Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Both Sides Now

For many commentators, the Iraq is a fiasco but for others it is a key part of the effort to defeat the terrorist -- or if you will the Islamist -- threat. Here are blog posts on both sides of the argument, arranged in pro and contra fashion.


Marc Cooper suggests that Iraq has become an absurdity: a collapsed state sliding into a chaos headed by a man unwilling to stand up to Iran.

As many as 60 more people died Sunday in Iraq in a spate of car bombings and shootings, including as many six U.S. soldiers. That news came as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was yapping away on CNN, telling Wolf Blitzer that sectarian violence was now on the decrease. I heard that dialogue on my XM car radio today as I was heading toward the local airport. I stalled in the parking lot to hear the whole thing and nearly missed my plane in doing so. But I couldn't pull myself away. Not only because Wolf is one of the dumbest men on TV and, therefore, is always more than amusing. I was also taken by al-Maliki who -- if anybody pays any attention to-- sits as a rather brazen embodiment of the pro-Iranian Islamicist regime we are now backing in Baghdad. I don't have the transcript in front of me but -- reconstructing my mental notes-- Our Man in Baghdad:

  • refused to criticize the leader of the extremist Shia militia Muqtada Al Sadr
  • refused to criticize the government of Iran
  • insisted that his new billion-dollar-a-day pro-American government was not actively considering establishment of diplomatic ties anytime in soon with Israel

Those are pretty strong words. In partial rebuttal, here are some news headers:

  • Maliki plans a reshuffle in the Iraqi cabinet to eliminate persons of dubious loyalty. It's unclear how this will affect Sadr, but one minister associated with him has already resigned.
  • A large gunbattle erupted in Diwaniyah between Iraqi government forces and armed groups said to be loyal to Sadr, resulting in the 60 or more dead on both sides. "Sheikh Abdul-Razaq al-Nidawi, the manager of al-Sadr's office in Diwaniyah, told The Associated Press that trouble had been brewing since Saturday night when the Iraqi army arrested an al-Sadr supporter from the Jumhouri neighborhood. On Sunday, the army raided the same place and "a gunfight erupted between them and the Mahdi Army," al-Nidawi said.
  • The MNF says clearing operations are planned for Sadr City in Baghdad, but no timeline has been set.
  • Gen William Caldwell asserts that murder rates have dropped by about 50% in Baghdad.

The key problem, according to Israpundit is that Iraqis really don't want democracy. All that is important to them is "clan, tribe, the Ummah and the caliphate". He quotes an Op-ed news poll which asserts that "91.7% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition troops in the country, up from 74.4% in 2004. 84.5% are ‘strongly opposed’." Israpundit also echoes the assertion that Iran is advancing against an ineffectual America in both Iraq and Lebanon.

The Iraq battlefield has now been extended to Lebanon and Bush has continued to play the democracy card. When the war began, Bush stressed that Israel should not undermine the government of Siniori. He hoped that the defeat of Hezbollah would strengthen Siniori. As it turned out Hezbollah, was not defeated and managed to increase its control of the Siniori government. It is no longer a state within a state, it is the state. Iran is thus in control of Lebanon even more so than of Iraq.

In rebuttal, this article Amir Taheri says that on the contrary, practically every coalition in Iraq wants the US to stay and their greatest fear is that it might actually leave.

The coalition, which includes a broad spectrum of parties and groups with the widest range of ideologies, is united in the belief that new Iraq would need foreign military support for some time yet - maybe until the next general election in 2009. ... Beyond that, the coalition is divided into three camps with regard to the nationality, size and mission of the foreign forces that might still be needed. ... In the first camp are the Kurdish parties and some Arab leftist groups, including the Communist Party that believe that only a force led by the US, and with a massive American presence, could keep the country together and persuade the insurgents and their terrorist allies that they cannot wreck new Iraq through murder and mayhem. The failure of the Europeans to assemble a small force to monitor the cease-fire in Lebanon has strengthened the position of those who believe that only the US has the will and the power to provide military muscle when and where needed. ...

