digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Russia Ramps Up Spy Machine

guardian.co.uk — Russia has fully restored its espionage capabilities against the United States after a period of decline following the Cold War, a senior U.S. counterintelligence official said Thursday. ``The Russians are now back at Cold War levels in their efforts against the United States,''

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24FWIW, Britain concluded Russian spying was back to Cold War levels a couple of years ago, although didn't go public with it until quite recently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6452519.stm
    When reading that, one should remember that Britain was completely overrun by Soviet spies under the cold war,

    Most if not all other European countries have come to the same conclusion, but with the exception of Sweden haven't gone public with their concerns. Russia is an important trade partner to most of EU, and Russian gas and oil are vital to e.g. Germany and France; combined with Russias oft-demonstrated willingness to throw tantrums and cut off gas supply at the slightest provocation this means that most european countries prefer to remain silent.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Doesn't surprise me in the least, we probably have spies there too, it isn't necessarily a hostile thing, as a country you can only make decisions if you have good info, you can't always get the info yourself, so its good to know what the other guy knows too.
    • draebor, on 10/12/2007, -23/+5In Soviet Russia, Spy Machine ramps YOU up!

      I had to do it.
    • Tripacer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26first one to 10,000 nukes wins.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@kingkilr

      9/11 and Iraq should have let you know just how woefully inadequate the US human intelligence capabilities are at the moment.
    • desu43fnoc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Unless of course our intelligence agencies were so great, they made us think they were inadequate in order to steer us from an alternative truth.
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I bet they're still using their cold war technology too.
  • cntx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Old habits die hard.
  • shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38I'm not trying to take a stance here, but America has certainly not backed down from imperial expansion following the end of the cold war, so it's understandable why Russia wants to stay observant.
    • exaltedfox, on 10/12/2007, -29/+15OK, so you're a commie crack monkey, we get it. But please enlighten me to this American imperial expansion. It seems to me the United States hasn't expanded one inch in the last 47 years. And don't talk about sphere's of influence, every nation on the planet is working to expand in that area.
    • shammer1, on 10/12/2007, -28/+6Yeah, expansion, the only land we have grown by in 50 years are the cemeteries overseas where our troops lay from battles to free other countries and continents?

      Go on and DIGG it down, show your true colors!
    • BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14@shammer1
      You sir, need to stop forming your opinion entirely via FOX News.
    • Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Shammer1: Expansion in that America interferes in the workings of foreign countries to set up favourable trade agreements for itself (Iran-contra scandal, anyone?)

      "Freeing" countries is laughable... No-one is altruistic enough to go to war and have many of their own citizens die just so that someone else can be free.
      Freedom is a pretty damn subjective concept, too.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Imperial expansion? What country have we taken over? I am so sick of this insane talking point. We're in Iraq because it would be over run by the terrorists if we walked out, and we've started a Democractic government in both Afghanistan AND Iraq. Get a clue, moron, and while you're at it, go run off to Canada because we (real Americans) don't want you.

      You're the kind of weak, pathetic person that brings down any country from the inside.

      It would be one thing if we were turning Afghanistan into state #51 and Iraq into state #52, or even just making them provinces like Puerto Rico (which would give them a ton of benefits that normal US citizens do not receive, without a lot of the draw backs). Fortunately for us, because I don't want that tax burden to continue for eternity, and unfortunately for drones like you, we aren't. We're throwing billions of dollars into developing their nations, just like we did during the reconstruction after WW2. Think before you speak.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@lnomis

      How was Iran-Contra about a trade agreement? It was to fund a guerilla group in Nicaragua (where the "Contra" comes from in Iran-Contra). If you deem the end goal of toppling a far leftist government anti-US as only beneficial to the US, then you're just flat out ignorant.

      We did not go into Afghanistan to free it. We did not go into Iraq to free it.

