Brazzil

Since 1989 Trying to Understand Brazil

Home

----------

Brazilian Eyelash Enhancer & Conditioner Makeup

----------

Get Me Earrings

----------

Buy Me Handbags

----------

Find Me Diamond

----------

Wholesale Clothing On Sammydress.com

----------

Brautkleider 2013

----------

Online shopping at Tmart.com and Free Shipping

----------

Wholesale Brazilian Hair Extensions on DHgate.com

----------

Global Online shopping with free shipping at Handgiftbox

----------

Search

Custom Search
Members : 22767
Content : 3832
Content View Hits : 33084156

Who's Online

We have 714 guests online



Behind Brazil's Nuclear Dream Is a Perceived Call to Be a Super Power PDF Print E-mail
2007 - October 2007
Written by Alex Sánchez   
Sunday, 28 October 2007 10:07

Brazil's Navy model for a nuclear submarine On July 10, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced his intention to fulfill one of the Brazilian Navy's ultimate dreams: to launch a nuclear-powered submarine. This idea was originally hatched during the era of military rule from the 1960s to 1980s but floundered due to a lack of funds and priority status.

It resurfaced at a time when there are disturbing signs that much of the subcontinent is moving towards an unintentional arms race. Criticism is mounting both within and outside of Brazil regarding whether it would be wise for the nation to go ahead with this plan, and what does this say about the Lula presidency.

Will it deed itself over to engaging in rhetorical vertigo about becoming one of the world's dominant sea powers, rather than decide to come forth with a serious plan that it intends to implement a naval expansion program that will not break the bank and not ignite an arms race. .

As the international community tries to blunt North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions, Brazil (long rumored to be ready in its campaign to fight an all-embracing effort to obtain a permanent seat on the United Nations' Security Council), has put forth a plan to construct a nuclear-powered submarine by 2015.

What is surprising about this situation is that Brazil's apparent decision could risk having a highly probable destabilizing impact on the hemisphere because it doesn't factor in the grave consequences it could generate.

Brazil's Nuclear History

The genesis of Brazil's nuclear ambitions can be traced back to the 1960s, a time when military governments were a hemispheric plague, with the South American giant being, if anything, a pathfinder for this process.

Nevertheless, the Brazilian military junta that ruled from 1964-1985 never managed to nurture concrete plans to construct this super category of sophisticated weapons. According to one AP story, the navy's nuclear program, which actually had begun in 1979, already had mastered part of the uranium enrichment process, but it had lagged in developing and constructing a reactor entirely from Brazilian technology, said Navy Admiral Julio Soares de Moura Neto.

According to a July filing by Deutsch Presse-Agentur, the nuclear submarine project was part of a 1975 agreement between Brasília and the then Western German government in Bonn.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that, in a recent article, the Latin American Weekly Report acknowledged that Brazil has been found to be far behind other regional countries in terms of economic support for its armed forces: "Brazil's armed forces are now far behind, by any aspect of comparison apart from troop numbers, the armed forces of Chile, Peru, and Venezuela."

This begs the obvious question regarding what will happen to the country's citizens if Lula decides to allocate the country's economic resources more toward the country's military operations and away from the people's direct social welfare needs.

During the period of military rule, Brazil's neighbor Argentina (if anything, under an even more Draconian military regime), was also heatedly developing a nuclear program at its remote facility near Bariloche, Argentina.

A Spring 1981 Foreign Affairs article by Gerard Smith (Chief of the U.S. Delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) from 1969 to 1972) and George Rathjens (a Professor of Political Science at MIT) discussed nuclear non proliferation, touching on Latin America.

The article mentions the Brazilian-Argentine nuclear arms race which was thought to exist at the time, explaining that "despite U.S. pressures and the expenditure of considerable political capital, the Federal Republic of Germany insisted on going ahead with its previous commitments to assist Brazil in acquiring reprocessing and enrichment facilities. And the FRG and Switzerland have recently agreed to provide Argentina with a power reactor and a heavy-water plant."

Ironically, Lula protested the construction of the nuclear submarine during the military regime, at a time when he was a fiery union leader with solid leftist credentials, protesting that the country had more important needs for its citizens than something so expensive. It seems now Lula, along with new obsessions, has had a dramatic change of heart.

Lula Revives Nuclear Plans

To the surprise of only a few, whose knowledge of Lula's value system was formed in the past and who now see him as a parody of the system to which he once so passionately subscribed, the Brazilian leader is a pro-nuke submarine enthusiast, who now emphasizes his intention to pursue his military predecessors' nuclear ambitions.

He plans to have the submarine operating by 2015. A July 11 wire story by Agence France Presse quotes the Brazilian president as saying during a visit to the Brazilian navy's Technological Center in São Paulo, "Brazil could rank among those few nations in the world with a command of uranium enrichment technology, and I think we will be more highly valued as a nation - as the power we wish to be."

In essence, the new Brazil that Lula ululates over has a different kind of author with a vastly different script than the one he once daily authored as the leader of the metallurgical union in the São Paulo industrial belt.

Lula's references raise several very tantalizing questions about the nuclear submarine project. Among them are: will it be constructed solely by Brazilian scientists and technicians? Or will scientists by recruited from abroad as consultants?

Does the Brazilian navy possess the necessary skill to design, construct, test and operate a vessel which goes far beyond the admirable design and construction technology capacity it has evinced up to now, even after factoring in all of its engineering successes and its commercial triumphs in the fields of aircraft and weaponry fabrication?

Will the crew be sent abroad to gain training on how to operate this kind of super-sophisticated equipment? What kind of design principles will the submarine feature? Will it be a replication of another country's nuclear submarines or will it be a totally new design?

While Lula is jaunty, other Brazilians are desperate, according to daily O Estado de São Paulo, as cited by the Latin American Weekly Report: "'For a long time the government has abandoned the armed forces to its own luck, in a display of disinterest in national defense and the way of life of Brazilians.'

The newspaper goes on to say that the pitiable situation of Brazil's armed forces 'does not match the ambitions' of President Lula da Silva to lead South America in an 'increasingly instable regional strategic environment.'"

O Estado zeroes in on musings now taking place in the Brazilian armed forces: "Two-thirds of the air force's planes are grounded due to lack of replacement parts. The air force does not have any medium-range-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, attack helicopters or the so-called 'intelligent bombs' which are part of the equipment of its Chilean, Peruvian and Venezuelan counterparts.

Furthermore, only half of the navy's combat ships are fit for their intended purpose. In the army the situation is no different. There is no money for ammunition, Brazilian tanks are all secondhand and most over 30 years old." Does this sound like a country that could spend almost a billion dollars on nuclear submarine project?

Nuclear Power for Several Applications

The Brazilian president also is saying that his government will complete the long-suspended Angra III nuclear plant in Rio de Janeiro state. "We will complete Angra III, and if necessary, we'll go on to build more (nuclear plants) because it is clean energy and now proven to be safe," Lula ebulliently noted.

The plant will cost 3.5 billion dollars over five and a half years, he said. But he did not mention the nuclear waste disposal issue which has been deviled Washington in recent years and still defies easy solution, as seen in the Feral Yucca Mountain debate.

Going Nuclear All the Way

A June article by Nuclear Engineering International explains that Brazil has always strived for self-sufficiency in nuclear power, but the ambitious plans of the 1970s were never fully realized, leaving Brazil with just Angra I & II and the equipment and technical skills required for a third, all sited at Angra Dos Reis in Rio de Janeiro state.

The construction of Angra III was originally contracted out to the German firm KraftwerkUnion (KWU), now part of Siemens, which was taken over by Framatome ANP (now Areva). At the end of 2001, Brazil's National Energy Policy Council (CNPE) was asked to make recommendations on Angra III and authorized preliminary steps to restart the project, with Lula ultimately deciding to go ahead with it.

Brazil's two operating nuclear plants, Angra I and Angra II, have an installed capacity of about 2,000 megawatts. Angra III would raise its capacity to 3,300 megawatts, at an estimated cost of about US$ 3.6 billion. According to several costing engineers, they would be surprised if the plant construction didn't come in at least 50% higher than the current estimated figure, with the same being true of the projected costs for the submarine.

An October 2004 article in Science by Liz Palmer, entitled "Brazil's Nuclear Puzzle" reported that in 2004 Brazil had plans for a uranium enrichment plant, which, it if configured to do so, could fuel several nuclear weapons annually. It went on to explain that "Brazil has pledged to enrich its uranium to only 3.5% 235U, the concentration required by its two power reactors. This would be too weak to fuel a bomb, which typically requires a concentration of 90% or above.

If Brazil should change its mind, its stockpile of uranium already enriched to 3.5 or 5% will have received more than half the work needed to bring it to weapon grade. This would confer what is known as "breakout capability" - the power to make nuclear weapons before the world can react, rendering it a fait accompli. Such a capacity is what the United States and some European countries fear Iran is aiming at."

While it is true that Brazil wants to build a nuclear submarine, not a nuclear weapon, the feeling remains about Brazil's potential to become a global nuclear power incrementally, if it chose to do so at all. It certainly has the resources and the personnel to carry out nuclear projects, and if you take Lula's words to heart, he also seems to have the will.

But most of the most source of energy currently fueling Brazil's nuclear dream does not derive from nuclear fission as much as it comes from Brazil's growing sense of ultimate grandeur - that it is destined to be a super power this century.

And who is the amiable Jingoist stoking the line of "über alles"-well, no other than Lula. Yet there is still another chapter to the Brazilian story, and that consists of the corruption that infuses the nation's public life, the inefficiency, the hypocrisy, the environment chicanery and the unspeakable violence of both the street criminals and their prosecutors, and the drug-trafficking Mafia that renders Brazil a hellish state in which to reside, if you are not well to do and strategically positioned.

Interestingly, on June 8 there was an article in the International Herald Tribune about the Russian nuclear power company, Atomstroyexport (a former branch of the Soviet atomic energy ministry) and how Russia is becoming an important exporter of nuclear energy and engineering skills.

The article explains how the company is currently constructing reactors in countries like China, India and Bulgaria. The core of the article is based on declarations by Sergei Shmatko, chief executive of Atomstroyexport. The business executive speaks of a "nuclear renaissance," with Moscow emerging as a global exporter of nuclear technology for developing nations.

He added that his company is already producing a new design for emerging markets; it has a line of mini-reactors more typical of the power plants required for nuclear submarines or ice breakers, then ostensibly for nuclear power plants. Moscow already has proven that it has very few qualms about exporting military technology, as exemplified by the multi-billion dollar deals with Venezuela over the past couple of years, even though it hasn't quite overtaken the U.S. as a world leader in the export of weaponry.

It is only logical to assume that the Kremlin would be more than willing to provide a nuclear reactor to Brazil for its nuclear submarine if it has the money for it. And, as Lula boasts, Brazil has the cash, even though his admirers and generals claim that only penury is to be found in the Palácio da Alvorada.

A Nuclear Brazil: Is this Wise?

Lula appears to be resorting to the traditional waving the "bloody flag of nationalism" in order to increase his personal popularity and confirm the support of the nation's powerful military establishment, although all is not sound here, and his placating is probably doomed to not be enough. This call to arms comes at a time when his administration was sent reeling by almost daily corruption scandals in his political party and his administration.

In the latest round of nationwide discontent, landless workers blocked an iron ore railway (with ore being a key ingredient for the production of steel) owned by Companhia Vale do Rio Doce SA. The company claims only 300 individuals protested, while the Landless Workers Movement insists they were as many as 2,600, according to the Associated Press.

Lula's critics insist that, instead of allocating hundreds of millions of dollars to a nuclear submarine program, why not address the multiple social problems pressing Brazil. These include environmental and anti-poverty initiatives to constructively impact Brazil's current social ills.

Instead, Lula has decided to turn to acquiring a trophy military weapon that couldn't be less relevant to Brazil's future as a great nation and Latin America's current concerns. But this is unwise and will only further provoke regional tensions.

Among others, one must wonder what will be the reaction in Buenos Aires, with an Argentine military still nursing its wounds over its defeat in the Falklands. If Brazil's nuclear submarine actually becomes operational, might this immediately invoke the concerns of the Argentine navy?

One might reply that during the Falkland War with Britain, the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano was doomed by the U.K.'s nuclear-powered submarine, HMS Conqueror. The Belgrano was the second largest ship in the Argentine navy at the time and was sunk by two Tigerfish torpedoes from the Conqueror, killing 323 sailors.

This was a critical point in the war as it proved to the Argentine navy that it could not compete against the British fleet, including its nuclear submarine. What will the Argentine navy have to say about Brazil obtaining a nuclear submarine of its own?

Finally, it is still illogical that Brazil even thinks for a moment that it must have its submarine. The sub-continent, in spite of the arms race it has experienced in recent years, has not had an inter-state war since the Peruvian-Ecuadorian border conflict in 1941.

Brazil itself fought a war against Argentina in the 1820s when Argentina was known as the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata. The last armed conflict (not counting its involvement in World War II) in which Brazil fought was the War of the Triple Alliance when Brazil allied itself with Uruguay and Argentina against Paraguay from 1864 to 1870.

If anything, Brazil's security threats today come from drug cartels, the possible infiltration of the Colombian guerrillas known as the FARC into its territory, and the widespread occurrence of gang violence, and not from Argentina or Paraguay (a landlocked border country)

Military Politics

By deciding to build a nuclear submarine, Lula is reviving the old dreams of the Brazilian military. At the same time, he has certainly given reason to the Argentine navy to push for even a bigger defense budget at a time when the country is still recuperating from the 2001 economic meltdown.

Both the Brazilian and Argentine security forces have dark pasts that have sullied their countries' good names. The possession of a nuclear submarine would provide both militaries with an increased status that would be prejudicial to their still not completely stabilized democracies and would allow them to question their subordination to the civilian government.

It is ironic that Lula has declared his intention to build a nuclear submarine. While he was a union leader before becoming president, Lula had protested against such nuclear aspirations, but it seems he has now had a change of heart. Why has this occurred? Can this be explained by the growing pressure coming towards Lula from the country's military that never has quite regained the prestige that it had when it ruled the country with an absolutist style?

According to a report by the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Lula has emphasized repeatedly that he sees the use of nuclear power as a source of energy as a bread and butter issue for his administration, and that down the road such power will be essential to meet the country's energy requirements; according to estimates, building the nuclear submarine will cost an annual disbursement of 68 million dollars over eight years, so it will be ready (ideally) not before 2015.

Curiously, the aspiration to acquire a nuclear submarine comes at a time when the Brazilian military is going through a process of upgrading. During a September trip to Spain, in spite of the obvious disenchantment with many of his senior military colleagues over the poor condition in which the Brazilian military finds itself, Lula told the Spanish daily El País "in the 1970s, we had modern factories that built tanks [...] But they have been dismantled. Brazil must return to what it had. To rebuild our weaponry factories, we must buy."

According to various reports, Brazil plans to raise military spending by 50% next year and is planning to modernize its submarines, build missiles in cooperation with South Africa and purchase second-hand aircraft.

Logically, Lula has the enthusiastic backing of the Brazilian military establishment for his drive to upgrade the military. But this is not necessarily the case. On October 13, there was an article in the Brazilian daily Correio Braziliense, regarding Brazil's military, which included declarations by General Barros Moreira, a former commander of the War College (Brazil's military intelligence service) and who currently serves as head of the Political, Strategic and International Relations Secretariat at the Defense Ministry.

On the question of the nuclear submarine, General Moreira declared: "What is going to happen to a country where 95% of international trade takes place by sea? And our oil, where is it? If we had a nuclear submarine, we would be more secure. If the Argentine navy had had a nuclear submarine, England would not have attacked during the Falklands conflict. A peaceful country such as ours, that has no intention of attacking anyone, has every right to defend itself, because it is growing increasingly richer and more tempting."

Of course, it remains somewhat obscure as to which country, if any, would be inclined to attack Brazil for its resources.

Opponents of the nuclear submarine and the nuclear plant programs include Lula's Environment Minister Marina Silva. The minister declared that "in the last 15 years, no country has built nuclear power plants because of the problems with the waste [...] We have other sources of power: a great potential in hydroelectric, and clean energies in which we should invest."

In addition, the construction of the Angra 3 power plant is potentially dangerous because it is located in the state of Rio de Janeiro, near a natural reserve, where the soil is unstable and has included a history of landslides.

Angra already was a subject of considerable controversy because of a flawed geological survey which was originally done on the site, which did not include fault problems that should have been ventilated in public discussion. Lula has ruled out solar or wind plants, arguing that they are more expensive than a nuclear plant.

Taking the Arms Race to the Next Level

Brazil's renewed coveting of a nuclear submarine comes at a time when the sub-region is already moving towards an arms race. Among other regional countries, Venezuela and Chile are engaged in major military purchases. Most recently, Venezuela has ordered the purchase of five Kilo-636 submarines from Russia.

Peru has contracted a number of naval purchases a couple of years ago during the Alejandro Toledo administration, including the purchase of four Lupo-class frigates from Italy. Last year, Bolivian president Evo Morales declared his plans to build a number of military outposts, with Venezuela's help to parallel Bolivia's borders, including one facing its border with Brazil.

