [1]
Even
more ominous, the U. S. Army has just released a report that light
water reactors--which 25 nations, from Armenia to Slovenia as well as
Spain, already have and are covered by no existing arms control
treaties -- can be used to obtain near weapons-grade plutonium easily
and cheaply. [2] Within a few years, many more countries than the
present ten or so -- the Army study thinks Saudi Arabia and even Egypt
most likely--will have nuclear bombs and far more destructive and
accurate rockets and missiles. Weapons-poor fighters will have far more
sophisticated guerilla tactics as well as far more lethal equipment,
which deprives the heavily equipped and armed nations of the advantages
of their overwhelming firepower, as demonstrated in Afghanistan and
Iraq. The battle between a few thousand Hezbullah fighters and a
massive, ultra-modern Israeli army backed and financed by the U.S.
proves this. Among many things, the war in Lebanon is a window of the
future. The outcome suggests that either the Israelis cease their
policy of destruction and intimidation, and accept the political
prerequisites of peace with the Arab world, or they too will eventually
be devastated by cheaper and more accurate missiles and nuclear weapons
in the hands of at least two Arab nations and Iran.
What
is now occurring in the Middle East reveals lessons just as relevant in
the future to festering problems in East Asia, Latin America, Africa
and elsewhere. Access to nuclear weapons, cheap missiles of greater
portability and accuracy, and the inherent limits of all antimissile
systems, will set the context for whatever crises arise in North Korea,
Iran, Taiwan...or Venezuela. Trends which increase the limits of
technology in warfare are not only applicable to relations between
nations but also to groups within them -- ranging from small
conspiratorial entities up the scale of size to large guerilla
movements. The events in the Middle East have proven that warfare has
changed dramatically everywhere, and American hegemony can now be
successfully challenged throughout the globe.
American
power has been dependent to a large extent on its highly mobile navy.
But ships are increasingly vulnerable to missiles, and while they are a
long way from finished they are more-and-more circumscribed tactically
and, ultimately, strategically. There is a greater balance-of-power
militarily, the reemergence of a kind of deterrence that means all
future wars will be increasingly protracted, expensive -- and very
costly politically to politicians who blunder into wars with illusions
they will be short and decisive. Olmert and Peretz are very likely to
lose power in Israel, and destroying Lebanon will not save their
political futures. This too is a message not likely to be lost on
politicians.
To
this extent, what is emerging is a new era of more equal rivals.
Enforceable universal disarmament of every kind of weapon would be far
preferable. But short of this presently unattainable goal, this
emergence of a new equivalency is a vital factor leading less to peace
in the real meaning of that term than perhaps to greater prudence. Such
restraint could be an important factor leading to less war.
We
live with 21st century technology and also with primitive political
attitudes, nationalisms of assorted sorts, and cults of heroism and
irrationality existing across the political spectrum and the power
spectrum. The world will destroy itself unless it realistically
confronts the new technological equations. Israel must now accept this
reality, and if it does not develop the political skills required to
make serious compromises, this new equation warrants that it will be
liquidated even as it rains destruction on its enemies.
This
is the message of the conflicts in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon --
to use only the examples in today's papers. Walls are no longer
protection for the Israelis -- one shoots over them. Their much-vaunted
Merkava tanks have proven highly vulnerable to new weapons that are
becoming more and more common and are soon likely to be in Palestinian
hands as well. At least 20 of the tanks were seriously damaged or
destroyed.
The
U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas -- a
half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America
on the verge of defeat in both places. The "shock and awe" military
strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons
makers -- indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S.
economic bankruptcy.
The
Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of America's nominal
allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent
conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and
made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was
predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks
shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco:
The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime
confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a
crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its
preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose
costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in
failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its
power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach
of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people.
Destructive power is now virtually "democratized."
If
the challenges of producing a realistic concept of the world that
confronts the mounting dangers and limits of military technology
seriously are not resolved soon, recognizing that a decisive equality
of military power is today in the process of being re-imposed, there is
nothing more than wars and mankind's eventual destruction to look
forward to.