      We went into Afghanistan to topple the government because it was a major backer of terrorists, which as a side effect, freed its people. We went into Iraq to topple its government (obviously not under the most concrete reasons, but they were accepted and believed by the /world/ at the time; it was not just the CIA spouting out that information) to prevent it from creating WMDs (see other parathesis) and passing those on to any other country that would not be in our best interests (not really referring to Iran here because Iraq and Iran were enemies [and still are], but I am referring to North Korea). It also had the side effect that we freed its people.

      We did not take over their countries. We did free their people. I think the freedom to live and do what you want, versus what your dictator says (whether that's you die, or you do a certain job) is quite a bit less subjective that you seem able to comprehend.
    • shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10pickypg what about all the incidents when the CIA was used to overthrow democratic governments in favor to of those that supported US interests? A so-and-so US corporation is being kicked out of a foreign country and asks the US government to help them maintain their presence. Within months the leader is murdered or exiled and everything goes back to normal. This scenario has happened dozens of times since the end of WWII.

      Iran had a democratically elected leader before we overthrew him in the 50's. Why did we do it? The British asked for our help when British Petroleum was at risk of losing their business presence in the country. Guess what smartass? You can't march into other countries and pretend you're liberating them.

      You're an idiot if you think you know the United States isn't to be considered imperial just because it hasn't publicly declared foreign land as its own.

      The British Empire never "owned" India and the French Empire never "owned" Haiti. Yet they were still Empires. It's called colonization.
      We've had strict control over Saudi Arabia for the majority of the 20th century to the extent where OUR OWN CONGRESS was discussing as to what books their education system should use (don't believe me? go look it up).

      We caused the death of 70,000 people in El Salvador because their democratic government was posed to elect a leader who didn't agree with us. So we replaced him with someone who did. How in the world is that supposed to "free" or even help them?

      Want to know why so many of the 9.11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? Because we put in place one of the harshest regimes in the Middle East, and we help it stay in power. We provide them with military equipment and intelligence to make sure they can crush any possible revolts.
      Stop watching TV and go read. Read books, read declassified reports produced by our own government, and you're bound to learn a lot more than what you see on Fox.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@shiftt

      I would love to see the examples of the "dozens" of times that we have murdered and executed leaders of other countries.

      If you look back at history, the British did own India in everything except name--they imposted their will as long as they were able to get away with it. When China was split up, it wasn't the People's Republic of England, France, etc., but it was owned. It is worlds apart from what we have in Iraq and in Afghanistan (especially Afghanistan, unless you believe that we are doing the Chinese thing all over again, maybe going for a Boxer Rebellion Round 2). We are not England telling its Colonies to give up every major good to prevent them from becoming developed nations. Instead, we are helping them to develop.

      As for being a smart ass? I am one, I know it, and apparently you caught on to the fact, but I'm not making things up.

      And even though I am one, that doesn't change the fact that we did march into both countries and we did liberate them. Are we probably going to see more than a few business tie-ins because of it? Yes, and to be quite frank about it, we should because we're the ones pumping billions upon billions of dollars rebuilding these countries. It makes sense from both the stand point that it's ours because we did all the work AND most importantly because we're the largest, most powerful force able to do these things. The Iraqi's do not have the infrastructure to build many of the things that we are building for them. Neither do/did the Afghani's.

      With that said, it does not in any way change the fact that we liberated their people. Oh my gosh, they might be doing something a little more Americanized now than before (like using a cell phone, or /not/ being killed for showing some skin)--we're evil; we're horrible; we're imposing our will. No, we're improving their lives the only way that we know how too now that we HAVE liberated them--our way. We're not syphoning off their oil into buckets and shipping it all to America on ships in the night. We're putting things in place to improve their lives, and at the same time, set ourselves up to be in the best possible position when they become more of a player in the global economic market (as any major lender inherently does when they take a vested interest in a company--in this case, the lender is the US and the company is Iraq/Afghanistan).

      The Middle East, especially after World War 2, was a volatile region. It quite obviously still is. As for us walking a fine line with Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of oil to the United States while we're already at war in a region that hates us so much that they call us the Great Satan? It's fine for us to discuss the books of what Sudan should be giving its students too, but I have the feeling those discussions were probably more related to a misrepresentation of facts (such as Israel not appearing on maps in that region, or in books).