It is unlikely that other countries, including Argentina, will not feel compelled to follow suit at some point in the near future as a result of pressure coming from its own armed forces

With Brazil's neighbors now interested on increasing their military capability, Brasília arms specialists claim that the country has adopted a posture on its prospective acquisition of a nuclear submarine that, from a strategic point of view, would give it a definite advantage over potential attackers when it comes to naval warfare, even though the strategy is somewhat provocative.

An additional issue regarding Brazil's nuclear submarine has to do with the de facto violation of the spirit, or even the letter of the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Signed in 1967 and entered into force in 1969, the Treaty was drafted in Mexico City to make Latin America and the Caribbean into a nuclear-free zone. Brazil is also a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It seems clear that obligations to these treaty regimes would seem to prevent some problem for Lula's ambitious plans to significantly upscale the navy.

And Washington's Reaction Is....

At a time when the drums of war are beating regarding Washington's tough stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions, and while negotiations continue with North Korea, how will Washington policy makers react to Brazil possessing a nuclear-powered submarine?

In 1991, Presidents Fernando Collor of Brazil and Carlos Menem of Argentina signed an accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna that provided for IAEA inspection of their respective nuclear programs.

At the time, the U.S. State Department praised the decision by both leaders, by issuing a statement issued on December 13, 1991 saying that: "The two South American presidents have demonstrated exceptional statesmanship in moving to free their continent from the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation." What will the State Department say now?

Other institutions that have yet to declare themselves about Brazil's plans include the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), based in Mexico City.

Also of note, the other members of the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA) (who have or have had nuclear ambitions of their own in the past and present), one of the newest cross-continental alliances, has yet to play a large role in the process or come out conclusively for or against Brazil's nuclear plans.

The Nuclear Nightmare

It could be persuasively argued that Brazil's proposed nuclear submarine is an imprudent foreign policy move for Brazil to take. Conventional weaponry, in addition to the country's geography, which features broad land buffers, should serve, as they have in the past, as a sufficient deterrent to dissuade other countries from attacking Brazil under any conceivable scenario.

Some unkind soul might even accuse Lula of engaging in a good deal of hypocrisy for considering to carry out the plans that basically echo the aspirations of the military junta which was responsible for numerous human rights abuses when it held power and which Lula himself once fiercely opposed.

Brazil is regionally and globally respected and would be the natural Latin America representative in the UN Security Council should it ever be reformed and expanded. In addition it is presently besieged by a host of domestic problems, including widespread criminal violence and drug trafficking, aside from increasing gang warfare.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sánchez. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) - www.coha.org - is a think tank established in 1975 to discuss and promote inter-American relationship. Email: coha@coha.org.



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! TwitThis Joomla Free PHP
Comments (157)Add Comment
This idea was originally hatched
written by aes, October 29, 2007
Hatched is a good word for the idea. Brazil cannot maintain its roads. Brazil does not need a nuclear (singular) submarine. Better a hundred fighter aircraft. Brazil needs to become wealthy enough that it can buy whatever hardware it has need of. "

Brazil could rank among those few nations in the world with a command of uranium enrichment technology, and I think we will be more highly valued as a nation - as the power we wish to be."

Brazil's 'value as a nation' is not predicated upon a 'command of uranium enrichment technology.'

Just when you think everything is moving rationally along up pops the Jack In The Box. "Oh yes we have no bananas we have no bananas today." Lets spend a billion dollars on a nuclear submarine and let the Favelas eat cake.
did not we go over this 2 months ago
written by forrest allen brown, October 29, 2007
with the country to the south having the french missel that can kill almost any ship in the ocean
sub just another target , be better off trying to make surfaces ships run on bio desel or ethonal
as right now brasil cant even keep fuel in its tanks for its ships they have now ,

look at it this way you could go buy an old sovet sub for a little of nothing they have 85 right now
shoved up on the beach , as they cant afford to keep them running eather .

and another that dick head capt kleber persick of the naval brasil was a submarine captian
remember he lied and took the roamdeep saying i abandon it when i was deported
just what i would want to have out with a nuke sub .

what are they going to shoot log torpodes carved from the trees of the amazon forest
is lula going to be the first eneginer as he has a degree in that field .

shelly want to sing up on the good ship FUBAR
Brazil and Nuclear Weapons
written by Ricardo Amaral, October 29, 2007
The horse is out of the barn and there are people who does not understand that – besides even starving North Korea has developed nuclear technology ( a country with a total population of the Great Sao Paulo).

As the above article implied Brazilians are too dumb and incompetent to develop that kind of technology.

Here are the articles about Brazil and Nuclear Weapons that the Brazilian people should be reading instead of the above bunch of non-sense:


May 2002 – “We Need the Bomb – Part I”

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/2575/38/


February 2003 – “We Need the Bomb – Part II”

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/2186/27/


June 2003 – “Food for Nukes the Answer for Brazil”

http://brazzil.com/p104jun03.htm


Note: Thousands and thousands of people around the world it did read my articles regarding Brazil and nuclear weapons.

.
What you should know about the source of this article
written by Ricardo Amaral, October 29, 2007
Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) is a Washington, D.C. based (NGO) founded in 1975, with the goal of promoting awareness of hemispheric issues and encouraging the formulation of rational political and economic U.S. policies towards the region.

COHA is dedicated to monitoring Latin American affairs, especially within the context of U.S. foreign policy and its effect on the region.

Since the one of the goals of US foreign policy it is to stop nuclear proliferation, and COHA is dedicated to monitoring countries such as Brazil especially within the context of keeping Brazil away from developing nuclear technology.

At least the readers should understand the purpose and the point of view of the above article – to keep Brazil away from nuclear technology.

.
Forrest
written by João da Silva, October 29, 2007
is lula going to be the first eneginer as he has a degree in that field .


Why not, Admiral? He is quite versatile. A specialist/genarlist
AR not too dumb just crazy to think you need one
written by forrest allen brown, October 29, 2007
but again
who is the most dangeros the one with the match
or the one with the gallon of gas.

took around brasil , do you see any thought to maintence on a grand scale
buildings , ships ,dams ,sewers,water plants, airports to name a few

build your nuke power plants , and see if you can take care of them in the long term .
that in itself would help the people of brasil .

just think RA a power plant on ever river in brasil
brasil could sell ele power to every country in south amercia not good enough for you .
then it would help the people of brasil
the price for one nuke sub would be a bit over 1 billion just in R&D
then who and where will the hull be built ?
where will the chamber for the recator come from ?
where to buy the fuel rods ?
where to dispose of the spent rods ?
where would the crew be trained and by whom?
where to dock it and the suport ships?

as far as lula joao
he is an exspirt
by my thinking
a formor drip under presure

The growing military power of Brazil.
written by Ricardo Amaral, October 29, 2007
With a show of force like that – no wonder the United States has started worrying about the growing military power of Brazil.

And these Brazilian government budget figures do not include the power of the native Brazilian Indians and their projectile weapons the: bow and arrows.


Military spending for 2008:

Brazil = $ 5 billion dollars.

United States = over $ 600 billion dollars.


I remember watching CNN news with Lou Dobbs and they looked hysterical to me when they were talking about the massive increase in defense spending from China (the official number is around $ 30 billion dollars and some people estimates that the real number is around $ 50 to $ 60 billion dollars per year) – and the alarming subject of that night was the fleet of nuclear submarines that China was building.

After watching that alarming report for 5 minutes finally they mentioned that China was in the process of building it’s first nuclear powered submarine.

The Chinese had one sub and these guys were in Panic.

Then I realized why the United States Panic – if the Chinese have only one submarine then they should build that submarine to look as a replica of any nuclear powered sub of the US – The US would think that it is one of their subs and they would not try to destroy that sub.

On the other hand the Chinese can destroy any other sub that look like them and they would know it is a submarine of their enemy since that submarine is the only one they have.

Now I started understanding the logic of building just one nuclear submarine – as long as your submarine looks just like the sub of your potential enemy – all you need is one nuclear sub for that one big attack.


*****


“Brazil boosts military spending more than 50 percent”
From correspondents in Brasilia
NEWS.com.au - October 29, 2007 11:56am

BRAZIL has announced it plans to boost its military spending by more than 50 percent in 2008, to around US$5 billion ($5.4 billion), and draw up a new defense plan, but told its neighbors they should not worry.

"Brazil has well established, peaceful relations with all South American nations ... one of our political priorities is economic and structural integration of the region ... (and in 200smilies/cool.gif we'll also be strenghtening our military links," Defense Minister Nelson Jobim, said in a public speech.

Brazil, he added, cannot "neglect its defense. Therefore, we will increase our budget outlays and investment in the army, navy and air force by more than 50 percent".

He also said Brazil "is elaborating a national strategy defense plan that will determine each military branch's mission and the equipment it needs for its activities".

Mr Jobin said the military equipment envisioned in the plan includes new fighter jets.
Brazil in 2002 mothballed military programs to buy 12 fighther jets worth around four billion dollar, and build a nuclear submarine over 10 years for a total cost of 1.3 billion dollars. These programs could be relaunched in 2008.

According to official figures made public on Sunday, Brazil has requested in its 2008 budget proposal to Congress some $5 billion for its military forces, with the possibility of raising it to $5.64 billion.

In 2007, Brazil's military budget was around $3.5 billion.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0...9,00.html



.
correction
written by Ricardo Amaral, October 29, 2007
I remember watching CNN news with Lou Dobbs a few months back......
AR
written by forrrest allen brown, October 29, 2007
I can tell by your coments you know nothing about sub warefare .
all boats have a finger print and if one shows up that is not in the computer it is a target .
so just building one that looks like the US boats wont cut it by any means .it would have to sound like one of ours
and give off its rec signal

if you remember sound travevls 24 times faster under water and right now the US can here 200 miles under water quite well
even to the point if close enough can here people talking inside there boats

like i tell every body the hull of the boat is cheep its the guts that run the money up on U boats and all others for that fact .
do a nuke surface boat first as a test bed then go to a U boat
but still cheeper to by old rusian boat

subs are long black and full of seamen
just what brasil wants to give the world
Reply to Forreste Allen Brown
written by Ricardo Amaral, October 30, 2007
I know that the nuclear subs usually have good communications with the other ships and so on…But more than once their systems have failed them since they are prone to surface from under other’s people boats, and ships – I can recall that they did that at least twice in the last few years.

When I wrote my posting about the one nuclear sub navy came to mind a movie that I saw many years ago - “The Mouse That Roared” – One of Peter Sellers' best performances on his movie career.

The hilarious story of how the Duchy of Grand Fenwick waged war on the U.S. – and won. An impoverished backward nation declares a war on the United States of America, hoping to lose.

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick decides that the only way to get out of their economic woes is to declare war on the United States, lose and accept foreign aid. They send an invasion force to New York (armed with longbows) which arrives during a nuclear drill that has cleared the streets. Wandering about to find someone to surrender to, they discover a scientist with a special ultimate weapon that can destroy the Earth. When they capture him and his bomb they are faced with a new possibility: What do you do when you win a war?

Unfortunately, they forget to tell Peter Sellers, as Tully Bascombe, commander of their mediaeval army. This honourable man does his best for his country and through a series of unbelievable circumstances (well, this is a comedy) to win. Now, who has to give aid to whom?

.
Forrest
written by João da Silva, October 30, 2007
as far as lula joao
he is an exspirt
by my thinking
a formor drip under presure


Your thinking is 100% correct Adml! But, I think we want to build the sub to protect ourselves from your beloved friend H.Chavez.

It is a brilliant strategic move by our government. Dont you think so? smilies/wink.gif
chaves will only try to come by land
written by forrrest allen brown, October 30, 2007
think how long it would take the brasilian army to show force
in the north of the amazon and if he was smart the would do it about world cup or about t dec 20 .
money would be best spent with rotor wing aircraft from gun ships to CH 53 or 46
along with the warthogg A10
thies would be best for a jungle warfare with no front line .
you could also count on the Coulmbians for help and the US.

AR while subs have had a few FUBARS in the past unless you have the wepons too use it the right way
it is just an expinsive target.

fast mobile attic boats si the new way of local warefare
Brazil X Venezuela
written by Ricardo Amaral, October 31, 2007
Your posting about Hugo Chavez attacking Brazil it is silly and ridiculous.

The only fight we expect to have against Venezuela in the coming years it is in the soccer field during the qualifying games for the next world cup.

.
you think so
written by forrrest allen brown, October 31, 2007
how long have they been fighting with coulmbia over land .
so they want to have a sub for boliva ?

one nuke sub does not project power thoes days are gone with the A bomb

use the money and energy to do something uesful
feed the people,build a better city service , schools that teach the poor . hospitals ,

a jail for crooked cops ,politicans ,military personal

power is free to know you dont have to go to war .
wars are fought by men to afraid not fight or too
proud to admit they were wrong ,
whitch is imposible for a brasilian to say
...
written by aes, October 31, 2007
Let us say that the 'Peoples Army' of Chavez, the landless poor begin the Marxian march to the redistribution of wealth, annexation and appropriation throughout the entirety of South America. That is his avowed raison d'etre. First Venezuela then the world. He is the Mousallini of Latin America. El Duce incarnate. How many of the tens of millions of 'have nots' might lock-step to this novo Latin American facism? Marching to the drumbeat of the promise of justice and economic equality. "Down with the rich, up with the poor." Is this not Chaves' cry? It is always good to have a prepared well equipped Brazilian military. A military of free Brazilian citizen soldiers. Chavez bodes a free democratic Brazillian market no good.
...
written by João da Silva, October 31, 2007
He is the Mousallini of Latin America.


The right spelling is Mouse O'Linni. Must be of Irish Origin smilies/wink.gif
And what about a Brazilian sub-marine powered....
written by ch.c., November 01, 2007
....with ethanol ?

This should be more competitive and more eco friendly...as Bin Lulily says !

Isnt it ? smilies/cheesy.gif smilies/grin.gif
谢谢你 Joao
written by aes, November 01, 2007
Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini Mussolini
To Ricardo !
written by ch.c., November 01, 2007
You forgot to mention your great ideas....published here not long ago !
May be you should include that China should also invest in the Brazilian sub-marine.
In exchange you could deliver ethanol to China.
Is ethanol not the cheapest fuel on earth.....these days ????? As per Brazilian views and spreadsheets...of course !!!!

smilies/cheesy.gif smilies/grin.gif
...
written by ch.c., November 01, 2007
about your 1 sub marine............. fairy tale.

Not 2 sub marines in the world generate the same noise and vibrations from their propellers, even if they are "apparently" identical and built from the same manuifacturer. Therefore even more different if not built by the same manufacturer.
The noise and vibration of each sub marine is like finger prints. None are exactly equal.

And with the exisiting technology, you can hear a sub marine, tens of miles away !
That is why when the first sub marine hear the other, the first one will stop the turbines/reactors, to stop their propellers noise and vibrations.

SIMPLE


Sorry !
missing part....
written by ch.c., November 01, 2007
That is why when the first sub marine hear the other, the first one will stop the turbines/reactors, to stop their propellers noise and vibrations...in the hope.... the other did not hear yet the first one.

You can also hear sub marine using airplanes.

And everyone has a library of the specific noise and vibrations of ALL AND EVERY sub marines they have pinpointed once in the past.

Feel free to check my statement with any sub marine sailor/officer/engineeer you wish !
ask this to a US sailor
written by forrest allen brown, November 01, 2007
durnig the cold war the US would from time to time make there
subs and surface ships sound different just too make the russians think there was another new boat out there .

and then there was the russian satlight set to watch the aircraft carrier groups
on some cold and wet nights with cloud cover they would shut down all eletronics
go full speed ahead off in a drection of choice and the russians would have to spend time and money to try to find them again

save your money for the new
BOVILER
Reply to Ch.c
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 01, 2007
My plan is for the economic development of Brazil, which would be very beneficial to millions of Brazilians and the Brazilian economy.

Besides China is already pissing away 100’s of billions of US dollars by supporting the United States adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Talking about a good investment choice – investments that go up in smoke – US$ 1.2 trillion and no end in sight.

The positive side of this type of Chinese investment in US dollar it’s that the Chinese will be able to Wallpaper every room of every house in Asia with US$ 100 bills – I just hope that they like the color green.

By the way, when you hear the term “the green revolution” that is not what people are implying by that term.

.
Reply to CH.c
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 01, 2007
By the way, the $ 1.2 trillion dollars of US dollar investments are not just going up in smoke in Iraq and Afghanistan – I hope you don’t forget that China has invested in the disappearing US dollar – just look what happened to the value of the US dollar against the major currencies of the world in the last five years as China was pilling up all these dollar bills.

Great Chinese investment $ 1.2 trillion dollars = going up in smoke and melting in value.

Instead of making a solid and sound investment in Brazil as per my plan – China is being taken for a ride by the US – their investments are going up in smoke and melting like ice.

.
Reply to CH.c
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 01, 2007
The other thing that you have to keep in mind is that China will continue throwing is hard earned money in the money pit – and by 2010 China should have invested in the United States around US$ 2 trillion dollars.

And that would be enough for the Chinese to be able to Wallpaper every room of every house in Asia and also in Africa, South America, Australia, and many other places around the world with US$ 100 bills.

China will become the biggest house decorator in the world by 2010.