The second camp is that of the various Shiite parties, including those with links to Iran. What they want is a smaller multinational force, under US leadership, to continue fighting the insurgents in the four mainly Sunni provinces for as long as it takes. At the same time, however, they want the US-led multinational force to transfer control of the Shiite provinces to them - that is to say their militia. ...

The third camp, consisting mostly of secularist parties, both Shiite and Sunni and supported by a good part of what one might call the " civil society", proposes a broadened multinational force in which half of the 130,000 troops needed would come from Arab and other Muslim countries. This would enable the US to cut the number of its troops in Iraq by half by early next year.

Iraq the Model rejects both the idea that democracy is unworkable or that the US is unwelcome. In his view, the extremists on both the Sunni and Shi'ite camps are power hungry and think they can win an all out sectarian conflict, which the average Iraqi dreads. The only thing preventing this is the US armed forces. He asks why, if extremists can find support for a fight lasting decades, Iraqi democracy can find no sponsors.

My assumptions come from reading and hearing what extremists of either sect say and from even direct personal conversations with followers of those extremists; on one hand there are the remnants of the Baath and former army and radical Sunnis who count on their ability to regain control like they did back in 1991 when they repressed the uprising with relatively little effort and those still have hope that they are able to exterminate or herd the untrained, not-accustomed-to-handling-power masses.

On the other hand the plans of radical Shia leaders seem to be more realistic given what they accomplished on the ground and given their ability to overcome the mistakes of 1991 by building political and military foundations in the provinces capable of directing action.

The point is that, for either group, the ambition to do something big to change the face of the country (that can be sparked by escalating a simple incident at any time) will face the wall of the coalition presence in Iraq and this can be seen clearly in the claims of these groups when they say that the American presence is hindering Iraq's effort to restore security while the fact is that the American presence is the obstacle stopping them from taking over the country and marginalizing if not eliminating their rivals. In this manner, the mere physical existence of US troops in Iraq is doing a crucial service in protecting the newborn democracy. ...

To make it simple, in addition to the presence of military forces we also need to garner all kinds of support to the liberal, secular, truly pro-democracy powers. It is no secret that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria support extremists of both sects so why not America and other friends of democratic Iraq offer grater, or at least equal, support for the liberals/moderates?

Finally, let's end with a quote from David Ignatius, who traveled around Baghdad recently with Gen John Abizaid.

An Iraq that's actually run by Iraqis again won't be perfect. In the early years, it will be corrupt and disorderly: Baghdad Airport probably won't work as efficiently when it's returned to Iraqi control; insurgents will probably still be setting off roadside bombs. If things go right, American troops will be welcome here training and advising Iraq's security forces even after the bulk of the US force has come home.

To make this transition plan work, Americans need a little more patience and Iraqis a little less. That's the judgment of Gen. John Abizaid, with whom I traveled in Iraq last week. "Our problem is to give up some control. The Iraqi problem is to take control," says Abizaid, who as head of Central Command has overall responsibility for US forces in Iraq. He says Americans shouldn't think of the transition as a straight line - "as they stand up, we stand down" - but as a process of gradual stabilization. ...

Abizaid's big worry is the battle between Sunnis and Shiites for control of the new Iraq. "Sectarian violence is the mortal danger," he says. "Left unchecked, it will lead to civil war. There are a lot of similarities that remind me of Beirut in the early stages before things got out of control." In congressional testimony this month, Abizaid raised a red flag about the risk of civil war, but he told me Friday that he had new confidence that Iraqi leaders were prepared to make the tough decisions necessary to check sectarian strife. He found Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his key ministers more confident and focused than they had been earlier this summer, when death squads seemed to have taken over Baghdad. To test the new security plan for the capital, Abizaid walked the streets of two of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods on Thursday.

"The chances of success are good, if we give ourselves time to succeed," says Abizaid. I don't feel quite so optimistic, but I think Abizaid is right in urging a sensible, deliberate policy to reduce the American presence - as opposed to a pell-mell rush for the exit. The situation in Iraq is difficult, but the sense of panic in the Washington debate just doesn't match the situation on the ground. It's bad here, but it's not hurtling out of control.

Was that glass half-empty or half-full?

303 Comments:

Blogger desert rat said...