      El Salvador had erupted into a 12 year civil war after a very long string of coups along side the United State's involvement there. The US was not the cause of those deaths by any stretch of the imagination, and it was the US that brokered the peace deal in the early 1990s.

      We do provide Saudi Arabia with a lot of support that I believe is hypocritical. Still, I also understand the nature of the region that we're apparently going to need to topple government's one-by-one in, and I recognize that by having Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait for that matter) looking out for our best interests because they know that by doing so, we will look out for theirs. If it came down to them versus Iran or Sudan, I would definitely pick Saudi Arabia, if for nothing else the incentives it brings to us. I won't lie and say that I am looking out for everyone over there because I think too many of them have been brain washed into hating us anyway, but we had might as well make the best of the situation. On that note, I also believe we should prevent such a huge oil powerhouse as Iran, or even Saudi Arabia, from achieving any sort of nuclear status. The Iranian point is clear, and the Saudi Arabian point is clear because they obviously have more than a handful of citiziens looking to topple the Great Satan.

      My favorite ending of every liberal argument is that I need to stop watching Fox, or stop reading Drudge Report. No one seems to ever considers that conservatives do anything of importance with their lives except read Drudge Report and look for headlines on Fox News--we never read books; we cannot really be members of the military (after all, they're poor, dumb people taken advantage of by the upper class, which is all that Republicans are); we never know what we're saying because we only believe what the government tells us (and of course the media other than Fox and Drudge are spouting the /real/ truth, which also happens to be in those 'books' you're reading). It's no different than me saying you need to stop reading the New York and LA Times, or watching every channel except Fox News. Still though, probably one of my biggest pet peeves really, is that people really see Fox News as being so right wing biased because it does have a conservative presense on the network. However, the shock part about the channel doesn't come from them having conservatives (and there are quite a few of them, I'll admit, but there are plenty of libs too), it's that there aren't many at all on the other channels.
    • turpialito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Nations don't have friends. They have interests"
      H. Kissinger
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While the US at present is perhaps a tad overly keen on sending troops around the globe, the Russian spying isn't predominantly "defensive" spying to keep tabs on US troop movements. That is done, but it's not why Russian spying is ballooning.
      The normal targets for russian spying were mentioned in the BBC article I linked to in the first post: "Targets include military hardware, scientific know-how and technology, and inside tips on Westminster politics. Businessmen who may have access to sensitive information are also of interest, as are Russian dissidents."

      Basically the russian spying now is offensive and aims at getting advantages in business. The separation between state and big business may be somewhat blurry in the US, but it doesn't exist at all in Russia, and "companies" like Gazprom are both controlled by and have the full support of the state.

      Keeping tabs on and occasionally taking action against russian dissidents abroad is also, for some reason, a priority. That really does seem to be a surviving "old habit" from the Soviet days.
  • solvable, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2So wheres the 'in soviet russia' jokes???
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Given Russia's president, this is no surprise.
    • jazh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Putin is no champion of the "free-world" he blackmails neighbours by cutting off oil and gas, then vetos the UN security council quite often in regards to the mid-east.
    • LonesomeFighter, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7I see nothing wrong with Putin's methods. The methods don't fly in the US, but in that kind of world, it's perfect. He's a smart man and knows how to play the game.
    • deags, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Given America's president this is no surprise.
    • Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Given the expansionist policy of the US Empire, this is no surprise.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@degas