.
the china ballon will burst
written by forrrest allen brown, November 01, 2007
it is the big bang theroy all over again
it will come to a halt when the world stops buying
cheep throw away chinese made items look at the things that are slowing down

sales are off at houbor freight , boat sales , steel , is of poor grade .
all paint and toys contain lead , stuffed dolls and other toys are filled with
very flamable matriel .cars couuld be only sold in china and some 4 world countries , the motor cycle and 4 wheeler are outlawed in most countries .

let them paper the walls in US money ,
invest in the sosity they most admire but cant change for lack of control
of a population in the billions under there present laws they have control
under a socity like the US they would loose control less tax payers , less money
smaller army less control.

by the way i talked to a buddie in the off angle building
brasil is about as much on the minds of military planners as
the island of Tonga

buy your sub from the coulmbian drug dealers save you some money
Reply to CH.c
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 01, 2007
The last few years China has been financing the United States was in Iraq and Afghanistan plus a double up in defense spending since the Bill Clinton administration left town in January of 2001.

During the Bush administrations’ 8 years reign they spent over $ 2 trillion US dollars in defense spending – with the compliments of foreign investors such as Japan, China and some other countries. China alone contributed so far US$ 1.2 trillion to the fiasco. And China will continue lending the money as if there is no tomorrow and by 2010 China probably would have put most of its eggs into one basket to the tune of US$ 2 trillion dollars. A real sad story if you asked me.

During the revolutionary wars there was one country that financed the United States war of independence – the United States fought its war of independence on credit. And the country that financed that war on behalf of the United States it was France.

That investment did place France in a big hole and later that debt destabilized the French monarchy and it was one of the factors that contributed to the French Revolution – and France at that time had only 25 million people as their total population.

Today we have China repeating the same strategy lending unlimited funds to the United States to fight several wars including in Iraq and Afghanistan – but keep in mind China has over 1.3 billion people – it will be interesting to see if this Chinese misjudgment of providing unlimited credit to fund someone else’ military spending it would comeback to bite them in the same way – and a generation from now the people would be reading and comparing the similarities on the history books about some of the reasons for the new Chinese Revolution of the early 21st Century; when China exploded into a revolution just like the French Revolution.

And one common theme would come to mind that both countries first France and later China – both financed the United States defense spending and various wars - History repeats itself.

France was able to survive the French Revolution as one country - the question is: Can China also survive such a shock with its 1.3 billion people?

If such scenario ever happen in China - then China probably would end up split in more than one country after the civil war runs its course.


.
Ch.C
written by João da Silva, November 01, 2007
And everyone has a library of the specific noise and vibrations of ALL AND EVERY sub marines they have pinpointed once in the past.

Feel free to check my statement with any sub marine sailor/officer/engineeer you wish !


I didnt know that "Unter wasser" warfare was another speciality of yours smilies/cheesy.gif
Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 01, 2007
The positive side of this type of Chinese investment in US dollar it’s that the Chinese will be able to Wallpaper every room of every house in Asia with US$ 100 bills – I just hope that they like the color green.

By the way, when you hear the term “the green revolution” that is not what people are implying by that term.


Ricardo, if I were you, I wouldnt talk about the "Green" wall papers.Please do remember that our STRONG 1 Real paper currency is also green, though getting dirtier, tearing apart and has to be glued together with scotch tape. I dont think that our Chinese brethern would be interested in promoting our currency to use as wall paper in Asia,Africa and Oceania as Green wall paper.
forrest et al.
written by Shelly, November 02, 2007
Let me tell you a story about a nuclear sub that Brazil bought about 14/15 years ago from Germany. Someone in my family was sent to Brazil to develop a Sim for the navy to train the crew. I actually went on the Sim and was quite impressed with the whole thing. About 2 months later "someone" tried to take the sub out of bay (near Niteroi Bridge) and apparently it go stuck and the idiots managed to damage it. Brazil having nuclear sub? I guess not!

Lula and his dreams to acquire his Yellow Submarine-he must be on high levels of ethanol...
Reply to Joao da Silva
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 02, 2007
Remember the economic development plan that I suggested includes a period of transition and the final adoption of the New Asia Currency.

I don’t know what color the notes of the New Asian Currency is going to be.

Hopefully in the coming years Brazil gets rid of the real and adopt the new Asian currency – of any color red, blue, yellow, or even green.


.
Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 03, 2007
I don’t know what color the notes of the New Asian Currency is going to be.


Nor do I. But, let me tell you something.Your over all plan is very good. If the Brasilian government listens and implements 10% of the plan, it will be a big jump. Probably in the 70´s, 90% of it would have been implemented. I dont know if you remember the growth rate of Brasil during the 60's, 70's and early 80´s. Worth researching (or asking Ch.c to enlighten us with his spreadsheet).
Reply to Joaoa da Silva
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 03, 2007
I remember the Brazilian economic miracle of the 1970's at that time I was an economics student and the Brazilian economy looked great.

Until the oil shock of 1974 - that oil shock screwed things up.

I am glad that today the Brazilian economy is independent from imported oil.

With the price of oil approaching $100 dollars per barrel the Brazilian economy is looking pretty good when compared with the other economies that are dependent on oil.

.


Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 03, 2007
Until the oil shock of 1974 - that oil shock screwed things up.


It was in 1973,Ricardo. Had another shock in 1980 too. Thanks to Gen.Geisel and rest of the Miltary officers, we are in a better shape today. I dont know if you remember that Petrobras and Telebras were considered by the Military as strategic assets.

BTW, I still think you belong to the school of thinking of Roberto Campos!
Latin America is already armed with Nuclear Weapons.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 03, 2007
But the reality is the following about 90 miles from the Florida coast...

On November 22, 2002, I was watching a television program on PBS called "Now with Bill Moyers," Mr. Moyers was interviewing a historian, James Blight—he wrote a book about the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis. It was an enlightening interview. The professor was saying that only recently, (in the last ten years) the U. S. learned a lot of new information about the Cuban missile crisis that the United States did not know at the time.

He said that the U. S. intelligence thought that Fidel Castro had no nuclear warheads on his island in 1962. Since 1992 the U. S. learned that, in fact, the Soviets had placed 162 nuclear weapons in Cuba. Fidel Castro had been cleared and had all the authorization necessary from the Soviets to use the weapons.

If the United States had attacked Cuba in 1962, the invading forces would have been annihilated by these weapons. I am glad that that crisis was resolved with diplomacy. I know that we don't learn lessons from past history, but that particular crisis is a very good example of what we don't know can hurt us in a big way.

Usually when I see lists of countries that have nuclear weapons in the newspapers, the lists never list Cuba as being a nuclear weapons country.

Since the U. S. was not aware that Cuba had such a large number of nuclear weapons on the island in 1962, then we can assume that Fidel Castro still has many of these weapons in Cuba.

Why should Castro have returned any of his 162 nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union at that time, when the United States was not aware that he had all these weapons? I will not be surprised if in the future it is confirmed that Cuba had all these weapons on that island during all these years.”

You can read about Brazil and Nuclear Weapons at the following website:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/...st1508139



.







The big question is...
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 03, 2007
Now that Fidel Castro is very old and sick and his days might be counted.- could Fidel Castro transfer his 162 nuclear warheads to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela since Chavez it seems to be the heir apparent to continue Castro's revolutionary campaign in Latin America?

That could be a possibility because I am sure that after Castro's death Cuba will become a different country and most likely will become again a capitalist society.

It will be interesting if the near future we find out that Hugo Chavez is armed with a supply of the old Soviet nuclear warheads.

.
The foremost expert on the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 03, 2007
By the way, historian, James Blight— he wrote a book about the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis.

He is considered to be the foremost expert on the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis.

.
Ricardo is constructing history with smoke, a paranoidal pipe dream.
written by aes, November 03, 2007
Ricardo says, "If the United States had attacked Cuba in 1962, the invading forces would have been annihilated by these weapons."

The nuclear warheads were mounted on intermediate range balistic missils. How would Castro have "the invading forces" been annihilated? If Castro had been able to dentonate "the invading forces" that would mean he would have essentially nuked Cuba, contaminating everyone on the island.

Ricardo says, "Now that Fidel Castro is very old and sick and his days might be counted.- could Fidel Castro transfer his 162 nuclear warheads to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela since Chavez it seems to be the heir apparent to continue Castro's revolutionary campaign in Latin America?"

Give supporting evidence of this Ricardo. For you then contend that Castro is going to transfer this hypothetical nuclear stockpile of 162 nukes to Chavez. The foundation of your paradigm is built on smoke.
nix the paranoidal
written by aes, November 03, 2007
paranoidal should read paranoid or paranoiac.

How would Castro have "the invading forces" been annihilated?

Should read: How would Castro have annihilated "the invading forces"?
Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 04, 2007
Now that Fidel Castro is very old and sick and his days might be counted.- could Fidel Castro transfer his 162 nuclear warheads to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela since Chavez it seems to be the heir apparent to continue Castro's revolutionary campaign in Latin America?

That could be a possibility because I am sure that after Castro's death Cuba will become a different country and most likely will become again a capitalist society.

It will be interesting if the near future we find out that Hugo Chavez is armed with a supply of the old Soviet nuclear warheads.


Supposing that El Comandante Fidel does have these 162 warheads and when he kicks the bucket Raul transfers them to Hugo: In your opinion, Who are Comrade Chavez´s potential targets?
Reply to Joaoa da Silva
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 04, 2007
Historian James Blight found out about the 162 nuclear warheads that was inside Cuba and the United States was not aware of that fact when he was going over historical documents that had been declassified in the Soviet Union after the collapse of that country in the early 1990's.

Why historian James Blight would invent such a story?

After all he is a rep**able American historian. He got the information from the Soviets files.

It makes sense for Castro to pass these nuclear warheads to Hugo Chavez since after his death Cuba most likely will go into a different direction than when Castro was in power.

Hugo Chavez is the only one who wants to spread some kind of revolution in Latin America - the Castro type of revolution.

By the way, Che Guevara wanted to launch one of these nuclear warheads against the United States in 1962 and Fidel Castro decided otherwise.

The nuclear warheads were not returned to the Soviets in 1962 since the United States were not aware that they had all these nukes already in the island. Fidel Castro still must have the nukes in Cuba unless he transferred part of them to Venezuela.


.


.
Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 04, 2007
Hugo Chavez is the only one who wants to spread some kind of revolution in Latin America - the Castro type of revolution.


Do u think that he will succeed?
Ricardo Amaral
written by aes, November 04, 2007
I also saw the documentary. It stated that Castro had some operationally ready missiles and could have at one point launched the few missiles that were opperational. There were at that time according to the Russians 162 missiles, but the documentary does not state that 162 missiles were left in Cuba. Why then do you state that there are nuclear warheads still in Cuba?

Chavez has just abridged the Constitution of Venezuela to allow him to run ad infinitum as president/dictator. Since Chavez rose to power the Venezuelan economy has tanked in spite of increased oil revenues, inflation is rampant, the poor have become poorer and life has become an economic misery. Chavez bring a neo socialism to South America, but like all socialisms it will eventually fail. Chavez has militarized, ie the million man army he has acquired along with his squadrons of jets and Russian assault rifles. He then, aids in the 'class struggle' of all countries within his sphere of influence. Chavez believes he must bring to all the nations of South America solution to the millions of poor. He has enough weapons to distribute to any and all existing or want to be revolutionaries. He will support the overthrow of all non socialistic governments in South America. His army, his weaponry will deter any resistence or reprisal. Brazil is tinder for such a Chavesian scenario. Chavez is no friend to Brazil.
Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 04, 2007
Brazil is tinder for such a Chavesian scenario. Chavez is no friend to Brazil.


I am posting a link that you find interesting to read:
http://www.estadao.com.br/esta...5182,0.php
Ricardo, aes and joao
written by Shelly, November 04, 2007
Brazil is tinder for such a Chavesian scenario. Chavez is no friend to Brazil.

Not quite yet. If we don't do anything than you are right, we'll be speaking Chavelian in no time. However, as the Estadao points out, Brazil will be buying new technology and I hope they will choose France as the provider. Russia is not a reliable source, Putin has a history of blackmailing countries. Don't forget the gas crisis fiasco! I agree with second statement, but do you really think the US is not already keeping an eye on him? And do you think the US will allow a transfer of the nuclear warheads to Venezuela? I bet my money that this country would do anything in its power to stop such action.
...
written by João da Silva, November 04, 2007
However, as the Estadao points out, Brazil will be buying new technology and I hope they will choose France as the provider.


I hope it is F-16´s which are on sale according to AES. If Chevez buys Sukhois, we buy American planes to counter and piss him off. Remember a) the French are not very reliable as the Argentines discovered during the Falklands war b) our first astronaut Col.Marcos Ponte trained at NASA.
Joao
written by Shelly, November 04, 2007
That was during the Falklands, the new Rafale is quite impressing and all new technology.
Joao
written by Shelly, November 04, 2007
The SU-47 is a piece of junk, I don't know much about fighter planes, but you guys can correct me if I am wrong, but the Sukhois is not considered to be a stealth fighter, they have "incorporated" stealth technology, but it doesn't mean it is. I hope we don't go for the Russian tin can.If I had to decided, I would go with F-16 and Rafale is our second option.
Shelly
written by João da Silva, November 04, 2007
I hope we don't go for the Russian tin can.If I had to decided, I would go with F-16 and Rafale is our second option.


Right now, considering that the Real is strong against Dollar and the F-16 are being offered at a bargain, F-16 is my choice. If I am not mistaken, most of the NATO countries have these fighters. According to what I read, they are very good.

That was during the Falklands, the new Rafale is quite impressing and all new technology.


New Rafaele may be quite impressing and incorporated with all the new technology. I think that still the Americans are very good in Avionics. Only thing I am worried about is that they might have outsourced the manufacturing of the components to PRC smilies/angry.gif
Joao
written by Shelly, November 05, 2007
Will the US sell us the missiles to go with the F-16? I don't think so, therefore what is the point buying something we cannot use.
...
written by João da Silva, November 05, 2007
Will the US sell us the missiles to go with the F-16? I don't think so, therefore what is the point buying something we cannot use.


Depends on the hard negotiations.
Joao
written by Shelly, November 05, 2007
The Us will never sell the missiles to Brazil, it won't happen. We tried with them before and we all know that they have laws protecting national sensitive technology. France on the other hand is giving 19% discount on Rafale, they are almost loosing a contract with Marroco, therefore it leaves Brazil, Taiwan and India. With the Euro squeezing business out of Europe and back into the hands of the US, France has not other choice. At any rate, if we have a problem with the US in the future, they won't sell us anything. The best thing for Brazil is to get it whatever we can buy and begin developing our own planes. Best thing would be to get Embraer involved.
F18 suppers
written by forrest allen brown, November 05, 2007
are being phased out as we speak of corse
lula could buy the 24 F 14 tomcats from IRAN as they did not get much fly time
as the US would not sell them spares too fly .during the carter years

brasil could buy the sparrow 3 or 4
smart bombs could be made easy enough even for brasil

the 18 have better range than the 16
and carry more weight
booth are good air too air
but the 18 is grate ground fighter

shelly it would take Embraer at least 24 months of paper work
and then 3 or more years to devlope a top line gun platform
buy the planes build your rockets
Forrest
written by Shelly, November 05, 2007
shelly it would take Embraer at least 24 months of paper work
and then 3 or more years to devlope a top line gun platform
buy the planes build your rockets

You came up with the best solution, for now. However, we must become self-sufficient, let Embraer begin the project and get our boys at the Instituto Militar de Engenharia, ITA, Avibras to develop the rockets, they have done it before. The Piranha was developed by a joint program and it is reliable, so you are right we should develop it. But I would like to see something being done in terms of future. Now, Argentina and Venezuela are getting way to comfy with each other. Also, we can't (US would sanction us) do business with Iran, can't see it happening.
...
written by Shelly, November 05, 2007
Tomcat nice plane. We have a limited signed print on my office, it looks mean!
buy from chaves
written by forrest allen brown, November 05, 2007
look at it this way
too the south they have A 4 sky hawaks with the frenc exoct missle
used well on the british many moons ago
hencs stay off the water slow boats of brasil big target .

chaves has no creditable aircraft no mid air refuling cuba would noy help even though
they have an hand shake deal

but with the US 90 miles away and cloumbia bases at our disposl
cuba would loose all aircraft it sent ,
arginta would not want to piss off the US
by going after brazil first

build under lisgen as you do with the european helocpotrs

tomcat old and many seting in storage
if you want to jack with buy the old
105 and 101
F 8 are still good planes
ANGRA = NUCLEAR POWER STATION TOURIST RESORT
written by Jussara Lima, November 10, 2007
TURISTAS, COME TO ANGRA.
Que a radiação nuclear ilumine vós. smilies/grin.gif
Shelly/Forrest/Ricardo/ et all
written by João da Silva, November 10, 2007
I thought you might like to read the article in the link:

http://www.estadao.com.br/esta...8487,0.php
Jussara
written by Shelly, November 12, 2007
that was good! smilies/cheesy.gif
...
written by aes, November 12, 2007
http://www.israeli-weapons.com...F-16I.html
written by aes, 2007-11-07 07:06:13

Lockeed Martin Sufa F161 is on sale for $45 million per plane. That is about $35 million considering the comparative strength of the Real from a year ago. The time to buy is now.