So now even Mr Model realizes that the US has cut the legs out from under the Iraqi moderates.

Yet he forgets his own fathers statement, to paraphrase:
"The Iraqi people have chosen Religion for their future".

The US failure was in believing the Iraqi people would choose "Peace", when what the majority seem to desire is payback for thirty plus years of oppression.

The US allies were left at the station as the Iraqi train pulled out of the station. Mr Allawi and Chilabi, America's friends, no where to be seen. Iran's allies are large and in charge of the Iraqi ship of state.

tick tock, time marches on.

8/29/2006 06:32:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

wretchard wrote:

An Iraq that's actually run by Iraqis again won't be perfect. In the early years, it will be corrupt and disorderly: Baghdad Airport probably won't work as efficiently when it's returned to Iraqi control; insurgents will probably still be setting off roadside bombs. If things go right, American troops will be welcome here training and advising Iraq's security forces even after the bulk of the US force has come home.

That reads like the history of the American involvement in Vietnam, but run in reverse. The problem is, to make events run exactly 180 degrees contrary to their historical tendency, you need to choreograph every step, like Abizaid's like mini-"Mission Accomplished" type walkabout in the Baghdad streets, but at every step something will be opposed or just plain go wrong. Solutions in the field for those emergent problems will be ad hoc, and pretty soon events move off the "script" and go back to the groove they want to be in. In the end, if the will is not there on the Iraq side, it isn't going to happen. Tte United States is Sonny Corleone and Iraq is Carlo Rizzi, and we can't beat Carlo into making love to his wife Connie Democracy.

8/29/2006 06:45:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I'm bored with Iraq. I understand that it's nice to be up-close and personal to all the other thugs in the area, but really, why do we need to do that if we end up nuking Iran (and Syria) because their intransigence leaves us no other option?

I'm bored with Iraq because if there is no definition of failure and we're there until GWB leaves office, likewise there is no definition of success, either.

I've had it with ticky-tacky little Arab terrorists trying to kill American soldiers because that's their hobby in life and they have no other job to get up in the morning and go to.

I've had it with blow-hard Iraqi politicians wanting to put American soldiers on trial.

I've had it with what is evidently a huge percentage of the Iraqi public who are active supporters and enablers of Arab Bad Stuff including smuggling, murder, abuse of women, and religious thuggery.

We have given these people the gift of a better life on a silver platter, and they are too busy with their petty tit-for-tat murders and complaining about their air conditioning to take advantage of it. They knock both the gift and the silver platter out of our hands and then stomp about in macho self-appreciation of their cunning and daring.

Individual Iraqi's like Omar and Mohammad at Iraq the Model would make good Americans. But on the whole, I can't see one single thing about the whole entire country that would make me want any of them as my neighbors.

And I am bored with having to focus on them, a cage full of savages, simply because of the death they can inflict if we allow them to.

And now if someone chirps up about how these comments are "racist" - I'm bored with THAT, too!

8/29/2006 06:45:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

desert rat wrote:

The US failure was in believing the Iraqi people would choose "Peace", when what the majority seem to desire is payback for thirty plus years of oppression.

Justice belonges to those who claim it, but let the claimant beware lest he create new injustice by his claim and thus set the bloody pendulum of revenge into its inexorable motion. -- Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment

8/29/2006 06:52:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

nahncee said:

Individual Iraqi's like Omar and Mohammad at Iraq the Model would make good Americans. But on the whole, I can't see one single thing about the whole entire country that would make me want any of them as my neighbors.

Except, uh, oil.

I'm bored with Iraq because if there is no definition of failure and we're there until GWB leaves office, likewise there is no definition of success, either.

It's like Vietnam but without the option to blame our defeat on the "politicians". In this case, our defeat comes from the Iraqi's lack of interest in a united and democratic Iraq. The only two good things that will come from the war will be (1) the restoration of Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shi'istan to their natural Balkanized status before the British came to "liberate" them from the Ottomans in 1914, and (2) a deep allergy in the American psyche to embarking on similar projects in the future.

8/29/2006 07:00:00 AM  
Blogger Dave H said...