      Not really... just ask our president and he'll tell you.... you... Well, he won't be fooled again!
    • slapsack, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2the us isn't the champion of the free world either. the people in charge here don't give a ***** about spreading freedom around the globe. this is all about control of the most precious resource there is,and that would be oil.the united states now has major military presence in the 2 major oil producing areas on the planet, the caspian basin and the persian gulf, and its making other countries nervous that we are trying to monopolize the source of the power.if there is no energy there is no economy.name calling and refusing to intelligently debate won't change that. we will be getting into a shooting war with iran any day now and people think that its going to be about those sailors they captured. this is insane. anyone know what links the "axis of evil"? iraq,iran,and north korea all had decided to not trade for oil and other resources in dollars anymore,they were switching to euros.think about the impact on our economy if that were to happen. we now know for a fact that north korea's nuclear capability was never a threat because they didn't even succesfully test fire a weapon.when are we all going to stop the name calling, get our heads out of our asses and really investigate the events going on in the world today? research peak oil which is totally an admited fact even by the oil companies and think about the implications of that and then match those conclusions with the current state of events in the world today.use your own brains and stop being victims of the propaganda machine already.people shouting "conspiracy-nuts" are tools and the worst part of that is most of them don't even realize it.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@slapsack

      Keep making it up as you type. It becomes more believable as you go.

      Iraq was being forced to trade oil in the oil for food program. There were also much easier targets (Sudan anyone? Which dismantled its weapons program uncovered after watching us invade Iraq at their border) that were and still ARE considering switching over to Euro's. Besides, it does not come down to the individual nations to price the oil. The cartel decides. That's a lot bigger than those three.

      "we now know for a fact that north korea's nuclear capability was never a threat because they didn't even succesfully test fire a weapon."

      I'm dumber for reading that sentence. Not that they didn't try, and not that the $300 million that complete morons like yourself are about to feed into North Korea on the peaceful nuclear disarmament agreement is about to restart. I can see you telling me how we're the only horrible country on Earth, but if you recall, the Clinton administration gave them the nuclear abilities they have today and we're about to repeat it one more time, so that they can successfully get it working. What kind of logically thinking person believes a mad man that starves his own people is going to put that $300 million to a good purpose and not directly into their military budget to get whatever isn't working, working?

      The important thing that I obviously need to reiterate here is that North Korea is not any less of a threat because they failed to create a nuclear bomb. On the contrary, it's quite obvious that you should be nervous because they are so desperate to get one that they are testing it before it's even ready at the same time that they are testing long range rockets.

      Everyone knows that there is some peak oil. What no one really knows is what that peak will be. For a conspiracy theorist (and by the way, most conspiracy theorists at least recognize that they are conspiracy theorists instead of passing that off just to nut jobs), you seem to be missing one of the biggest problems with your own argument. People are admitting to it. However, what you're missing is that almost everyone has a different number and year that we'll be running out in. Not to mention that if it was the sole purpose to go to war (as opposed to switching back to your whole other idea to get them from switching to Euros), then we would have scientists running like mad (even madder than they are) looking for other energies so that we can prevail should another nation take a major chunk out of the oil market (say, Russia or China). Instead, we're simply stock piling barrels of oil because we're not afraid of running out, rather we're afraid we'll be cut off. After all, we still have Alaska and the coast of Florida to drill into when desperate times start calling for desperate measures.

      I'm not a tool and it's because I am not a freaking idiot, like you. For not being a tool, as you claim, you sure seem unable to connect your own dots.

      Next thing you'll post is probably how we attacked Iraq to stop the bad press about the Kyoto treaty, which would lead into everyone switching over to the Euro (an obvious concern since the currency was created).
    • slapsack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ pickypq

      yes iraq was forced to sell oil for food but when they started that program they were using dollars,they had to petition the un to switch to euros which they did later on down the line. and as far as those NK rocket tests go i remember they didn't go over too well either.if they can't put together the weapon systems successfully then they are not a threat.the sudan isn't sitting on top of the #2 PROVEN reserve in the world and iraq was easy as pie because of those no fly zones we have been enforcing ever since 1991.i never personally told anyone to sent north korea 300 million and i didn't vote for clinton so those are non-issues. whatever UNPROVEN oil reserves in alaska and florida will not be able to replace the oil we receive from the middle east.there is no such thing as "some peak oil",it is a global phenomenon that affects everyone. it doesn't matter if it happens in 2009 or 2012, the fact that it IS going to happen at all,which has been proven will occur,it's a major threat to every industrialized nation on earth. it's not that we will be running out of oil either,it is the fact that the supply will start dwindling and the demand will continue to rise and rise and who is going to say" hey we will put our welfare on hold so you all can continue to expand your economies"? why would anyone only need one reason to go to war? our great leader gave many for invading iraq it's just none of them were the real reasons.and america is not an evil nation,it's just the power structure that is corrupt.i don't beleive the citezenry of this country is evil at all, just the entrenched powers in washington. you don't hear the scientists yelling about these problems because they have no outlet to voice those concerns. the media in this country is not letting them be heard. scientists the world over are talking about the very serious ramifications of global warming but the debate here is still wether or not it's still just a theory.that is madness and anyone who has been outside lately knows its true. im in ny and on december 1st of 2006 we had tornado warnings in a major portion of the state.TORNADO WARNINGS ON DEC. 1ST IN NEW YORK STATE! but they are still stuck on if it's real or not. gimme a fukkin break.....