If the Israeli airforce is choosing the F161 there must be a reason. The life of that nation depends upon such choices. Not in theory, but in daily reality.
Reply to AES - Who are you trying to fool?
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 12, 2007
The fact that Israel is getting that plane it does not mean anything regarding the performance of the plane.

Israel depends on US hand outs year after year - that is why they are getting the F 161.

.
Reply to Joaoa da Silva
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 12, 2007
About 3 or 4 years ago I wrote on one of my articles that Brazil should buy the French airplanes.

.
Ricardo Amaral: http://www.israeli-weapons.com...F-16I.html
written by aes, November 12, 2007
"The Israeli Air Force (IAF) chose to acquire the latest version of the world renowned Lockheed Martin F-16 over additional purchases of the more expensive twin engine Boeing F-15I - for which the IAF placed an order for 25 in 1997. The estimated $4.5 billion dollar F-16I deal ($45 million per aircraft) will be financed by the annual U.S. military aid package and concludes the largest Israeli military purchase in history. Each F-15 cost approximately $84 million."

"The fact that Israel is getting that plane it does not mean anything regarding the performance of the plane."

Of course it does.


Reply to AES
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 12, 2007
The Israeli choice is between 2 American companies - Lockheed Martin or Boeing.

Can the Israelis buy the Russian Sukhois or the French Rafale with the American hand outs?

I don't think so.

..
...
written by aes, November 12, 2007
Your use of the word 'handouts' is denegrative and bespeaks a compete lack of understanding the role that Israel plays in U.S. military forward deployment. Israel is the first line of demarcation for U.S. incursion into the middle east. with a half dozen 'secret' U.S. strike bases in the Negev and the Sinai. The Israelis are buying the American platforms becaue they are the best. They are cheaper buy half and the logistics of supply and repair are on line. They are known quantities. The U.S wants the Israelis buying from the home shop from home suppliers. That way everyting fits as it shoul. There are no unknown quantities. Israel buys what works and what does not work thye reengineer it till it meet specifications. The tehcnical relationship is symbiotic. It works, the price is right haslf the prices of all the untested smart European ware or the Russians ste of their heneibreated ware fare. The American is up and tooling and up and flying. The F15 were twice as expensive that the F151 a savings of 40 million per compy. You need to get your ass out in the front line and hear the boys screaming. stand in the wake and feel the heat and be glad they are your boys that are going out on this machinery. The United States is not Giving anything but an opportunity to succeed in a mission that sure as s**t beter work in that heat. If you went up ub sine if tge okabes ebdered the war college tiy would begin to have experiencial weight to the words that pop out of your mnouth like a whore whose tit is beigh squeezd by a fire grand. You needto look at the white good ol boys up by =haliburton driyoubg billions of I dont knw where that f**king money is or what is it for or of who has it or what does it do. Israel is definding 4 millionreal peple, that are being tucked in bed tongith so they can go to school in the morning. And the single thing that guarantees them theat they have any life at all for that day is the puchase of 102 Sufi that are half the price of all otherfighters offered from any country.




,
...
written by aes, November 12, 2007
Can the Israelis buy the Russian Sukhois or the French Rafale with the American hand outs?

I don't think so. You are way to involved with yourself Aemeral. If All of the products you are suggesting were qantum leaps at aerotecnology then yes, the United States woud supply the Israeli fightor plots with what ever was necessary. If you study the information that was sent along with the post the details of why the F161 is cheaperby half and supperior to the F151 should be mande aboudantly clear. The Israeli aerotech is all added to in actory, improving the intent. You use the word 'had outs' like you have any idea whether they are in fact hand outs or just wastes of money that produce no result ie Haliburton and the Mad Rangers Of Rage. You dont even know what side you are on. You think you are Chavez' side along with Iran and Saudi your just a man for geopolitical all seasons, but the truth be said you dont have a clue as to what's is going on and what is coming down the pipe to a supermarket near you.

The $200 billion dollars in military aid the US gave to Israel - Gravy train or Hand outs?
written by Ricardo C. Amaral, November 12, 2007
When Israel got its last hand out we had a discussion on the subject on the Elite Trader forum. Here is one of my postings.


July 30, 2007

SouthAmerica: $ 30 billion dollars in military aid – for a country smaller than New Jersey – and about $ 8 billion dollars of this aid it is in cash

For a country with a GDP of around $ 140 billion dollars – why make peace in the area and risk losing the free ride.

Israel government annual budget is around $50 billion dollars including defense spending of around $ 10.5 billion dollars.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that a large part of the defense spending from the Israeli government annual budget goes to pay salary for the soldiers, pensions, health care, maintenance of arsenal including the nuclear arms and so on….

After all these normal expenses related to defense spending there is not much money left to increase the Israeli destruction capabilities. That is where the US military aid comes handy – and most of the bombs, guided missiles, and god knows what else that have been killing thousands of people in the Gaza strip, in Lebanon and so on – the carnage and death toll in that area comes with the compliments of the United States government – and all these deadly weapons have the label “Made in USA”.

Israel have been receiving military aid from the United States since 1973 – adjusted for inflation and in terms of current dollars probably the United States have invested over $200 billion dollars in military aid to Israel during the period 1973 – 2007.

The American investments in military aid to Israel during all these years are paying great dividends just look around in that area of the world – Lebanon, Gaza Strip, Iraq and so on…

And we usually use “Enron” as an example of what looks like a bad investment.

What would have happened if instead of giving all this military aid to Israel during all these years if the money had been invested instead in education, and a Marshall plan to help lift all boats in that area of the world?

I don’t blame the Israelis from wanting to keep the gravy train coming.


You can read the entire discussion on:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1549851&highlight=US foreign aid#post1549851

.
Ricardo Amaral
written by aes, November 12, 2007
1927) was originally railroad slang for a short haul that paid well. Nobody uses the term 'gravy train' it is about as passee as Carmen Miranda's hat. It does not suprise me that you are still using it. You are stodgey and wifts of musk waft across the pages of your thinking.
What would have happened if instead of giving all this military aid to Israel? Well I guess they would have got it from the Russians or the French. It were the Russians and the French and the English that asked Israel to help them with the Suez War in '57. The French sealed the deal with nuclear technology. Your a half backed academician.

After all these normal expenses related to defense spending there is not much money left to increase the Israeli destruction capabilities. That is where the US military aid comes handy – and most of the bombs, guided missiles, and god knows what else that have been killing thousands of people in the Gaza strip, in Lebanon and so on – the carnage and death toll in that area comes with the compliments of the United States government – and all these deadly weapons have the label “Made in USA”.

The 'commie sympathizer' is giving a fireside chat. Why I suspect uncle Amaral that the middle east would have been taken over by the Russians. By Jimminy. Yup thats fer shur.

...
written by aes, November 12, 2007

Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.

Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.

Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.

Medicine... Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized,no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer.

An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper

administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.

Israel's Givun imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.

Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.

Technology... With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).

In response to serious water shortages, Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.

Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U. S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

The AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device,produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert."

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth. This from a country just 55 years young having started off life on a very frontiers-like basis, whose population had mostly just emerged from the devastating World War II years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US.

Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

With an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16s, Israel has the largest fleet of the aircraft outside of the US.

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.

On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups.

Twenty-four percent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees - ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 percent hold advanced degrees.


Ricardo Amaral what do you know.
written by aes, November 12, 2007


Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia to safety in Israel.

When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.

When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day - and saved three victims from the rubble.

Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship - and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.

Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.

Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."

According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U. S. officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.


Ricardo Amaral
written by aes, November 12, 2007
A new book by an American military journalist and commentator reveals the extent of the US military presence on Israeli soil.

"Code Names," by William M. Arkin, exposes information about at least five US Army bases at secret locations throughout the Jewish State, including one at Ben Gurion Airport and another in Herzliya Pituah. The book also provides a long list of code names describing joint military operations between Israel and America.

Arkin is an independent journalist and military commentator for NBC and a former intelligence analyst for US ground forces. A front-page story in "The New York Times," based on one of the book's revelations has given the book broad publicity and granted it wide legitimacy.

Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East," when explaining why the US viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the US grants Israel every year. The new revelations also act to weaken the argument for Israeli policy decisions based on "American pressure."

Arkin claims that the officially "non-existent" sites across Israel contain $500 million worth of ammunition the United States keeps in Israel for wartime contingencies. The bases, called Sites 51, 53, 54, 55 and 56 don't appear on any maps and their specific locations are classified and highly sensitive.

"It's not just munitions," Arkin wrote in the Washington Post before the release of his book. "The United States has 'prepositioned' vehicles, military equipment, even a 500-bed hospital, for US Marines, Special Forces, and Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft at at least six sites in Israel, all part of what is antiseptically described as 'US-Israel strategic cooperation.'"

AES
written by João da Silva, November 13, 2007
When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.


Permit me to ask a dumb question: Who was the first female elected leader in modern times. I am trying to recall modern history without resorting to Google. I think I know the answer,but I would like you to tell us.
Joao: Probably Indira
written by aes, November 13, 2007
1960: Siramavo Bandaranaike of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) becomes the world's first female Prime Minister.

1966: Indira Gandhi becomes the first Prime Minister of India.

1969: Golda Meir becomes the first female Prime Minister of Israel.

I rest my case.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
Aes you just made my case of why the United States should stop giving money to Israel.

The US has better things to do with its borrowed money right at home than support a country such as Israel - As you just described Israel is almost in better shape than the US - in terms of education the US has a long way to go.

I have been saying to my friends for many years I understand why Israel wants to keep the mess going on the Middle East - with that kind of cash flow as an incentive to keep the mess going as long as possible until some day some Americans finally figure out that the cash flow itself it is a major incentive to keep the mess going forever.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that simple fact.

Why make peace on the Middle East and lose a major source of cash flow?

We are talking about billions of US dollars in relation to a very small economy - we are talking about a lot of money from the Israeli perspective.

The Israelis have a very powerful lobby here in the United States and you don't have to worry about the US cutting the hand outs to Israel for many years to come.

Israel it does not have a thing to worry about because Americans are a very confused bunch today - at the same time that they are giving $ 30 billion US dollar hand outs to Israel they are cutting health insurance for American kids in the United States.

The New York Times published an article on October 18, 2007 saying that a study by a food bank and Cornell University shows that New York City receives a little more than half the amount of emergency food annually from the federal government than it did three years ago. The shortfall is occuring as the number of families and individuals relying on soup kitchens and food pantries in New York City has risen to 1.3 million from 1 million since 2004.

As a result, food pantry workers say, people in need are getting fewer provisions and less variety, and some pantries have been forced to open less frequently.

As you can see the US has a choice of feed its poor people or send billions and billions of military aid to Israel - a country as you described as very well educated and a country that it is doing very well in business and so on...

If you asked me I would say Americans are PATHETIC.

.














Ricardo Amaral
written by aes, November 13, 2007
Israel is America's first line of defense. The begining and end of American hegemony begins at that small outpost. Israel is an American military base.
Ricardo Amaral: Cont. BTW of what use are you to America and American interests? Its seems you are an anti American propagandist.
written by aes, November 13, 2007
"The United States and Israel have formed a unique strategic partnership [a formal “strategic alliance” was signed in 1985]….Perhaps more than any two countries, the US and Israel share vital intelligence on terrorism, weapons proliferation and other threats. With US help, Israel is able to maintain its qualitative military edge for deterring aggression by its potential enemies. By collaborating with Israel, the US has a reliable, democratic and technologically-advanced partner in securing American strategic interests. This partnership includes: bilateral strategic agreements on military planning, ballistic missile defense and counter-terrorism; joint development of weapons and technologies; intelligence sharing; and combined military exercises….By working closely with the Israeli Defense Forces, and by pre-positioning equipment in Israel, the United States military enhances the readiness of its own forces responding to future crises in the Middle East. The US pre-positions hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment, including spare parts, trucks, ammunition and armor in Israel. This equipment can be used by Israel as emergency supplies in times of crisis and is available to US forces for military contingencies in the region….Israeli defense companies have become a significant provider of military equipment to the US Armed Forces. Israel represents one of the top five suppliers of high-tech military hardware to the United States, and is first on a per capita basis. An average of 300 US Department of Defense and military personnel travel to Israel every month, more per capita than any other US ally."

The Israel Lobby - Part 1
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
When this book was published in March 2006 the Israel lobby was influential in the cancellation of a number of speech engagements of the authors of this book.

The Israel lobby was working overtime to stop these two fellows from exposing how the Israel lobby is so influential in American politics that they are able to make the United States follow policies over and over again which were against the self-interest of the United States and the American people.

Most major magazines had articles in the last year regarding this book and the influence of the Israel lobby in American politics.


*******


From: London Review of Books

Reviewed on March 23, 2006
“The Israel Lobby”
By: John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

…This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria.

.
The Israel Lobby - Part 2
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.

.
The Israel Lobby - Part 3
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

Israel’s strategic value isn’t the only issue. Its backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel. According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents.

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.

You can read the entire book review at the following website:

Source: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html


.
If you can get away with - good for you.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
As I mentioned before on my articles the American people take a long time to grasp what is really going on such as in Iraq – and their ignorance works in favor of the Israeli lobby since you can show clips of the movie “Lawrence of Arabia” and most Americans would not know the difference that movie and what is going on in the Middle East today.

It will take forever for the American people to grasp how the Israel lobby is so influential in American politics that they are able to make the United States follow policies over and over again which were against the self-interest of the United States and the American people.

When Israel destroyed the entire infrastructure of Lebanon in the summer of 2006 – the rest of the world understand that Israel was doing that in partnership with the United States. (Most of the bombs dropped all over Lebanon had the label Made in USA.

.
The Iran and US crisis - started in 1953 - Part 1
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
Here is another example of very bad US policy regarding the Middle East.

The American Prospect
"Regime change since 1953"
Article published on magazine in 11/01/03

Regime Change: The Legacy - Since 1953, U.S. presidents have been toppling other governments. Now, the consequences.
By Stephen Kinzer
Issue Date: November 1, 2003


A very happy group of men convened at the White House on Sept. 4, 1953, to hear a cloak-and-dagger story that would resonate through all of subsequent American history. Two weeks before, the Central Intelligence Agency had overthrown Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran. It was the first time the CIA had deposed a foreign leader, and on this day the agent who ran the operation, Kermit Roosevelt, was to explain how he did it.

Roosevelt's account of bribes, staged riots and artillery duels was almost too hair-raising to believe. It transfixed everyone in the room, including President Dwight Eisenhower, who later wrote that it "seemed more like a dime novel than historical facts." If there was a single moment when the United States can be said to have entered the modern era of covert action and regime change, this was it.

"One of my audience seemed almost alarmingly enthusiastic," Roosevelt later recalled. "John Foster Dulles was leaning back in his chair. Despite his posture, he was anything but sleepy. His eyes were gleaming; he seemed to be purring like a giant cat. Clearly he was not only enjoying what he was hearing, but my instinct told me that he was planning as well."

Roosevelt's instinct was true. Soon after his triumphant White House briefing, his CIA superiors approached him with a new offer. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles wished to be rid of troublesome Guatemalan leader Jacobo Arbenz. Seeing as Roosevelt had already shown his skill at toppling elected governments, would he like to try again? He demurred, but the project went ahead anyway. It was another brilliant success, as Arbenz was forced from power and replaced by a pliant colonel. In the space of less than a year, the CIA had deposed two popular leaders whose nationalism and refusal to accommodate foreign capital had made them anathema in Washington.

These two "regime change" operations set the United States on a course to which it still holds. Over the 50 years that have followed, driven by a combination of idealism and arrogance, successive American administrations have assumed the right to topple governments around the world. Only now, in the wake of the shocks that the world system has suffered in the last few years, is the full aftereffect of those operations being felt.

The coups of the 1950s in Iran and Guatemala, like the recent Iraq invasion, were planned with a stubborn insistence that everything would turn out all right in the end. This relentlessly naive optimism, this unbounded faith in the ability of the United States to work its will in the world, has become a guiding principle of American foreign policy. It has led some in Washington to conclude that the United States represents such a unique combination of lofty principles and great power that it can triumph even over history itself.

During the Cold War, the United States could depose foreign governments only through covert action. Armed invasions were out of the question because they had the potential to set off global cataclysm. Today, however, invasion is once again considered a realistic option. With no Red Army to fear, regime change is now a job for the CIA if possible, the military if necessary.

There are obvious differences between the recent Iraq War and the coups that brought down the leaders of Iran and Guatemala half a century ago. One was a full-scale military campaign, while the others were covert operations. The target in Iraq was a monstrous tyrant, while those in Iran and Guatemala were democratically elected leaders. But the Iraq War resembles those first two CIA coups in important ways.

.
The Iran and US crisis - started in 1953 - Part 2
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
Economic factors have often played a crucial role in American decisions to plot regime change. The target country almost always has a valuable resource that it is refusing to share on terms that the West considers fair. Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized Britain's fabulously lucrative Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and American leaders feared that if the nationalization were allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent that could undermine corporate power around the world. President Arbenz's offense was his campaign to force the United Fruit Company to sell off its vast unused lands so they could be distributed to Guatemalan peasants. Similarly, Saddam Hussein was sitting atop a huge reserve of oil and was decidedly hostile to U.S. companies eager to extract, refine and sell it. In all three of these countries, regime-change operations were designed in part to show that the United States does not tolerate foreign leaders who restrict the ability of Western corporations to make money.