Notes
[1] Mark
Williams, "The Missiles of August: The Lebanon War and the
democratization of missile technology," Technology Review
(MIT), August 16, 2006.
[2]
Henry Sokolski, ed., Taming the Next Set of Strategic
Weapons Threats, U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, June 2006,
pp. 33ff., 86.
__________________
C.
from : Monty Kroopkin :
Date : 2 September 2006
SDS
Regional Organizers in the U.S.A.
Francis,
I think this
item will be of great interest to your global audience. Have you sent
in your membership application yet?
http://antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/?page_id=14
Yours in
solidarity from my (now officially illegal) NSA party line,
Monty Reed Kroopkin
San Diego SDS/MDS
Californias,
Americas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Francis,
les armes de Sarco en 2007?
N. Dimitrov
Direction des Systèmes d'Information de l'Université Stendhal
Philippe Bérizzi <philippe@berizzi.net> a écrit : J'ai toujours été stupéfait par la confiance naïve que portent beaucoup aux machines à voter.
Ce sont les mêmes personnes qui croient dans la transparence de ces systèmes, alors qu'ils ne maîtrisent en aucune façon le fonctionnement
et la sécurité de leurs propres PC.
Les machines à voter sont de simples PC, habillées en machines dédiées. Comme les PC, leur logiciel est composé d'une multitude de bibliothèques
logicielles, dont personne ne connaît vraiment le nombre et la qualité, comportant elles-mêmes un très grand nombre d'instructions. Ces
bibliothèques sont de multiples origines, Microsoft, bien sûr, mais aussi de nombreux autres éditeurs de logiciels de différents niveaux.
Une machine à voter n'est pas un simple aditionneur, sinon il n'y aurait pas besoin d'y stocker des mégaoctets d'instructions. Elle comporte
toutes sortes de composants systèmes, une interface graphique, des protocoles réseau, et toutes sortes de petits logiciels tiers invisibles pour l'utilisateur.
Et elles ne sont pas plus dures à pirater que de simples PC puisqu'elles sont reliées au réseau, ne serait-ce que pour transmettre les résultats.
Sur le plan théorique, le fonctionnement de tels systèmes n'est pas prouvable. C'est-à-dire qu'il est impossible de prouver formellement que
son fonctionnement réel est exactement celui escompté (par les votants).
En pratique, les machines à voter, sont l'instrument de base de la fraude électorale.
Le meilleur exemple nous vient encore des Etats-Unis où les problèmes de fraude sont légion. Si vous êtes plus portés sur les opinions que sur les faits, je
conseille, entre autres, le 20H de TF1, qui vous tranquillisera parfaitement.
Si vous êtes plus portés sur les faits que les opinions, un bon point de départ est le site suivant :
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html
Il y a plein d'autres sites qui traitent le problème, et quelques documentaires intéressants, une fois encore malheureusement en anglais,
généralement. On trouve encore assez peu de matière en français sur le sujet, le problème étant encore devant nous en France.
Le problème de base est que ces systèmes sont développées à partir de code propriétaire. En clair, c'est une société privée qui développe le
logiciel. Les sources ne sont pas publiques, et restent propriété de la société éditrice. Le principal fournisseur de machines aux Etats-Unis, Diebold (dont on
trouve quelques distributeurs de billets en France), est en outre un soutien officiel des campagnes électorales du parti en place, et plusieurs membres de cette société ont eu des problèmes avec la justice,
mais ça c'est un point de détail...
Certains arguent que la solution viendrait de l'utilisation de logiciels "open source". Ce serait un progrès indéniable. Néanmoins, toujours sur un plan purement théorique, le fonctionnement
d'un logiciel open source n'est pas plus prouvable. En plus, ce type de logiciel est rarement exempt de bugs, et tout aussi piratable. Et surtout, rien ne permet vraiment de garantir qu'au jour J, le
logiciel qui tourne réellement sur les machines est partout exactement conforme aux codes sources publiés.
D'autres pensent que fournir un ticket à chaque votant serait une solution. Il n'est pas besoin de réfléchir longtemps pour voir que ça ne
résout qu'une toute petite partie du problème, et aucunement le défaut structurel des machines à voter.