      ommiting facts does not make you correct.name calling is for children.and if you are dumb you were before you ever read what i wrote.you made that clear when you started typing your flawed response.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@slapsack

      Do you really believe that the earliest US rocket tests (long range, or otherwise) were all successful? The rocket tests didn't all go so bad as they blew up before they were even launched; many of them got very close to Japan. Our missile defense system has been a lot of hit and miss, does that mean no country should worry that we'll get it operatonal? It's a completely bogus argument to say that because it doesn't work now, we don't need to worry that it won't work later, which is implicit in what you said.

      You did not personally agree to sending the $300 million because you do not have the power to do so. Clearly, you would though if you were in the position to as NK "is not a threat" and non-threats /do/ deserve some humanitarian aid where it will be used for the right causes (food, medicine, etc.)--even I believe that last part, and I'm an evil conservative.

      Iran has the #2 proven oil, not Iraq. That doesn't change that there are still tons of barrels of oil unproven that shift the oil peak. I was actually surprised at how written the Wikipedia article on this was written (and even includes two graphs--the bottom one I can see is wrong). This is by far the best table for your argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Suspicious_official_estimates_of_oil_reserves_from_OPEC_countries

      The negative to this is that I work in the nuclear industry (ironic, probably), and I have a bunch of friends that work in the oil industry, and I actually know quite a few other numbers. There is newer technology and much better underground scanning technology than there was available in years past. Still, I will concede that it is a very fishy business (which has everything to do with dictators and communists [Russia]), I just do not believe that it will be depleted when either one of those graphs would like us to believe.

      We have our reason to go to war with Iran already. Personally, I cannot figure out why we have not already destroyed their nuclear facilities before they do what NK tried to do already--test a nuclear bomb along side their [already tested] long range rockets. Afterwards, they'll be testing one in the center of Israel and then in the center of some US city. Iran also switched to the "petroeuro" system last year to spite the US, exactly as Iraq had done. Of course, when Iraq did it they also got the luckily timed (for them) weakened dollars to Euros. Not that it mattered since Saddam wasn't exactly putting the money back into helping his citizens, and he was already doing all sorts of dirty business with the oil for food program.

      I guarantee that there are powers that be that would like to see the US economy thriving even more than it already does. I'd also agree that there is a problem across the board with too many politicians and far too much double-talk in politics (I'd personally be happy to see political crap replaced with a system where the elected officials actually work for us, not work behind closed doors to get pet projects just to get reelected again in year x). Still, I do not believe that we invaded Iraq because they switched to Euros and we wanted to dominate the oil--we'd be pumping it with troops guarding it if that was our goal (considering the number of attacks on the pipelines, it's obvious we don't).

      As for global warming, and not voting for Clinton, you either have not lived long enough to see the changes in the environment (and not old enough to vote for Clinton), or you were voting for some Green Party candidate or further left throw-away vote. Watch this video, if you can bear it, and then get back to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

      Use proper case; your text is almost unreadable. The fact that I have to say that and your continued ideals (especially the ones relating to NK) bring me back to name calling: you are indeed an ignorant.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Guys... Not everything revolves around the US.
      Just saying.
  • shammer1, on 10/12/2007, -22/+1Here's my no stance, your a Commie!
    • VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -4/+13Here's my no stance: It's "You're" dumbass.
  • deags, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Fight the good fight Russia!
  • ElbridgeGerry, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9In Soviet Russia, Cold War spying levels return to YOU!