The drive to control the world's most valuable resources is not the only factor that pushes the United States into action abroad. Eagerness to strike against global enemies is also a strong motivation. During the Cold War, the enemy was communism. An alarming series of communist advances in the late 1940s and early 1950s terrified many Americans. Secretary of State Dulles and his brother, Allen, who ran the CIA during the Eisenhower administration, took office eager to demonstrate their determination to fight this enemy.

British leaders tried to overthrow Mossadegh in 1952, but he learned of their plot and foiled it by expelling all British diplomats from Iran, among them secret agents assigned to stage the coup. Desperate to remove their tormenter, the British asked Washington for help. President Harry Truman refused, worrying quite rightly that such a violent interruption of Iranian political life would have unpredictable and perhaps disastrous consequences. That left the British angry and frustrated. But when news came of Eisenhower's election in November 1952, they were thrilled. Kermit Roosevelt stirred their hopes by visiting London soon after the election and telling his friends in the Secret Intelligence Service that the new administration's approach to Iran might be "quite different" from Truman's.

This prospect so excited the British that they could not even wait until Eisenhower was inaugurated to make their appeal to his incoming team. They sent one of their top agents, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, to Washington to present the case for a coup. Woodhouse realized that the Americans would not swing into action simply to recover Britain's oil company, so he shrewdly came up with another argument. "Not wishing to be accused of trying to use the Americans to pull British chestnuts out of the fire," he wrote later, "I decided to emphasize the communist threat to Iran rather than the need to recover control of the oil industry." The Dulles brothers leaped at that argument, just as Woodhouse knew they would.

A similar confluence of economic and political factors drove the decision to overthrow Arbenz in Guatemala. Arbenz was a figure much like Mossadegh. Both were nationalists who wished to improve daily life for their countries' suffering masses. Neither saw why his government's dispute with a foreign corporation should throw him into the vortex of the great East-West confrontation. The Dulles brothers, however, saw every local conflict through the lens of that confrontation. In their eyes, every leader not explicitly tied to the United States was a potential enemy. Arbenz's sin, like Mossadegh's, was his insistence on embracing the domestic challenge of alleviating poverty rather than the global one of supporting Washington's anti-communist crusade.

Neither Mossadegh nor Arbenz was a communist, but that didn't matter. In fact, it helped. Not even the Dulles brothers would have risked nuclear conflagration by attacking China, the Soviet Union or one of their satellites. Yet their desire to strike back against communism was so intense that almost any target would do. Iran and Guatemala were ideal because, by subduing them, the United States would not only remove a perceived enemy but also acquire a strategic platform from which it could project its power across an entire region of the world.

.
The Iran and US crisis - started in 1953 - Part 3
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
Precisely the same impulse fueled the operation against Saddam Hussein. Once again, the United States felt threatened by a ruthless global enemy, in this case terrorism and its most deadly practitioners, the leaders of al-Qaeda. Once again, finding and destroying the real enemy was too difficult, so some other enemy had to be found. Iraq was chosen, even though it was no more responsible for terrorist attacks on the United States than Iran or Guatemala had been responsible for the spread of communism during the 1950s. With Iran long since lost to U.S. influence and Saudi Arabia looking ever shakier, the Bush administration envisions Iraq as the new center of American power in the Middle East.

This combination of economic and political motivations is not the only way in which the template set in Iran and Guatemala during the 1950s shaped this year's Iraq operation. Neither Iran in 1953 nor Guatemala in 1954 posed an imminent danger to the United States. Those early coups were operations of choice, warnings to the world that no regime is safe if it defies the United States. So was the Iraq War.

Planners of those early CIA operations distorted intelligence data to make their case. The Dulles brothers fed Eisenhower a series of highly exaggerated reports suggesting that Iran was about to turn communist. At a National Security Council meeting in March 1953, they gave him one asserting that communists "might easily take over" in Iran and deprive the West of "the enormous assets represented by Iranian oil production and reserves." Years later, however, retired American officials who were posted in Iran in 1953 told an American scholar, Mark J. Gasiorowski, that Iran's communist party "was really not very powerful, and that higher-level U.S. officials routinely exaggerated its strength and Mossadegh's reliance on it."

This manipulation of intelligence was repeated in 1954 as the CIA sought to portray the Guatemalan government as a captive of communism. From those two operations, American spymasters around the world learned an insidious lesson: that intelligence should be shaped to meet the political needs of the White House. So it was in the case of Iraq, as American leaders justified their invasion plan on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism and building weapons of mass destruction.

Washington's failure or refusal to think seriously about the long-term consequences of intervention is the most disturbing factor that binds the CIA's early covert operations to the Iraq War. In seeking regime change in Iran and Guatemala (and later in the Congo, Indonesia, Chile and elsewhere), American planners sought to achieve short-term victories against what they considered intolerable regimes. They did the same thing when they plotted this year's invasion of Iraq. In each case, those who warned about the effects that these operations might have years or decades later were dismissed as wimps or, in one of the most memorable phrases to emerge from the Iraq War, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

From the perspective of 50 years of history, the horrific aftereffects of the 1953 Iran coup are becoming clear. That coup showed emerging leaders throughout the Middle East that the United States preferred strongman rule to democracy, a message that encouraged budding tyrants including Saddam Hussein. It also placed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back on his throne, leading to 25 years of dictatorship that finally produced the Islamic Revolution of 1979. That revolution brought to power a band of militantly anti-Western clerics who not only sponsored acts of murderous terrorism against the United States but also inspired fundamentalist sects in other countries. Among those sects was the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan, which gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and other violent fanatics.

Until the Eisenhower administration staged Operation Ajax, as the coup was code-named, most Iranians felt great admiration for the United States. Hundreds of altruistic Americans had worked selflessly in Iran as doctors, teachers and development specialists, and none had ever sought to exploit the country's resources or intervene in its political life.

.
The Iran and US crisis - started in 1953 - Part 4
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 13, 2007
The coup changed all that. It turned countless Iranians bitterly against the United States and led growing numbers of them to embrace radical Islam, the ideology most closely associated with anti-Americanism. Iranian militants who seized American diplomats as hostages in 1979, an act that brought down Jimmy Carter's presidency and permanently poisoned Iranian-American relations, struck because they feared the CIA was plotting a second Operation Ajax that would once again bring the hated shah back to his "Peac**k Throne."

It is always dangerous to draw cause-and-effect lines through history, but the impact of the 1953 coup in Iran on Middle Eastern history, and even on the United States itself, is today impossible to ignore. "With hindsight, can anybody say the Islamic Revolution of 1979 was inevitable?" one Iranian intellectual mused in a recent article. "Or did it only become so once the aspirations of the Iranian people were temporarily expunged in 1953?"

The 1954 coup in Guatemala also led to a terrible tragedy, the apocalyptic civil war that lasted for three decades and killed hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans. Like the Iran coup, the one in Guatemala led to the establishment of a brutal military regime that not only oppressed its people but also served as a model for nearby countries.

President Truman refused to sponsor a coup in Iran not because he was a Middle East expert and believed he could predict the long-term results, but for precisely the opposite reason. He realized how little he and most Americans knew about matters Middle Eastern, and common sense made him fear the consequences of intervening there. Eisenhower had no such reservations. Neither did presidents who followed him, most notably George W. Bush.

With a confidence born of ignorance, millenarian vision and boundless faith in military power, President Bush plunged the United States into an operation that was not urgently necessary but that satisfied the desire for revenge against someone for the losses of September 11. He turned aside the advice of many friends and deeply divided a nation that had come together in the depths of its grief. Perhaps he has even set in motion a series of processes that will not only further destabilize Iraq and the Middle East but also weaken America's national security.

Those who predict a good outcome in Iraq should not look to the CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala. The legacy of those operations is too frightening. If the long-term results of the Iraq invasion are anything like what has happened in Iran and Guatemala since the United States deposed their governments half a century ago, the world is in for a new wave of horrors. That would confirm the truth of Truman's dictum, "There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know."


.
Ricardo Amaral: "the history you do not know." The historical imperative of the irrational.
written by aes, November 13, 2007
Do you think the Soviets are not ressurected? That they do not covet middle eastern hegemony? Your concept of history seems Newtonian, linear. It lacks the Quantum. "Arabs cannot make peace with Israel. Any such Arab-Israeli peace agreement would exist only on paper. In Islam, jihad is perpetual obligation. The military jihad is interrupted only temporarily by truces, and a truce with Arabs is what Israel has now. Arabs see themselves morally bound only by lawful agreements—and a peace agreement with an infidel state of Israel in Dar al-Islam is by definition illegal in Islamic law and allowed only to deceive Jewish infidels. That Jews are not infidels in Islam, but enjoy special status, will pose no difficulty for radical imams; Israel is not a theocracy, but a secular democratic state, thus Jewish infidel promoting the Great Satan’s values. Few Muslims concede that jihad in Islam is an outdated, unrealizable regulation like those common in mature religions or reinterpret it as peaceful competition with the West. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists who oppose settlement with Israel see jihad as military obligation and would honor no indemnity of Israel. Arabs have always violated cease-fires with Israel; why imagine they would observe peace treaties with Israel? Israel, on the contrary, would hesitate to violate peace agreement with Arabs and would constrain retaliation for Islamic terrorism. " Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict


Your perception is naive. It denies the historical imperative of the irrational.

Ricardo Armoral?
written by aes, November 13, 2007
So in media res what would you have the U.S. do? Withdraw all support from Israel? Withdraw from all the Middle East? Withdraw from Iraq, Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia? Let the 'chips fall' where they may? Facing inevitable existential annihilation what would Israel do? Surrender? You musings are fatuous, your conclusions sophmoric. You are an intellectual dilletant.
sp. dilettante
written by aes, November 13, 2007
dilettante

Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 13, 2007
The 1954 coup in Guatemala also led to a terrible tragedy, the apocalyptic civil war that lasted for three decades and killed hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans. Like the Iran coup, the one in Guatemala led to the establishment of a brutal military regime that not only oppressed its people but also served as a model for nearby countries.


Ricardo, lets forget about the coups in Guatemala,Iran or about Israel. What is your opinion about our glorious revolution of 1964 and Brazil growing at an annual rate of 10% after neath for almost 10 years?
Reply to AES
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
You just show your colors by your reply to my posting.

You are one of the members of the Israel lobby network.

As soon as I challenged you and your position - then your only response it is to accuse me of being an intellectual amateur.

I guess you are accusing also the fellows who wrote the book The Israel Lobby and the fellow who wrote the article about the CIA Iranian coup in 1953 - I guess in your opinion we are all just amateurs and not real intellectuals as yourself. (Besides you have inside information from secret sources that are not available to us amateurs).

I am not anti-Jewish - I don't care about Israel in a way or another - other than I have been tired of listening about Israel in the news on a daily basis as if that little country was the most important country in the world.

Everything that happens in Israel is all over the news in our area as if there were no other more important things happening around the world.

I am a secular person and I am not religious - for me Israel it is just a non-sense.

Religious fanatics of any religion becomes a non-sense as far as I see it.

Personally I am not concerned to what happens to Israel - for all practical purposes they are big boys today. Big boys armed with nukes.

It is ridiculous and a non-sense to make Israel a country with less people than a borrow in Sao Paulo, Brazil as the most important thing in United States foreign policy.

Eventually even the American people will realize that there is more to the world than Israel
- there are countries such China with 1.3 billion people, India with 1.1 billion people, Brazil with 200 million people, and an entire African continent (which is usually in chaos) for the United States to pay more attention because these are the areas that will develop and create the economies of tomorrow.

Yes I don't care about Israel - because I look at the big picture and when you look at the big picture Israel still just a little country with a few million people and nothing else.

The religious claims about Israel it does not mean anything to me. Nothing....

But I will post one more subject about Israel and after that we can move to other subjects that are more useful.

.





Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy - Part 1
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
I wrote the following on the other forum on December 19, 2006 regarding the “Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy.”

It is ironic that we are discussing that mess from the Jewish position on all this including the holocaust and everything else.

But if we discuss this topic from a United States position and the self-interest of the United States regarding US foreign policy around the world then it is another story.

Then we come to the real relevant questions from a US point of view:

1) Why is the United States is burning so much clout, prestige, and wasting so much borrowed money on the Middle East when its real self interest as a nation it is about “OIL” and nothing else.

2) Now we come to the second question: Why is the United States backing up Israel in the Middle East when it makes a thousand times more sense to be in the side of the Arab states and the Palestinian people?

I am sure that if the United States had been on the side of the Arabs all these years then the radical Arabs would not have the need to come to the United States and blow up buildings with airplanes as they did in 9/11.

By siding with Israel the United States is infuriating the very people who are supplying almost 50 percent of US energy (OIL) and also all these trillions of US dollars of recycled oil money that have been invested in the US by the Arab countries.

In terms of United States foreign policy it does not make any sense to back up Israel in the Middle East – and that policy is not costing the US loss of clout and prestige only in that area of the world – that policy is destroying US clout and prestige everywhere around the world.

It is a terrible policy and the only reason that the United States continues to sink in quicksand is because the Jewish Lobby is very powerful in the United States and they are able to convince Americans to stick with a losing proposition such as is the case of US policy regarding the Middle East.

The United States unconditional support to Israel in the Middle East is creating a situation that is snowballing in the Middle East – and everybody knows what happens to you when you are standing on quicksand.


.
Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy - Part 2
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
If you want to bring Hebrew history to support your case of why the United States should support Israel – but that is crazy since at best we are talking about a very small group of people who grew to at most 50,000 people by 721 BC – who had a brief history from 2,000 BC to 721 BC.

Based on that the Hebrews wanted to reclaim by 1948 the land their ancestors had lost 2,700 years ago.

The entire world has changed since 721 BC, and many other groups of people over the years got kicked out of their lands by other groups of people including the native Indian peoples who used to populate the Americas from North to South.

As a US foreign policy based on self-interest and also on a rational level it makes no sense for the United States to give the unconditional support that it has been giving Israel for a long time.

It is crazy and insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let’s review one more time: the claims that the Hebrew people has over the land of Israel.

Here is the “History of the Hebrews” in a nutshell:

Around the year 2,000 BC Abraham (the founder of the Jewish religion) is supposed to have migrated with his family into Canaan.

Egypt's king, Ramses II, is now thought to have reigned between 1290-1224 B.C. – this is supposed to be the time when Moses lived and the Jews had their Exodus from Egypt.

At this point they were lost in the desert for 40 years then they managed to find the Promised Land. That brings us to estimate the birth of the Promised Land to around the year 1,180 BC.

King David – Goliath and so on is supposed to have happened around the year 1,050 BC.

In 970 BC King David is succeeded by his son Solomon.

In 721 BC the Assyrians overrun Israel, disperses the Israelites and takes thousands as slaves. Israel as a nation vanishes.


***


Now let us put the spotlight on all this information and try to put it on a more realistic perspective looking back from today.

Around the time of Abraham – this is where Hebrew history starts – the total world population is estimated to have been around 27 million people – and demographers know that 70 % of the population at that time were living in China and in India. That leaves about 8 million people to populate the rest of the world.

I guess at that time Abraham is just starting the Hebrew lineage.

Then we go to Moses time and the Exodus. Total world population is estimated to be around 45 million people around the year 1,200 BC. Again 70 % of the total is living in China and in India – that leaves about 14 million people scattered around the world.

Is it possible that this Exodus from Egypt involved less that 5,000 people? If we want to stretch even further since these people were supposed to be building Pyramids then let’s says there were 10,000 people who left Egypt with Moses in the Exodus. (I can’t imagine 10,000 people being lost in the desert for 40 years, but again…)

Let’s go now to the year 721 BC when the Assyrians overruns Israel, disperses the Israelites and takes thousands as slaves. Israel as a nation vanishes. The year 721 BC is the end of old Israel, until Israel it is recreated by the British in 1948.

In 721 BC the total world population is estimated to be around 80 million people. Again 70 % of the total is living in China and in India – that leaves about 12 million people scattered around the world.

Is it possible that the Israel that were destroyed in 721 BC had no more than 50,000 people living in that area of the world in small villages raging in size from a few hundred people to maybe 2,000 or 3,000 people?

Can anyone on his right mind justify the mess in the Middle East based on this story of a very small group of people who happen to have lived a long time ago?


.
Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy - Part 3
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
Here is the “History of the Hebrews” in a nutshell:

Around the year 2,000 BC Abraham (the founder of the Jewish religion) is supposed to have migrated with his family into Canaan.

Egypt's king, Ramses II, is now thought to have reigned between 1290-1224 B.C. – this is supposed to be the time when Moses lived and the Jews had their Exodus from Egypt.

At this point they were lost in the desert for 40 years then they managed to find the Promised Land. That brings us to estimate the birth of the Promised Land to around the year 1,180 BC.

King David – Goliath and so on is supposed to have happened around the year 1,050 BC.

In 970 BC King David is succeeded by his son Solomon.

In 721 BC the Assyrians overrun Israel, disperses the Israelites and takes thousands as slaves. Israel as a nation vanishes.


******


Now let us put the spotlight on all this information and try to put it on a more realistic perspective.

Around the time of Abraham – this is where Hebrew history starts – the total world population is estimated to have been around 27 million people – and demographers know that 70 % of the population at that time were living in China and in India. That leaves about 8 million people to populate the rest of the world.