Bien entendu, oubliez toute idée de recomptage avec une machine à voter.
Nous avons la chance en France d'avoir eu jusqu'à maintenant un système de vote de haute fiabilité, à base de bulletins papiers. Les problèmes de fraude n'existent que dans les bureaux de vote où le
protocole de vote n'est pas respecté. Si, pendant toute la durée du vote et jusqu'au dépouillement, sont présents sur les lieux des représentants (vigilants) appartenant aux différents partis en présence, il n'y a aucune possibilité de fraude. Il
y a plutôt risque de fraude au niveau de la remontée des résultats vers le central, car ici encore, on utilise des systèmes dont la sécurité doit être validée, et c'est plutôt de ce côté là que le citoyen devrait
exiger des garanties.
Les fraudes chez ATTAC ne sont que le reflet d'un manque de transparence et le non respect des protocoles classiques.
Les machines à voter, derrière leur apparence "fun" et moderne, qui séduisent de plus en plus d'élus locaux qui adorent se faire mousser, et
une bonne partie de la population qui trouve ça plus simple, sont le parfait outil moderne de la fraude électorale. Les qualifier de "machine
à frauder" serait donc plus adéquat.
Bref, le seul parti auquel profite les machines à frauder, c'est le parti en place. Elles permettent par exemple à un président, même extrèmement
impopulaire, de se faire réélire. Le meilleur moyen que les électeurs ne sentent pas le piège est que les media fassent silence total sur le problème, ce qui est assez facile
quand les principaux media sont aux ordres, ce qui est la règle dans les "démocraties" modernes.
Quant à la validation de nos machines par le ministère de l'intérieur, elles me font doucement rigoler, quand on sait l'appétit de pouvoir qu'a
celui qui est en à la tête. Pourquoi dépenser des fortunes colossales en campagnes électorales alors qu'il suffit d'aller modifier quelques bits au fin fond d'un ordinateur...
Pour info, modifier quelques bits dans un ordinateur n'est pas une opération si complexe quand on a les moyens et la compétence technique,
et elle peut très bien ne laisser aucune trace.
Pour donner une image... Si un collègue de bureau profite de quelques minutes d'absence de votre part, pour aller effacer un quelconque
fichier (y compris de la corbeille), l'opération ne prend que quelques secondes. Mais surtout, vous ne vous en n'apecevrez peut-être que
beaucoup plus tard, il sera difficile techniquement de savoir quand l'effacement a eu lieu, et impossible de savoir qui l'a commis. Un
simple effacement de fichier (même de plusieurs mégaoctets), la plus banale des opérations sur un ordinateur, est un méfait qui peut ne
laisser aucune trace et aucun moyen de prouver qui l'a commis. Alors quid de la modification de quelques bits sur un système que quasiment
personne ne maîtrise...
Bref, un candidat aux élections, s'il n'est pas déjà au pouvoir, à tout intérêt à inclure dans son programme l'éradication complète des machines
à voter. A moins qu'il est une vocation à être dans l'opposition. Mais il risque d'y rester très très longtemps...
Philippe Bérizzi
________________
ESPERANTO - LIBERTE Langue Fédérale Européenne
www.esperanto-liberte.com
federlangue@yahoo.fr
débat et info sur : eo-lib-subscribe@yahoogroupes.fr
_________________
F.
from Lucianna Bohne :
3 September 2006
ICH
08/31/06 "The Digest"
-- -- Akhbar Khan, a nationalist/independence leader in
Baluchistan has been killed by the Pakistani military, in a massive
operation that is seriously destabilizing military dictator Pervez
Musharraf’s regime.
This is natural gas country. This is where China is helping to build a
pipeline, which Bush opposes. This is from where commandos are
penetrating Iran (according to Hersh). This is where the “west” has
been stoking up separatist fires, probably to get Musharraf’s army to
intervene. Need boots on the ground to encircle Iran. Quetta is capital
and in ‘Taleban’ control. Nevertheless, the killing of Akhbar Khan is
really upsetting the country–the whole of Pakistan. Meanwhile,
Waziristan is off limits to Paki army, though the locals keep being
aerially bombed–mostly by US.