    (Digg me down.)
  • enemyofstate430, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Who really cares about Russia anymore? Sure, they have lots of nukes still. They could become Communist again. But honestly--isn't the real threat China now?

    Russian GDP = 1.7 trillion dollars and 150 million people
    China's GDP = 10+ trillion dollars and 1.3 billion people
    • toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9exactly, they have nukes
    • enemyofstate430, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1but um...how is spying going to make them more of a threat than they already? That's my point. I mean, it's not like it would be difficult to find every major city on a U.S. map and blow us up. If we ever went to war conventionally, they could never invade the United States. So I really don't see what difference it makes if there are spies here or not. From a business and economic perspective Russia has a lot of oil and resources...but then again...they aren't even in the WTO yet!!! When oil prices go down, which they inevitably will, China and the U.S. will be the sole major players in the world. The EU will be a close third and will swing back and forth in their alliance...kinda like in the book 1984. But Russia will only be China's little brother. :)
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1wrong reply
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@enemyofstate430

      Umm... If your adversary(or potential adversary) has spies that have completely infiltrated your government and have access to all of those juicy troop deployment, status of forces, tech development, state department memos, etc.... They are an EXTREME threat.

      Think about it this way. Sure, they may "just" have nukes, but knowing exactly when, where, and how to use them... or hell, even who to put a single bullet into is a HUGE tactical and strategic advantage. It also gives them more control over any trade/ treaty negotiations because they know exactly what you have, what you want, and what your limits are.

      It's like playing poker with someone where you can't see any cards and they can see them all.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Because they are still a large country with a major military, albeit a dated one, that blackmails other countries and sells military equipment to our enemies (Iran, North Korea, and even China).

      This isn't to say stop looking at China, it's just to say, don't stop looking at Russia.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1At the moment the developments in Russia are more troubling than the developments in China.
  • zdap67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1China's already got it's network established and going, now here comes Russia. You do know they are very buddy buddy, right?
  • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This article does not surprise me considering what little bush has done to the US intelligence services.
  • childofsiberia, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I don't get you guys who are complaining about what you call the "US Empire". Especially those of you from the US who are complaining about it.

    Even assuming that the US is "expanding its empire", if you live in the US, then you are benefiting from that. Why aren't you happy that you are benefiting?
    • shadeofgreen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2How are we benefiting? I don't see any benefit to our warmongering, unless you consider dead americans a benefit. Or maybe the climbing gas prices, is that a benefit? Maybe as the war goes I can get drafted, thats a sweet benefit. And lord knows how much I hate Iraqis, thank god a lot more of them are dead. Get your head out of the ground.

    • turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I really appreciate the wasted tax dollars, that just perks my day right up!
    • tehdoom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Because we're not selfish? Even if "expanding the empire" WAS a good thing for the US (which I doubt), oppressing other countries by suppressing their right to self-governance is a bad thing in my book, no matter how much I benefit from it.

      But if you want to focus on the non-moral side of the argument, the state of the war in Iraq shows just how effective and successful this "expansion" really is. All that is ultimately coming to the US from this is a screwing over of the members of our armed services, a massive waste of tax dollars that could have gone towards things that are actually useful, and a few more enemies on the international stage.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@tehdoom

      There is a major difference between self-governance and being run by the Taliban or a Dictator (even if he did get 99-100% of the vote in that election of his, which I'm sure you probably thought was legitimate).

      This is not expansion. This is war. When we're done, we will withdraw exactly as we did after World War 2, and Vietnam (though for two clearly different reasons, but Democrats clearly want to make Iraq into Vietnam 2 with the time table). Note: I left out Korea because we have a major base there because of the concern that North Korea could literally attack at any moment, still.