I guess at that time Abraham is just starting the Hebrew lineage.

Then we go to Moses time and the Exodus. Total world population is estimated to be around 45 million people around the year 1,200 BC. Again 70 % of the total is living in China and in India – that leaves about 14 million people scattered around the world.

Is it possible that this Exodus from Egypt involved less that 5,000 people? If we want to stretch even further since these people were supposed to be building Pyramids then let’s says there were 10,000 people who left Egypt with Moses in the Exodus. (I can’t imagine 10,000 people being lost in the desert for 40 years, but again…)

Let’s go now to the year 721 BC when the Assyrians overruns Israel, disperses the Israelites and takes thousands as slaves. Israel as a nation vanishes. The year 721 BC is the end of old Israel, until Israel it is recreated by the British in 1948.

In 721 BC the total world population is estimated to be around 80 million people. Again 70 % of the total is living in China and in India – that leaves about 12 million people scattered around the world.

Is it possible that the Israel that were destroyed in 721 BC had no more than 50,000 people living in that area of the world in small villages raging in size from a few hundred people to maybe 2,000 or 3,000 people?

Can anyone on his right mind justify the mess in the Middle East based on this story of a very small group of people who happen to have lived a long time ago?


**********



Here is the estimated global population from 10,000 BC to 2006 AD.


Total World Population in Selected Years:

Year…………..# of World Population

10,000 BC…………4 million people
5,000 BC…………..5 million
4,000 BC…………..7 million
3,000 BC…………14 million
2,000 BC…………27 million
1,000 BC…………50 million
500 BC………….100 million
200 BC………….150 million
1 AD…………….170 million
200 AD………….190 million
300 AD………….190 million
400 AD………….190 million
500 AD………….190 million
600 AD………….200 million
700 AD………….210 million
800 AD……….…220 million
900 AD…….……240 million
1,000 AD………..265 million
1,100 AD………..320 million
1,200 AD………..360 million
1,300 AD………..360 million
1,400 AD………..350 million
1,500 AD………..425 million
1,550 AD………..480 million
1,600 AD………..545 million
1,700 AD………..610 million
1,750 AD………..720 million
1,800 AD………..900 million
1,850 AD……...1,200 million or 1.2 billion
1,900 AD……...1,625 million or 1.6 billion
1,925 AD……...2,000 million or 2.0 billion
1,950 AD……...2,500 million or 2.5 billion
1,960 AD……...3,000 million or 3.0 billion
1,975 AD……...4,000 million or 4.0 billion
1,985 AD……...5,000 million or 5.0 billion
1,999 AD……...6,000 million or 6.0 billion
2,006 AD……...6,500 million or 6.5 billion


.
Ricardo Amaral: Samson Blinded: a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East ...
written by aes, November 14, 2007





"You just show your colors by your reply to my posting.

You are one of the members of the Israel lobby network"
of quicksand, at 2 grams per cubic centimetre, is twice the density of a human (1 gram per cubic centimetre), so stuck you might be, but drowned you wouldn’t!

In media race you have plotters and planners steaming machavellian dreams, deceit and betrayal. It is no more than a chattering mob on film. The mob is moved only by force. They are told by the French, The German, The turk, The English where to move and who will give what to whom. Thet fight two wars over this and then not content fight another two wars, setting up government buraucracies, clerks, isntitutions of clerks, laws, moeny, and they begin to sort it all out. Mostly the historic ones on white horses with guns, whose Lawrence of Arambian friends are running around in sheets screaming and shouting. The British Lay down the law and with pen and ink and the French run lines across a blank piece of parchment and it is done. They have made countries with the stroke of a line. The rest is the organic working out of this history.

Time moves and the Germans attack again and once again loose and these lines are redrawn and once again surrounded by the force of the westernworlds planes and tankes they dance out therir histories. And in 1948 the great power that be that Grand Crown of Power procalins a Free Israel and a Free Palestine. And at twleve the Aramys amass and attack, figuring they will rout the Israelis, but alas it does not happen, the smoke clears and the better fighters have one the war. Then not content millions from all sides in 67 begin to surround this bit of Israel and seek to exterminate it. They aim their million guns from ten countries and are blown to smitereens destroyed in 6days.

And Israel bows to the powers that are supplying it arms and they are forced not to detroy the armies of the enemies in egypt, or the Russians will enter the war. Well we know where israel is, the rest needs to be sorted out amongst themselves... the great Syria and Iraq and Iran and Yem and Saudi Arabia. and they all butcher and plot in some Shakespearnean night and thos that can stand in the white robes of authority afre the speakers of the Sassds and the faisals, and all the Rest. But world war II would lead this land to ruin. The Germans and the Russians wil hold it with the blood and tissue of those that had stood in authority, and then they lost and the french, Germans, Russians, English American come to divide this madnessup on a map. It is not organic it is mechanistic, man is not a machine and his conclusions are often faith based, things like family.
You dear dear sir are the one that is stuck in the quicksand of your own making

But everyone apart from a Hollywood director can take solace from the most important finding of the research – that it’s impossible to drown in quicksand – you should only sink half way. The density alk out to the new land out of which they carve kingdowms and exestential places where men huddle under rocks under the injustice of tradicitonal arob casts. This thinggros arises let by dyrants, dictators, generals, they rise and create the societies necessary to support them. And now they come screaming for the extermination of Israel they come with dividions of tanks from all the countries surrounding Israel and in 6days they beat them back. An Israeli flag flies of the Dome Of The Rock. It is ordered taken down. This single act is being watched. The conclusion being reached is that the Israel understanding of the other 'the Martin Buber' I and though will bring an end to ISrael, it isonly a matter of time. There is a new book out Samson Blinded: a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East ...You might best read it

Quicksand is only a state of mind its solution is to understand it.
written by aes, November 14, 2007
In the end dear fellow the only interest the United States Has is whether Israel military useful to the broader picture. It is. That is the conclusion. The United States is not Surrnedering this base. The United States is Fully Aware of Isreals American Military Value. How they use that power remains to be seen. But Saudi Arabia is the next injustice to go, along with Kuwait, Yemen Dubai. The rich are rich and the poor are desperately poor. It was from disenfranchised that Al Qaida formed his troops. He hates his father and what his fathers do to their own people. So he transfers this hate to where he can. Afganistan and now the world. Iran speaks the rhetoric. I jost saw the diagram of the atomic bombs sitting in Iran, the ones they denied for ten years wholse puspose is only making an nuclear weapon.The middle east is a tinder keg from syria and lebonon to egypt and jordan, and iran and turkey and Iraq. And then on into Russia, Kasikstatn, Georgia, The area is a tinderkeg of disorder. Israel has wasely linked itself wit the U.S. and has armed itslef with ordenance that can put a stop to any all the countries of the middle east. If that is the choce that is give n them that is the choice they will take. The suicides of Massada the deaths at the German death camps...a light shown over the middle east and and was green and it was nuclear and in the end there was sand. And the arrogance and vanity of man alit themselves in order, for machinerey they did not build and did not know how. Some one picked up a sword and shouted Aliakbar, but everybody was too tired or too dead to care.
Correction
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
Correction:

“It is ridiculous and a non-sense to make Israel a country with less people than a borrow in Sao Paulo, Brazil as the most important thing in United States foreign policy.”

I just realized that I typed the wrong word instead of borrow I mean to type a borough in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

.
Reply to Joao da Silva
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
You asked me: “What is your opinion about our glorious revolution of 1964 and Brazil growing at an annual rate of 10% after that for almost 10 years?”

They used to refer to that period as the Brazilian economic miracle.

It was a very good time for the Brazilian economy – but the good days ended with the oil shock of 1974.

I am glad that those days are over since today the Brazilian economy is completely independent from imported oil.

This time the prospects of growth and prosperity are here to stay. Brazil has a great future ahead of itself and I am very optimistic about the future of the Brazilian economy.

.
Reply to AES
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
Please don’t give me this kind of bulls**t: “But Saudi Arabia is the next injustice to go, along with Kuwait, Yemen Dubai. The rich are rich and the poor are desperately poor.”

Just look the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians living inside of the Israel borders – these people are living with an income of about $ 2 per day.

Anyway I am sick and tired of hearing about Israel all the time and on a personal basis I don’t care about what happens in Israel in the future since I don’t have a dog in that fight.

Today they were talking on the news about the latest estimates of the costs related to the Iraq war – so far the latest costs already has reached the US$ 1.6 trillion dollars. And Prof. Joseph Stiglitz a Nobel Economics Prize winner has estimated the cost of the Iraq war at US$ 2.4 trillion dollars.

It is a disgrace. What a waste of good money.

I guess as long as the Chinese allows the United States to continue to piss all the borrowed money away – the Iraq war will continue to no end in sight…..

.
Reply to AES
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
AES you wrote the Following: "And the arrogance and vanity of man alit themselves in order, for machinerey they did not build and did not know how. Some one picked up a sword and shouted Aliakbar, but everybody was too tired or too dead to care."

You should say that to the people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki since for them that was a reality and not a fairy tale.

.

.
By the way...
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 14, 2007
In my opinion, Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons to protect their country.

I am not afraid of Iranian nukes and I don't care if they build 100 nuclear warheads.

Good for them.

In the other hand, the one country that people should be worried about - Pakistan - only now people are waking up to the potential danger that can come from that country.

Pakistan has over 100 nukes and there is the possibility that some of these nukes end up on the hands of some fanatic group.

Pakistan is the country that everybody should worry about and not Iran or even North Korea.

.





Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 14, 2007
Pakistan has over 100 nukes and there is the possibility that some of these nukes end up on the hands of some fanatic group.

Pakistan is the country that everybody should worry about and not Iran or even North Korea.


Ricardo, here I have to disagree and I think that Pakistan having over 100 nukes is an exaggeration. They might have a dozen or two,but not more than that. Last year I met a young Pakistani scientist that was doing post doctoral fellowship in an university here in Brazil (nothing to do with Nuclear Engineering). Everyone got curious about his country and its culture and this issue came up.The impression we got was that the current leadership (meaning military) of their government is more interested in the economic growth and welfare of the citizens of Pakistan than the cross border military adventures with their neighbor (India) that their previous civilian leaderships were fond of conducting!

BTW, did you know that our Chinese friends are financing the construction of another port in Karachi,exactly similar to that of Dubai? I did not know it, until I met that guy.
Ricardo Montobalm: "Please don’t give me this kind of bulls**t" "I have plenty of, in fact I'm swimming in it."
written by aes, November 14, 2007
"Anyway I am sick and tired of hearing about Israel all the time and on a personal basis I don’t care about what happens in Israel in the future since I don’t have a dog in that fight."

The only dog you have in any fight is in your wallet. I dont think you have a dog, more than likely a pussy cat that sits on your lap that you stroke. There is something vacuous in your simpering meanderings, almost prissy. Have you ever had a dog in any fight? Have you served in any military, stood with body and blood behind the pap of words that preceed you? Perhaps you were a Marine at Iwo Jima. You seem a bit of an intellectual poof a natterer, stating the obvious lengthy diatribe here and there, but showing no real bone.
Agent of elusive substance (AES).
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
By the way, I have figured out what AES stands for.

Agent of elusive substance (AES).


***


I am conscious of the power of the pen – as a matter of fact it can change the world for example:

Karl Marx, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, John Locke



I am also conscious about the power of the Sword:

George Armstrong Custer

The Vietnam War

The demise of the British Empire

Napoleon Bonaparte in Russia, and in Waterloo

Germany on 2 world wars

The demise of the Soviet Empire

The demise of the US Empire



********


You are a military man and you must think such as one, but just because you have been conditioned to react like a Pavlov dog I don’t see any advantage on that.

Let the thinking be done by people like me and when you get your orders to jump you are just supposed to answer – how high?

You are a Pavlov dog and you have not been conditioned to think – just to react and follow your orders. You are a follower and you need a superior to tell you what to do.
You have not been trained to think.

That is the main difference between you and me.


.
The Israel Lobby.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
Today when I stopped at Borders bookstore I started reading the book “The Israel Lobby”
the part of the book that I was reading was very interesting. I decided to get a copy of that book for me to read it and I would recommend that other Americans also get a copy for them to learn about the Israel lobby since they are the most powerful lobby on the United States.

I was surprised to learn by reading parts of the book of how complex the Israel lobby is and there is no conspiracy here since everything is done on the open to mold American policy according to Israel’s agenda.

I also learned that 36 percent of Jewish people in the United States have no emotional attachment to the state of Israel. I was surprised by that fact.

The book is not bashing the Israel lobby it is just putting the spotlight on a very complex
group of people with a certain agenda and the authors mention various other lobbying groups in the US that are also trying to influence government policy.

.
At the same time that the United States gives a $ 30 billion dollar hand out to Isareal.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
“Over 35 million Americans faced hunger in 2006: USDA”
By Christopher Doering
Reuters - Wed Nov 14, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government said the number of Americans who went hungry in 2006 was held in check at 35 million people from the prior year, but food advocacy groups said on Wednesday more needs to be done.

The U.S. Agriculture Department said a total of 12.65 million households were "food insecure," or 10.9 percent of U.S. homes, up from 12.59 million a year ago.

The USDA defines food insecurity - its metric for measuring hunger - as having difficulty acquiring enough food for the household throughout the year.

"It looks very stable from this year to last year," said Mark Nord, who co-authored the annual report for USDA's Economic Research Service.

Overall, 35.52 million people, including 12.63 million children, went hungry compared with 35.13 million in 2005. The survey was conducted in December 2006 and represented 294 million people, an increase of 2.5 million from 2005.

Food advocacy groups said the figures showed the United States was not doing enough to combat hunger, and feared conditions could worsen.

"As costs for food, energy, and housing continue to rise and wages stagnate or decline, households are finding themselves increasingly strapped," said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center. "This may mean even worse numbers in 2007."
Very low food security was most prevalent in households with children headed by a single woman -- 10.3 percent in 2006, USDA said.

Food stamps and other public nutrition programs account for about 60 percent of the USDA's spending. Funding for the department's 15 nutrition assistance programs has risen 70 percent since 2001 to $59 billion in 2006, and 20 percent of all Americans are impacted by the programs each year.

Some 27 million people are enrolled in the food stamp program alone, which helps poor Americans buy food. USDA has estimated 65 percent of eligible people participate in the program, up from 54 percent in 2001.

"We have more work to do," said Kate Houston, USDA's deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. "We can't say that everybody that is eligible for our programs is participating."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200..._hunger_dc

.


Correction
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
Should read:

At the same time that the United States is giving a $ 30 billion dollar hand out to Israel..

.
Signs of a dying empire.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
Just to put it in Perspective:


United States Population who went hungry in 2006: 35,000,000 people.

Population of Canada: 33,390,141 (July 2007 est.)

Population of Israel: 6,426,679 (July 2007 est.)


Note: More Americans went hungry in 2006 than the entire population of Canada.



Signs of a declining Empire.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
Just to put the information into a real Perspective:

United States Population who went hungry in 2006: 35,000,000 people.

Population of Canada: 33,390,141 (July 2007 est.)

Population of Israel: 6,426,679 (July 2007 est.)

Note: More Americans went hungry in 2006 than the entire population of Canada.

.
Ricardo Amaral: http://www.heritage.org/Resear...bg1713.cfm Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car
written by aes, November 15, 2007
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Cont:
Heritage Foundatin Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car:
written by aes, November 15, 2007
I used to be fond of saying that in America the poor drive cars. Amaral you are a propagandist. You are the ringer of the Pavlovian bell, it is you that would set the opperant conditioning. I have lived in the greatest cities of the world, and know a pedant with an adjenda when he rears his acrimonious head. You are an American denier, a propagandist picking and choosing facts as though he were trying to get elected to some petty alderman job. You are a panderer to fear, you lack faith. You see what cannot be done, you do not see what is being done. You process information through the sieve of your adjenda. You are not interested in information only the sound of your opinion, blowing in the wind. It is not the bell of clarity that harbengers you, but the rasp of sand blowing across the rooftop in a chamsim, the harpendger of death. A strong wind carrying clouds of sand and dust through the air, blinding the mind.

...
written by aes, November 15, 2007
ajenda

chamsin
Reply to AES
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
In the last 7 years we had the worst government the United States had since 1776 – basically we have had a bunch of idiots running things in Washington. (running things to the ground it is a more accurate description of what they have been doing in the last 7 years).

Anyway, even this unscrupulous group of people don’t have the nerve to mention that they want to make further cuts to welfare and the American safety net. I have not seen even one of them using the word welfare cuts.

Why?

Because welfare has been cut to the bone in the last 33 years and today the welfare give away to major corporations it is a much larger amount than the welfare given to the very poor people – the destitute portion of the population.

As you put it these comfortable car driving, air conditioned starving portion of the population are having a great time.

Just for your information since you are clueless about what you are talking about – the last time the United States government gave an increase on the amount someone receives on a monthly basis from welfare it was in 1974 – the monthly amount that destitute people receive from welfare has been frozen since 1974 – putting another way it is the equivalent to giving a 66 percent cut on the minimum amount that people need to survive.
A single person receives $ 210 per month to pay for most expenses.

As you said before these people are living very comfortably driving cars, going in vacation, and they are having a great time with their $ 210 per month.