Why should the news from Baluchistan interest us? I’ll let you connect
the dots by presenting a bit of context and concluding with an article
from the Carnegie Endowement, which, I think, will underline the
significance of the event for the prospected US attack on Iran.
Pakistani military dictator’s regime is very unpopular in Pakistan.
Musharraf, as Bush’s ally on the “war on terror,” has had to do
unpopular things, like deploying 70,000 troops to the North-West
autonomous tribal regions (among them Waziristan) to hunt down
“terrorists” and such.
He hasn’t been successful, but American aerial attacks from nearby
Afghanistan have killed alleged “leaders” and sundry civilians, causing
a flood of refuges and displacements. Serious Pakistani military
casualties have not increased his popularity and neither has the charge
that he’s allowing American forces to violate Pakistani sovereignty.
Musharraf’s campaign in Waziristan has failed so thoroughly that the
region is now virtually off limits to governmental forces.
Baluchistan is continuous with the Waziristan region. Baluchistan is a
western province of Pakistan, constituting about 40% of Pakistan’s
national surface. Its capital is Quetta, accused byAfghanistan’s Karzai
(which really means Washington) of being a Taliban stronghold supplying
and fueling the Taliban armed resurgence in southern Afghanistan.
Musharraf’s regime denies it. Nevertheless, Musharraf has re-opened
hostility in Baluchistan against the decades-long independists forces,
which he’s accused of provoking into taking up arms again. Musharraf,
throughout the spring of 2006, has come under intense criticism by
British, American, and Afghan officials for not doing enough for the
“war on terror.” The trouble is that if he complies with his allies in
the “war on terror,” he comes under attack from domestic critics, of
which he has legions, including the majority of the people.
The latest developments in the murder of the Baluch leader, Bugti, is a
case in point: Pakistan is in an uproar and calling for his resignation.
Why would the axis-of-evil crusaders want to destabilize a crucial
ally? They don’t “want” to, but they have bigger plans.
The US has three military bases in Baluchistan. They say they are
fighting Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region. Perhaps. But,
Baluchistan borders with Iran to the west. Baluchistan, too, is rich in
natural gas and minerals. China is helping the Pakistani government to
build a natural gas pipeline from Baluchistan’s port of Gwadar to
China, a project the Bush administration opposes. The port of Gwadar
just happens to be geographically located to overlook the Straits of
Hormuz, which the Iranians intend to block if they are attacked. Hormuz
is the crucial sea route for international oil distribution.
Coincidence that the US should be interested in “terrorism”in
Baluchistan and urging Musharraf to be more zealous at the same time
that it is planning an attack on Iran?
An article by the Carnegie Endowment entertains the same thought,
albeit to deny it: “The Baluch and the Pakistani think that Washington
would like to use Baluchistan as a rear-guard base for an attack on
Iran, and Iran is suspected of supporting Baluch [independence]
activists in order to counter such a Pakistani-US plot. . . . Some
Pakistanis perceive the US using its Greater Middle East initiative to
dismantle the major Muslim states and redefine the borders of the
region. Some Baluch nationalists charge the US with conspiring with the
Pakistani government to put an end to Baluch claims. So far nobody has
been able to prove any of these accusations.”
No? No matter, the Iranians have been mining their side of the Baluch
borders, just in case, and Bugti, Baluch independence leader, has been
killed by the diplomatically besieged Musharraf, catapulting the
country into a political crisis.
Coincidence? Or are plans for an Iranian attack well on the way?
I remind you that Seymour Hersh, in The New Yorker, has confirmed that
US commandos have launched penetration initiatives across Pakistani
Baluchistan into Iran.
You can read more here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/08/27/asia/AS_GEN_Pakistan_Tribal
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=13371
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200608291840.htm
http://www.dawn.com/2006/08/29/ed.htm
Here’s the Carnegie Endowment’s complete article:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=848&&prog=zgp&proj=zdrl,zsa
____________________
Luciana Bohne teaches film and literature at Edinboro
University of Pennsylvania. She can be reached at lbohne@edinboro.edu.