      Last I checked, there were NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as British (and Australian, among others) troops in Iraq. It's a much more multi-national force in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq, but neither one of them can be used as an example of American expansionism by anyone that can count higher than 2, which apparently seems to be a minority here.

      1,2,3,4...
    • tehdoom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@pickypg

      You missed my point by a bit. Provided the Dem's succeeded in their timetable we will get out of Iraq fairly soon, I am aware of that. I took childofsiberia's post as being about imperialism (with the use of the word 'empire' and all) and was attempting to address that. I believe that the liberation of people from dictatorship is a good thing, but imperialism is, in my mind, even worse because it is not only suppression of a people, but suppression by an outside power. There are still horrid prisons, government corruption, and widespread violence now that Saddam is dead. You imply that I'm naïve enough to think that dictators are legitimate, I hope YOU are not naïve enough to believe that the situation in Iraq now is anything but worse than it was before we invaded. I think the studies about how many Iraqis have died due to the war more than speaks to that. But I'm getting away from my point.

      When I mentioned the war in Iraq I was calling it "expansion" (those quotes were there for a reason) to discus the point childofsiberia brought up. I would have thought the quotes and the fact that I was replying to his comment rather than commenting on the story itself were enough to convey my intended meaning of "expansion," but perhaps I was wrong. My vision of "expansion" was either indefinite occupation of Iraq by US army personnel who would influence the country by their very presence there or the manipulation of Iraq's government into a puppet state of the US, either of which coincide with my view of what imperialism is. The fact is, I don't see either of those happening, but I needed an example.

      And finally, in regards to your reference to our so called 'allies' in this war: We are by far the largest nation involved in this war. But part of that can be attributed to the fact that, in the minds of our allies (whom I agree with), the war is winding down and the need for conventional troops is diminishing. The US doesn't seem to agree though, but that's off the subject. What is important is that this war is the US's. As was Vietnam, which you also referred to. You'll notice a pattern here: wars that the United States enters into without a real consensus in the international community (Iraq, Vietnam) don't seem to go so well, whereas the more international wars (like the other one you mentioned, WWII) seem to work out better. Could it be that America isn't always right and that other countries have some sense too?

      Nah, thanks to the brilliant leadership of people like you I'm sure we have far better judgment than the rest of the world.
    • jamyz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If the US is an empire (which I do not believe it is), I would support the USA 100% and no I'm not an American. In fact if the USA would make the formal move to being an empire, I think the world would be a lot more stable, however I think this scenario is extremely unlikely.
  • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Russian state spying is nothing compared to the industrial espionage carried out by foreign nationals, residents, and naturalized citizens. Check out this fellow:

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051104-111851-2539r.htm

    Multiply his treasonous ass 100,000. Ever wonder what the nature of the communications between the Chinese at work in the cube next to you and the reds in Beijing? I hope they send this guy to Gitmo.
    • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Screw that, execute them for treason. Thousands (at least) of Americans will likely die one day in a war with China, should one ever happen, because of traitors like this giving up our military advantage.

      Obviously they should be proven guilty first though.
  • DjOverEZ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Am I the only one who is kind of excited about having Russia be the enemy again?
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Yes...

      They are much more willing to do what needs to be done to benefit themselves than Americans are.... And that scares me.

      Unfortunately, the backbone of the average American has been relegated to a vestigial limp noodle.
  • Ayrapetov1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They just want to fool the public into thinking this is the start of another Cold War. They went us to be afraid. That way they have the upper hand against the public. Prepare to see the news going crazy over this the next few days.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Russia is a joke. When I lived in Poland during the cold war, we were always wondering why US is afraid of Russia. Russian tanks in our town were rusty, soliders broke and drunk on cheap vodka. No one took them seriously against the U.S.