Since gas in our area it is selling above $ 3 per gallon and each time you stop on a gas station to fill up the tank cost about $ 40

If you fill the tank once a week – times 4 equal to $ 160 for gas alone.

Then these starving people still has $ 50 left to pay for car insurance, maintenance of the car, health insurance, rent and so on….

As you can see your theory that 35 million starving people have cars and are having a great time it is a bunch of garbage.

By the way, if depended on the Heritage Foundation the US government would cut welfare to the American people to zero and we would have riots on the street.
.
The Heritage Foundation is one of the most conservative organizations in the US and they don’t give a s**t about destitute or sick people.

.
Massive US government Welfare for the rich.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 15, 2007
By the way, with the amount of money that the American government gives to destitute people in the United States today – these people could not have a minimum standard of living even if they were living in Zimbabwe.

And at the same time the US government is giving massive amounts of corporate welfare to the richest corporations of the land.

And I want to remind you one more time – and also a $ 30 billion dollars hand out to the state of Israel – not what we would call a destitute country.

.
Amaral: Really the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank?
written by aes, November 15, 2007
Does that negate the validity of the following information?
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports:

Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.


Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.


Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.


The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)


Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.


Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.


Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.


Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump­tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour­ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approxi­mately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get­ting medical care.

Amaral: Half the world should be so poor.
written by aes, November 15, 2007
Amaral: These are dollars. Your perception of poverty is skewered. 80% of the people in Brazil are poor according to these statistics. You dont know the meaning of the word poor. You are a fatuous dilettante.

2005 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii


Family Unit 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $ 9,570 $11,950 $11,010
2 12,830 16,030 14,760
3 16,090 20,110 18,510
4 19,350 24,190 22,260
5 22,610 28,270 26,010
6 25,870 32,350 29,760
7 29,130 36,430 33,510
8 32,390 40,510 37,260
For each additional
person, add 3,260 4,080 3,750

SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 33, February 18, 2005, pp. 8373-837
American porverty on display.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 16, 2007
Tonight I was watching the BBC News on television and one of the main headline stories was about poverty and huger here in the United States.

They were featuring the state of Michigan on their story and they said that Michigan is already on a deep recession and 1 in 10 people on their state relies on getting food from a food bank to be able to survive.

In Michigan alone more than 1 million people rely on food from food banks to be able to eat. They showed a white man who had been employed until a year ago – he was an engineer and had a good job – a year later his unemployment benefits run out and all his savings also run out and he said that got to the point that he did not have money to buy even a bottle of milk.

He said that he never imagined on his entire life that he would be in the situation that he is today – of not being able to provide for his family.

Even on tonight’s Democratic party debate they mentioned the 35 million Americans who are going hungry in the United States.

AES latest posting is not worth even the effort of a response because he is getting silly with his postings.

.
The United States is planning to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 16, 2007
I just posted a follow up piece on the forum about the US attacking Iran with nukes.
You will find it to be an interesting reading material.


November 16, 2007

SouthAmerica: I wrote the following on this forum a little over a year ago: “A simple strategy coordinated between the president of Iran and Hugo Chavez – both of them can use rhetoric to talk the price of oil to the $ 100 a barrel in the near future.”

Since October of 2006 the price of a barrel of oil it has gone up from around US$ 50 to almost US$ 100 dollars per barrel of oil today….

You can read the entire posting at:

The United States is planning to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/...number=33


.

"While these individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."
written by aes, November 16, 2007
silly
O.E. gesælig "happy" (related to sæl "happiness"), from W.Gmc. *sæligas (cf. O.N. sæll "happy," Goth. sels "good, kindhearted," O.S. salig, M.Du. salich, O.H.G. salig, Ger. selig "blessed, happy, blissful"), from PIE base *sel- "happy" (cf. Gk. hilaros "gay, cheerful," L. solari "to comfort," salvus "whole, safe"). The word's considerable sense development moved from "blessed" to "pious," to "innocent" (1200), to "harmless," to "pitiable" (c.1280), to "weak" (c.1300), to "feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish" (1576). Further tendency toward "stunned, dazed as by a blow" (1886) in knocked silly, etc

"Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approxi­mately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get­ting medical care.Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approxi­mately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get­ting medical care."

Amaral would have us believe that the 35 million American poor are living in the street destitute, dying, starving like those in Darfur. But the reality is that a single person that makes between $ 9,570 and $11,950 and a married couple earning $12,830 to $16,030 are listed as part of that 35 million statistic of poor. A family of four earning between $19,350 and $ 22,260: {SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 33, February 18, 2005, pp. 8373-837.} A family of 8 making betwen $32,390 amd $40,510 are equally included in that figure of 35 million poor.

It is ironic that even in the U.S. the poor by global standards are considered considerably far from poor.

Your characterization of the Heritage Foundation as irrelevant is intellectually dishonest. The manipulation of thae 35 million figure to state that somehow the U.S. is failing in providing the least of us with the barest necesities of life is patently false. Your words are without merit, your conclusions serve your ajenda.


The 35









Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 16, 2007
In Michigan alone more than 1 million people rely on food from food banks to be able to eat. They showed a white man who had been employed until a year ago – he was an engineer and had a good job – a year later his unemployment benefits run out and all his savings also run out and he said that got to the point that he did not have money to buy even a bottle of milk.


Ricardo, you seem to focus more on the plight of the engineers from Michigan and oblivious to that of our engineers.It gives me an impression that you are not really in touch with the Brazilian reality. Our engineers who believed in the country and contributed to its growth were all fired, starting from the government of FHC (from their NOT so well paid jobs). That policy continues with the present government. Just to give you an example, I read a few months ago in "Veja" that the government jobs are becoming popular again in Brasil, after almost 15 years. The highest paid jobs are for lawyers (7000 Reais per month). The lowest one is for an Engineer (2700 Reais per month). I know several engineer friends of mine whose savings ran out, family broke apart and ended up with nothing, like the engineer from Michigan. I had to bail out a friend of mine, when he was in a fix (because in these troubled times old friends help each other, as the ancient Chinese saying goes). This friend of mine knows 4 languages and is highly trained. Our engineers keep stiff upper lip, unlike our lawyers,politicians, doctors,nurses, professors,etc;

You know what Ricardo? Our Ambulance Chasers and Goebbels will be becoming richer in the coming years than the engineers. Of course, we have our own Goebbels. Guess who it is?

BTW, I am secular too.As a matter of fact I am agnostic.
Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 17, 2007
The United States is planning to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons.


United States WAS, but not IS planning to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons. Condi Rice is too smart and thank God, that idiot Rummy was fired by Bush. BTW, George Bush or your pal Al Gore are NO fools.BTW, Hillary seems to be pathetic in her debates.
...
written by aes, November 17, 2007











BTW, I am secular too.As a matter of fact I am agnostic. I didn't think agnostics new what they did not believe in since what they did or didnt believe didn't exist?
RA
written by forrest allen brown, November 17, 2007
you need to think about what you are trying to feed people

the US would never use the nukes as a first strike

it would be very hard to explain to the world as to why and could never be justfide to the people of the US

as far as chaves and brasil going to war
i belive sadam said the same thing to kuit
hilter to russia
japan to the US

so write it read itr than through it away

as someone may beleive you
I can't read the last 3 postings.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 17, 2007
I can't read the last 3 postings because it is blocked.

Sorry I can't answer your questions.
Ricardo Amaral: The War On Poverty
written by Red Cross, November 17, 2007
You never addressed the facts that the Heritage Foundation presented regarding the austensibile 35 million poor: "While these individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians". Granted there are indigent engineers tragically living in the squalor of N.Y. or Seattle, or Silicon Valley, but this is hardly a persistent Darfurian condition prevelant in American society. Poverty is a politicaly liberal, bleeding hart business, started with Johnson's bankrupted "war on poverty", it is a Pavlovian bell rung at election time to garner votes. It is a "red herring", if there is poverty of what is considered poverty globally, it is a condition of choice. There is always relief. It is not absolute, perhaps it is often untimely, but there are hugh monolithic organizations both private and public that will help, the engineer you spoke of must be found to be helped.
he $6.98 trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the United States".
written by Red Cross, November 17, 2007
Poverty in the USA
By: Leon Felkins
Written: 1/8/1999 -- Revised 1/13/2001

Introduction
This essay is an introduction to the concept of poverty, its prevalence in the United States, and the various government efforts that have attempted to diminish it -- or so they claim.

Definition of Poverty
"Poverty" is a vague term just like "fat", "tall", "smart", "friendly", etc. and is therefore is not precisely definable. The range from having everything to having nothing is a continuous spectrum with no obvious point that is clearly seen to be the point where "adequate" becomes "inadequate". [Consult my essay, "Dilemmas of Ambiguity and Vagueness" for a discussion of vagueness in some detail].

The fact that "poverty" is a vague term and cannot be defined precisely, does not, of course, stop the government from using the word as if it were precise and the press going along with the scam, as is their way. In fact the government is not beyond declaring that poverty has increased or that it has decreased when the primary factor in the increase or decrease may be that the government has simply changed its definition of poverty.

So, the criteria for a person being in or out of poverty is simply a measurement of some major component of poverty and comparing it to some arbitrary level. The commonly used component is "salary" as it is relatively easy to determine compared to other factors that could be more meaningful but more difficult to measure. According to the online essay, "The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty", by Simon Maxwell, a popular definition of poverty for the rest of the world is an income of less than one US dollar per day.

Of course, that definition will not do in the USA for to accept that would put a lot of people out of work; the many employees of the many government agencies that thrive based on a very liberal definition of poverty, to say nothing about the massive allocation of funds to the "poor" that Congress so enthusiasticly dispenses.

Therefore, the poverty level in the USA is set much higher and is more complex than that simple criteria of $1 per day. As of 1999, the threshold for poverty for a family of four was an annual income of $17,029. The poverty threshold varies by size and "number of related children" from $8,501 for one person to $34,417 for a family of 9 or more. The chart is online at the Census Bureau's Poverty Thresholds: 1999.

Since "poverty" is not absolute but a relative term, one has to wonder how does this definition of poverty compare with how we used to define poverty and how others countries of the world still define it. Robert Rector has made a detailed and very well documented study of this very question in his online paper, "How 'Poor' are America's Poor?" and the update, "THE MYTH OF WIDESPREAD AMERICAN POVERTY". Some interesting comparison's surface (as of 1990, the date of the original article):

Ricardo Amaral: the $6.98 trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the United States".
written by Red Cross, November 17, 2007
In the 1920s, over half of the families would have been officially "poor" by today's standard (adjusted for inflation).
The average "poor" American lives in a bigger house or apartment, eats far more meat, owns more appliances, has more amenities such as indoor toilets, than the average European (note that "average" includes all, not just the poor).
Today's poor are more likely to own common appliances such as televisions and refrigerators than the average family in the 1950s.
Government reports show that the poor actually spend 2 to 3 times as much as their official income. Amazing!
As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Trends and Statistics
The present massive level of spending on welfare for the poor started with the President Johnson in 1964 when he declared his "War on Poverty". Since that time there has been an estimated $7 trillion spent on this "war" with no noticeable impact on the poverty rate, as reported by the Census Bureau. Obviously the government can make these numbers come out anyway they want so we can only conclude that the reported constant rate of poverty is in the best interest of the massive bureaucracy who's jobs depend on this program continuing. If the poverty rate was shown to be declining then that would mean that we could start cutting back the program. Of course that would never do. On the other hand, if the rate was shown to be increasing, then that would show that the program was failing and we can't have that either. Better to just keep it constant!

The most comprehensive paper on the history of the welfare program is an essay, one of many, by Robert Rector, probably the most well known expert on welfare and poverty. The essay is online and is called "Welfare, Expanding the Reform" and can be read directly or downloaded as a PDF file. This paper is a must read for it describes in well documented detail what a tragic program this has been -- the massive expenditures, the lack of any progress, and the destruction of millions of lives. I give you one very telling quote: ".. the $6.98 trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the United States".

http://perspicuity.net/civics/poverty.html
...
written by João da Silva, November 17, 2007
as far as chaves and brasil going to war
i belive sadam said the same thing to kuit
hilter to russia
japan to the US


For those who can read Portuguese:
http://www.estadao.com.br/inte...1415,0.htm

Hmmm
written by Red Cross, November 17, 2007



Thirty-six members of the Venezuelan military led by a general on Thursday morning invaded Guyana's land and airspace, blowing up two Guyanese mining dredges in the Cuyuni River and making overflights in two helicopters. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since issued a protest about the incursions and summoned Venezuelan Ambassador Dario Morandy at which the Government of Guyana's grave concerns were communicated.

Ambassador Morandy told the media yesterday that he had met Guyana Foreign Minister Rudy Insanally in the morning when the matter was discussed. However, he said that the Venezuelan military had not violated Guyana's borders, and that the area from which the dredges had been evicted belonged to his country. "Venezuela was protecting its natural resources and we need to remove all illegal miners from the area," the Ambassador said. He also said that the military had not used explosives.

Senior army sources have discounted Morandy's statements, noting that the dredges owned by Anthony Ramlall and Dereck Cabose had been anchored in the Cuyuni River at 'Iguana Island', an area which belongs to Guyana.

A team of police and military personnel was expected to fly into the area yesterday afternoon to conduct an investigation. The army source said that soldiers stationed at Eteringbang had been put on high alert and had been carrying out patrols in the area. The source said the GDF base at Eteringbang is some 40 miles from where the dredges were blown up, and about two hours away by boat. The source said that when ranks received news of the incident they responded immediately, but by the time they arrived, the Venezuelan military had already pulled out. "We believe this attack was centrally directed… no one knows the motive," the army source who asked not to be named said.

Under the 1899 Paris Award, which fixed the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela, the whole of the Cuyuni River and part of the Wenamu River belong to Guyana. The median line demarcating the boundary is in the Wenamu River.

Morandy said yesterday that the military in Venezuela had launched an operation called 'Tepuy' on Thursday in the San Juan de Wenamu to San Jose de Anacoco area. He said a number of illegal miners from Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia and Guyana had moved in and in order to protect the basin of the Cuyuni River the Venezuelan military had decided to remove them. "We don't know about any attack; there was no incident, no problem with Venezuela and Guyana," Morandy said, denying not only the GDF's report of explosives being used to destroy the pontoons but also the fly-overs by Venezuelan helicopters. He said Guyana and Venezuela were good border countries and friendly states.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement yesterday said, "A Note Verbale registering Guyana's grave concern about and protesting the incursion into Guyana's territory and air space was submitted to the Venezuelan Embassy in Georgetown." The statement added that the incident occurred at approximately 9.30 am on Thursday when a contingent of 36 Venezuelan armed military personnel, led by a General entered Guyana's territory and proceeded to use military-type explosive devices to destroy the dredges. "It is currently the understanding of the Government of Guyana that at the time of the incident the pontoons were not in operation and that there was therefore no one onboard either of the vessels."

According to the statement, reports received indicated that the incident had been followed by unauthorized over-flights by two Venezuelan helicopters, the first of which took place at approximately 10.45 am and the second at approximately 1 pm. The foreign ministry noted that it had been continuing the engagement with the Venezuelan Ambassador in Georgetown with a view to obtaining greater clarity with respect to the ongoing military operations on the Venezuelan side of the border and to ensure that there was no recurrence of the incidents, which took place on Thursday.

The ministry further stated that Guyana's embassy in Caracas had also been requested to monitor the situation and to continue to seek clarification from the Venezuelan authorities on the incident.
















http://www.stabroeknews.com/in...d=56533340
written by Red Cross, November 17, 2007
First Guyana, then Ethiopia
Red Cross
written by João da Silva, November 17, 2007
Thanks for posting the link.
AES or Red Cross or any other name that you use to post.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 17, 2007
Using the Heretage Foundation to talk about poverty - it is pure non-sense.

I wish the United States would follow the Heritage Foundations policies - that would teach the American people a lesson that they will never forget.

Talking about being a propagandist - please give me a break - it is not worth talk about most subjects if you are going to quote the Heritage Foundation.

.




Ricardo Amaral: Ricardo's mind is made up! Dont bother him with facts.
written by Red Cross, November 17, 2007
"the $6.98 trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the United States."

Poverty is a business in the United States. You are politically naive or merely ignorant. In either case a fact exists extant of its source. AES
Heritage Foundation - A factory of information to deceit the people and a Neo-Con propaganda machine.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 17, 2007
AES – Red Cross – or any other screen name you use to deceit people (deceit is a tactic used all the time by the neo-cons to spread their bulls**t around the world).

Just look at the result of the mess that we have in the Middle East today – that is the result of neo-cons thinking of people such as yourself.

I have your number – not that I had not grasped long ago about your colors based on your postings, but here is some information about the Heritage Foundation – a very conservative neo-con organization that people such Paul Joseph Goebbels - Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in Germany from 1933 to 1945 - would love that organization.

The Heritage Foundation is one of the most prominent conservative think tanks in the United States. Founded in 1973, it is based in Washington, D.C., in the United States.

Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

The Heritage Foundation's initial funding came from political conservative Joseph Coors, co-owner of the Coors Brewing Company. Funding from Coors was later augmented by financial support from billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

.
...
written by João da Silva, November 17, 2007
He said Guyana and Venezuela were good border countries and friendly states.