    Nothing from Russia is quality made, nothing. Not their cars, trains, computers. Maybe some of their women, but thats it.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It's because our leaders needed a paper tiger to threaten us with. If it wasn't Russia it would have been...you guessed it, "terror". Oftentimes it's "crime" or "drugs", depending upon how worn out their current campaign of fear has become.
    • 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2What about Lada? What a fine automotive marque...
      bwaahahaha!!!!!



      oooOoOo hello Svetlana
    • CoreOverride, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2My first car was a Lada 2101 >:(

      And it was, in fact, a perfectly reliable car if you took care of it properly.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2because the cold war wasn't about tanks.... but something a *little* bit more deadly [/sarcasm]
    • caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Their rusty old thermonuclear weapons still go BOOM.
      Another thing that few people knew then or even now.
      The USSR had a totally unstoppable first strike weapon.
      The Russians still carry them as standard equipment on all their submarines.
      They render such ideas such as SDI as useless.
      So they are far from toothless.........
    • BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While in Poland, you have the finest prostitutes in all of Eastern Europe and one major case of an inferiority complex, requiring you to constantly bash Russia and kiss the Americans' ass.
  • esdjco, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Someone had to say it...

    In Soviet Russia...
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No one had to say it. But thanks for trying. It's still funny after thousands have said it in thousands of stories on digg.
  • uRmyHartBstopR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I would be afraid because They got some hit on people. Like Anna Politkovskaya and if I remember correctly they slip some radiation on some Briton dude. Not only that didn't they did some hit job on some ex-CIA dude near DC area? They shot him in the groan but he died anyway?

    I mean we shouldn't be underminding them it's better off to think of them as a threat than not because we'll let our guard down. I don't mean to sound xeno or instill any fear but this is ***** Putin.

    But it doesn't matter we're already in a war and our failure of intelligent with 9/11 sort of shows us that we're not up to date on spy matters and information. China is killing us with their cyber attack with Titan Rain (?). I think we're lagging way behind with this spying matters.

  • Meowbiusfox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ground control to major DUH
  • LowRentDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We must be about to win the war on terr
    • Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0What war on terror ?? you mean the same war like war on drugs ??? all these 'wars' are unable to win .. so lets revive a old enemy. . and start a new war. . .
  • Cherubim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The only way to win the phony war on terror is to get rid of that baboon Bush and his lunatic in crime, Cheney.

  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OK, I've said this before, but apparently it needs repeating: Not *everything* revolves around the US.
    Not *every* piece of foreign news is a direct reflection of US politics.
    Other countries *are* in fact capable of doing things without being influenced or motivated by US domestic politics in general or Bush's politics in particular.

    This whole approach that foreign news exist only as reflections of US domestic politics is insular, and, frankly, deluded.
  • GloriousNight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4In Soviet Russia, spy machines ramp up you!
  • 1dog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Soviet Russia is such a mess on all levels, its hard to imagine it could be effective in anything. There like a once great country that has slide into Trailer Park Hell.
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Everything politically does revolve around the US.. imagine what would happen if we went isolationist and only imported goods from Canada and exported/outsourced everywhere else. Yea a lot of stuff would be slightly more expensive but the world would face an economic decline beyond all sight. O and China does not make 10 trillion dollars a year, that is their spending money, they make in fact ~3 trillion a year which comes down to as "dirt poor". Their GDP and spending capability is much different. The US GDP and spending capability is 13 trillion which frankly is double of China's with only 1/4-1/5 their population. Please before you bash the US or how much the American empire sucks realize that we help more than we harm and the American people do the helping, the government does the harm.
  • MetalLizard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hopefully this will spawn some newer, better, Bond movies with Daniel Craig. I'm all for Goldeneye 2: Stuff is happening again.
  • toiletduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder who is going to do the "Red Dawn" remake......
  • holeitout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yea if painted over rust means back to cold war capabilities!
  • ideo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Unbelievable! Nothing particular, but still interesting for me.
  • lolo2007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Russia is a joke. When I lived in Poland during the cold war, we were always wondering why US is afraid of Russia. Russian tanks in our town were rusty, soliders broke and drunk on cheap vodka. No one took them seriously against the U.S. Nothing from Russia is quality made, nothing. Not their cars, trains, computers. Maybe some of their women, but thats it.
    http://www.gwafi.com/news.html http://www.gwafi.com/story.html
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.