Yes, Venezuela's military incursion into Guyana must have been just a "friendly invasion" and Guyana took some "friendly" fire.
Here is who is funding the Heritage Foundation and their heroes.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 17, 2007
I case you don't know who billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife is - He is the person who gave hell to Bill Clinton the entire time Bill Clinton was president of the United States.

He funded many groups for smear the Clinton's during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration.

In my opinion Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents the United States had in the last 100 years - and this fellow Richard Mellon Scaife did everything on his power to discredit and attack Bill Clinton from the day Bill Clinton took office.

That who is behind the Heritage Foundation and its philosophy.

The heroes of the Heritage Foundation are people such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - people who in my opinion should be in jail and not running a country such as the United States.

.






To:Red Cross
written by Blue Cross, November 17, 2007
ID theft alert.You are stealing someone else's ID.Punishable by life term imprisonment smilies/wink.gif
Ricardo Amaral: Clinton was an ass that surfed on the ten years of conservative groundwork led by one of the truely great American presidents Ronald Reagan, supported by a Conservative Congress. Cli
written by AES, November 18, 2007
Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

You have in your criticism described the essence of America, what is called Jeffersonian Democracy. I am politically a Jeffersonian.

You would do well to study Jefferson. President John F. Kennedy entertaining a group of Nobel Prize winners at a White House dinner. Kennedy said it was the greatest gathering of minds ever assembled at the White House — with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

Before you use a term you should know what it means:

Neoconservatism is the political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s. It was formulated in the 1950s, achieved its first victory in Barry Goldwater's nomination as the Republican presidential candidate in 1964,[1][2], and coalesced in the 1970s.

It influenced the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and the George W. Bush presidential administrations, representing a re-alignment in American politics, and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side."[3] One accomplishment was "to make criticism from the Right acceptable in the intellectual, artistic, and journalistic circles where conservatives had long been regarded with suspicion."[3]

As a term, neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to identify a group of people (who described themselves as liberals) as newly stimulated conservative ex-liberals. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is neoconservatism's central theme.[4]


Neo-Con thinking it is like the TITANIC heading in the direction of the iceberg.
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 18, 2007
Neo-con policies and thinking is what has brought the United States into the edge of the abyss.

Neo-cons like people like Robert Mugabe and George W. Bush - and look what happens to the countries when they follow neo-con policies and way of thinking.

If you want your contry to sink like the TITANIC then just listen to the Neo-Cons and their bulls**t.

.
Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 18, 2007
Robert Mugabe


Are you talking about that Mugabe of Zimbawe? You are the 4th Brasilian (besides my self) to know who he is. Ricardo, I am impressed if you are talking about the idiot who is currently ruling the erstwhile Rhodesia!
Ricardo Amaral. You cannot see the movement of the Ship Of State, it is already 250 meters beneath the surface of your perception.
written by AES, November 18, 2007
Titanic? Your Trotskyesque, neo-socialist, Michael Harrington obsolescent anachronistic thinking is of another century. The events of the future are taking place sub rosa. They have been set in motion long before you came to the U.S. Under Clinton's watch. There is only one government, the only thing that changes is the arrangement of the deck chairs.


VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINES
Virginia (SSN-774), commissioned and in service
Texas (SSN-775), commissioned and in service
Hawaii (SSN-776), commissioned and in service
North Carolina (SSN-777), named December 11 2000; scheduled delivery in 2008; this is the last ship of the First Block or "Flight".
New Hampshire (SSN-77smilies/cool.gif has been ordered for delivery in 2010
New Mexico (SSN-779) has been ordered for delivery in 2011
Massachusetts (SSN-780) was ordered in 2005 and is expected to be delivered in April, 2011
SSN-781 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-782 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013[1]
SSN-783 is expected to be ordered in 2008; this is the last ship of the Second Block or "Flight".
SSN-784 through approximately SSN-791 are planned to make up the Third Block or "Flight" and should begin construction in 2009.



...
written by João da Silva, November 19, 2007
Your Trotskyesque, neo-socialist, Michael Harrington obsolescent anachronistic thinking is of another century.


There again I protest. You forgot to include our friendly neighborhood revolutionary BAKUNIN. Of course you are too young to remember him smilies/grin.gif

Another thing that got me confused was Ricardo's inclusion of Roberto Mugabe in the list of Neo-cons. Lately I haven't been keeping track of Mugabe. Has he moved to the U.S.?. Roberto Mugabe is as cunning as a fox.
Reply to Joaoa da Silva
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 19, 2007
You asked me: "Mugabe of Zimbawe?"

Yes.

He is about the same level as George W. Bush - it is very hard to know who is the worse leader.

Maybe Mugabe is not as bad as George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons.

By the way, Zimbawe had only 100 percent inflation last month compared with the prior month.

In my opinion Roberto Mugabe is a Moron - but we have biggerMorons than Mugabe here in the United States - for example George W. Bush and Dickhead Cheney.

.
Ricardo Amaral: http://www.truthout.org/docs_0...804L.shtml
written by AES, November 19, 2007
"Bush's Policies Are a Radical Departure from Clinton's"

Lovely nostalgia. What is striking about President Bill Clinton's foreign policy is that it actually increased U.S. military preponderance vis-à-vis the rest of the world. During the late 1990s, U.S. defense spending was higher than that of the next dozen nations combined. The overall goal, according to Clinton's joint chiefs of staff, was to create "a force that is dominant across the full spectrum of military operations-persuasive in peace, decisive in war, preeminent in any form of conflict."

Neither liberals nor neoconservatives want to acknowledge it, but the Clinton administration also envisioned the use of unilateral, even preemptive, military power. Prior to the September 11 attacks, the last strategy paper of the Clinton administration spelled out the nation's vital interests. "We will do what we must," wrote the Clinton national security team, "to defend these interests. This may involve the use of military force, including unilateral action, where deemed necessary or appropriate."

Clinton himself already had approved the use of preemptive force. In June 1995, he signed Presidential Decision Directive 39, regarding counterterrorism. Much of it remains classified, but the sanitized version is suggestive of a preemptive stance. The United States would seek to identify groups or states that "sponsor or support such terrorists, isolate them and extract a heavy price for their actions." And responding to al Qaeda attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, Clinton authorized the bombing in Sudan of the al-Shifaa chemical plant, which was suspected of manufacturing weapons for Osama bin Laden. Some in the White House raised concerns about the legality of preemptive bombings against a civilian target in a nation that had never threatened the United States. But National Security Advisor Sandy Berger made a compelling case: "What if we do not hit it and then, after an attack, nerve gas is released in the New York City subway? What will we say then?"

President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright talked nobly and worked tirelessly to preserve alliance cohesion and to enlarge NATO. Unlike Bush, they sought to contain and co-opt the mounting parochial nationalism in the United States, a nationalism that wavered between isolationism and unilateralism and that increasingly rejected international norms and conventions. But, notwithstanding these efforts, it was the Clinton administration, not Bush's, that appointed the bipartisan U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. This commission was chaired not by neoconservatives, but by former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart and by former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman (who is a moderate internationalist). The commission ruefully acknowledged that "the United States will increasingly find itself wishing to form coalitions but increasingly unable to find partners willing and able to carry out combined military operations."

In short, the preemptive and unilateral use of U.S. military power was widely perceived as necessary prior to Bush's election, even by those possessing internationalist inclinations. What Bush did after September 11 was translate an option into a national doctrine.



Ricardo Amaral
written by João da Silva, November 19, 2007
You asked me: "Mugabe of Zimbawe?"
Yes.
He is about the same level as George W. Bush - it is very hard to know who is the worse leader.


Ricardo, at least Bush and Cheyney would be gone starting Jan 2009. But Mugabe will remain in power eternally.The word " Despot Dictator" is more apt to describe him than "Neo-con"

By the way, Zimbawe had only 100 percent inflation last month compared with the prior month.


Brazil also did have this inflation rate shortly after 1985. During Sarney's government when many economists experimented with several of their pet theories and wrecked the Brazilian economy.Bresser Perreira,Dilson Funaro, etc; I don't know if you were still living in Brazil at that time. It was pure hell. I hope Zimbabweans are able to cope up with this kind of inflation rate.

BTW, I have lots of regards for the black South African politicians for not destroying their economy by practicing reverse racism and kicking the whites out of their country.

Mugabe seems to be as bad as or worse than Idi Amin of Uganda.May be our MST will be able to give him some consulting services and thus we will be able to get rid of them.
Reply to Joao da Silva
written by Ricardo Amaral, November 20, 2007
Yes, I remember the days of hyperinflation in Brazil.

I was controller of Mesbla Trading at that time - an international trading company located here in New Jersey - a subsidiary of Mesbla in Brazil.

We had to do all the transactions in US dollars because of the inflation in Brazil and the currency problems that we had.

It was a nightmare doing business with Brazil during that time.

I know that Roberto Mugabe is a despot dictator - but he is the only head of state today who is in the same league as George W. Bush - it is hard for the world to decide which one of them is the worse....

George W. Bush still worse than Mugabe and both of them are turning their countries into Banana Republics..

.

...
written by sergio moraes, November 25, 2007
i was just wondering ...is there anyone that is not brazilian here?...just to check^^
...
written by sergio moraes, November 25, 2007
and u guys think brazil would ever go nuclear
Re: Allen Brown
written by Eduardo C., November 25, 2007
You now why you guys.. are so wory about BRAZIL?? Because China.. it is a big country that is a fact. But BRAZIL it is now the 1 Cattle population..1 cotton producer.1.soybens..Ethanol a long time already n 1...Oil we dont need to import...Now even more..(Tupi reservation).And we have a lot of espace.More and more.. land.China no way!! Desert...No espace anymore..no oil..the oly country that can be a big superpower lake the us one day. It is BRAZIL. And you should try ..to be more friendly..and not ironic. If in the future..you want some big contribution ..that you now..we can t give tou US
Re:Allen Brown
written by Eduardo C., November 25, 2007
Ohh Sorry... I forget to talk about other continental countries. Russia Cold ..cold and cold..they have gas and oil..but..that all! And population going down. Australia..50 percent Desert..and population lake the state of Bahia. India..woww India..Big population but no space for agriculture.. And no food...Who is coming?? República Federativa do Brasil 190 million..and a lot of agriculture Land
Allen Brown
written by Eduardo C., November 25, 2007
And Industrial Park ...You now ..because by the way..you are Brazil especialist smilies/wink.gif ;
...
written by Eduardo C., November 25, 2007
Read CHART

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- A huge offshore oil discovery could raise Brazil's petroleum reserves by a whopping 40 percent and boost this country into the ranks of the world's major exporters, officials said.


A gas station worker refuels a taxi with natural gas at a Petrobras gas station Thursday in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The government-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, said the new "ultra-deep" Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude, sending Petrobras shares soaring and prompting predictions that Brazil could join the world's "top 10" oil producers.

Petrobras President Sergio Gabrielli said Thursday the oil from ultradeep areas, including the Tupi field, would give Brazil the world's eighth-largest oil and gas reserves.

"Brazil's reserves will lie somewhere between those of Nigeria and those of Venezuela," Gabrielli said at a news conference.

Petrobras says the Tupi field, off Brazil's southeastern Atlantic coast, has between 5 billion and 8 billion barrels -- equivalent to 40 percent of all the oil ever discovered in Brazil.

Brazil's total oil reserves currently rank 17th in the world, with 14.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent, Gabrielli said.

Thursday's news of the discovery rocked a country that became a net oil exporter only last year but must still import light crude oil for the refined products it needs. Brazil produces -- and exports -- mostly heavy crude oil, which has to be mixed with the light oil in refineries.

Petrobras' American depository shares jumped $24.03 to $116.77 on the New York Stock Exchange to close at a 52-week high. In Brazil, Petrobras shares ended 14.1 percent higher Thursday at 80.17 reals ($45.94) in Sao Paulo.

"If this is confirmed, we will no longer be a 'medium' country, pursuing self-sufficiency and exporting a little. It will transform the nation to another level, with exporting properties like Venezuela, Arab nations and others," said Dilma Rousseff, presidential chief of staff.

For a country that went deeply into debt buying foreign oil in the 1970s and '80s, "this has changed our reality," she said.

Rousseff also announced that Brazil was withdrawing 41 blocks of underwater territory from an auction of 312 prospective oil blocks to be held this month. The country still will put the remaining 261 blocks up for auction but will reserve the most promising areas around the Tupi field for itself.

The Tupi field lies under 2,140 meters (7,060 feet) of water, more than 3,000 meters (almost 10,000 feet) of sand and rocks, and then another 2,000-meter (6,600-foot) thick layer of salt. The company drilled test wells that lie under 2,166 meters (7,100 feet) of water, 286 kilometers (177 miles) south of Rio de Janeiro.

Getting that oil out of the Earth's crust is a formidable challenge, but most of Brazil's oil lies off its Atlantic coast, and Petrobras has become a global leader in ultradeep offshore oil extraction.

Felipe Cunha, an oil analyst with the Sao Paulo-based brokerage Brascan, said the Tupi field guarantees Brazil's oil output will continue to grow.


"If the best-case scenario happens, this discovery would make Petrobras' reserves overcome those of Shell and Chevron and put Petrobras behind only Exxon and British Petroleum," Cunha said.

Petrobras has a 65 percent operating stake in the field, Britain's BG Group PLC holds 25 percent, and Petroleos de Portugal holds the remaining 10 percent. E-mail to a friend
Eduardo C.,
written by Forest Brown, November 28, 2007
good points


now with out good leaders that dont rob the people and the country , you have nothing

selling off all the food you grow for profits for the few , you have nothing

with out buying the technoligy from other countries , you would have nothing

your oil will come up only with help from the countries you hate , or you will have nothing

as far as the population of brasil , you have nothing but a undereducated work force , just like china , inda ,

your population is small and starving but growing at a rate brasil will not be able to feed or give health care to

russian population went down because of money to feed there young , brasil is going up as they put there kids to the street

brasil is a desert country you ever been to the north ? and then the amazon clear cut it and you got desert

US is not worried about brasil it would be nice not to have to send money to brasil to feed its poor .
nice to hold joint navel exersize and not have to buy the fuel for the brasilian navy

would be nice to have the truth about the US printed in your papers

if the US is so bad what is it every year more brasilians try to get visa to the US

why is english taught in most all schools in brasil

why do you speak write & read english .

as i tell many brasilians when they ask why i am in brasil

my reply is just checking on the technology we send down
Forest Brown
written by Eduardo C., November 28, 2007
Hi, Mr. Brown,
First (1) I don´t remember that ..i wrote bad about the U.S.our other countries.
Secound(2)Yes, I was in the north..semi desert..and just 5 % of Brazilian territory..it is caatinga..it meens Semi desert.About Amazon first sweet water reservation..on the earth.
You realy dont now..nothing about Brazil.And i have doouts if you know your own country hehe.Because i travel a lot ..and know good my own country..south .north. wertern. east.
And about Brazilian oil..we dont need you!! Go study a little more Mr. Whorever..PETROBRAS it is lider..number one in deep waters. You now that we was exploring oil for exxon on gulf of mexico?? You know why? Because you need Petrobras norral.(tHIRD)3 Why Mr.Bush came to Brazil to know..better our Ethanol technology? YOU DONT KNOW..OF COURSE.I need to teach you think s from Brazil if you want to talk about.(4)Four How you can see Mr.whorever..my English it is very limited..because..i have not soo much interest..on the GREAT BRITAIN lenguage.
...
written by Eduardo C., November 28, 2007
Sorry,
I forgot about that we can´t feed Brazilian population.
In case of war...1) cotton 1) meat 1) soybeans 1)orange 1)coffee 1)chiken .Dont need to import oil.1)Steel http://www.cvrd.com.br/ So you never will forget Brazil..because Wen you wake up urlier in the morning..you will putt our Jacket..with Brazilian Cotton..In the lanch time..meat..on your junk y food. Cofee..later drinking..Brazilian..orange..juice...But it will come made in florida hheheheeh but we know that it is because of the taxes.Because the truth it is Brazilian juice..put in other box..beacause of taxes.And than..you will go to visit our parents in South U.S. and eat a lot of Chicken..looking our brothers..totaly destroyed by catrina. And remembering me...Ohh MY bRAZILIAN FRIEND IT IS RIGHT..WE DONT HAVE ANY MORE HELICOPTERS HERE IN THE U.S...WHERE IT IS ??
Forest Brown
written by Eduardo C., November 28, 2007
If you want to talk..anythink about Brazil..be right to do it ..my american friend. You wan´t some chiken??
Forest Brown
written by Eduardo C., November 29, 2007
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3pwbkLXwU
Here... RELAX with this music Vanessa da Mata/Ben Harper
about Eduardo C. comments
written by Regina, November 29, 2007
There is a great difference between us,brazilian people,and north american people.We know about problems we have to win and get better.And we also know about good things we have.American people don't know anything about their problems.They think USA is the better place of the world.I wonder they have wrong informations of their journalism,prepared to spread out only good news,a way to avoid revolts.
...
written by Eduardo C., December 03, 2007
The history it is clear, Brazil and U.S.are friends! We would be..more important..for the United States than one China..for ex: Because we have the same valius..and cristian culture.
And free society..to speak whorever we want.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
Joomla 1.5 Templates by Joomlashack