Well Teresita, I think the key word in your post of 07:00:09 is "similar". I agree with that, but it is obvious that if the
west is to survive in anything like its present form, the good old USA is going to have to undertake several "somethings".

8/29/2006 07:07:00 AM  
Blogger Meme chose said...

"The chances of success are good, if we give ourselves time to succeed," says Abizaid.

Somehow "stupid" Bush seems to have grasped this from the outset.

8/29/2006 07:18:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

If one believes the quotes and polls cited by E. J. Dionne in A GOP Rush to Exit Iraq then it becomes obvious that time is running out for the current course.

There is always that off chance that Mr Dionne has just made it all up. But Real Clear Politics seems to stay abreast of the deception curve.

habu assures US that the US will preemptively strike Iran within the next 70 days, stirring the Global pot. How that would wag the dog on election day depends upon the blow back and how the MSM spins that fallout.

8/29/2006 07:29:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Granted that "stay the course" has become an easy target for real reasons, but at least there remains a vision of something defineable at the end of it.

I wonder what the "stop the course" vision looks like? I strive to see it, but cannot.

8/29/2006 07:33:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

That is the problem with staying the wrong course for to long, buddy.

Sometimes the trail peters out and the climber is left stranded on the mountain. That fellow in Utah cut off his own arm to escape with his life. Now he does beer commercials with Burt Reynolds, he's in the "Man Club".

8/29/2006 07:40:00 AM  
Blogger Dave H said...

I don't think Bush has the "will" to preemtively strike Iran, yet I think it obvious that it is his duty to his oath of office.

Hope Habu is right.

8/29/2006 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger Raoul Ortega said...

The glass is too big.

8/29/2006 08:09:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 08:09:00 AM  
Blogger Annoy Mouse said...

Marc Cooper laments that al Maliki doesn’t choose to lambaste al Sadr while the Iraqi Army is aggressively isolating the same.

Israpundit faults the United States for expecting Iraqi’s to embrace democracy and all but lays the historic debacle in Lebanon at the feet of the U.S. Amir Taheri contends that most Iraqi’s want the U.S. to stay and in so much as they are keeping the whole sh!t house from caving in I am inclined to believe.

The UN failure in Lebanon is not without it’s own blow-back. An Arab contingent of the MNF would have some very interesting ramifications.

Iraq the Model makes an impassioned plea for supporting moderates across all sects and creeds. If war can have it’s vocal supporters, so to can an armed peace.

And finally, David Ignatius suggests that while things are difficult, the will and the means to a peaceful resolution are at hand.

Vietnamization equals Iraqification? A north and south divided have a simple goal of a united nation. A pie split three ways is already looking like a democratic compromise.

8/29/2006 08:11:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Granted that he's a better man for what he did, but surely there are important things that a one-armed can no longer do (of course, not nearly as many of those as there are of the things he couldn't do if he had had lain there and died).

As far as economic globalism, the fundamental fact is that KSA runs OPEC pricing. How do we keep an influence there, once Iraq is "Greater Iran"? Or should we just say to hell with a liveable oil price, and go on emergency-footing to get out from under the blackmail? On the theory that we will not do it otherwise?

8/29/2006 08:12:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

buddy,
here is an example of the "course" being a just a few degrees off.
"... But even though this is the primary security task, there are only 4,000 U.S. advisers serving on military transition teams, or MiTTs, supplemented by special operations forces and a "partnering" arrangement with U.S. conventional forces based in the area. The number of partnered units is beginning to drop, as they are being concentrated on fewer and fewer bases. Finally, the U.S. advisers are mostly at the battalion level or above, when this type of insurgent warfare is mostly fought at the company, platoon, and squad level. ..."

4,000 advisors out of 138,000 troops, just shy of 3%.
If structured correctly, two years ago that number would be around 25,000 or 18% of current strength.

The effect of the US troops, integrated with the Iraqi as a force multiplier is underrated by those that have never worked with foreign units.

The quote is from US News and World Report

8/29/2006 08:27:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Well, rat, the laboratory and the product are the same thing in the same time frame. You'd think that, this army would be optimizing force-multiplication on-the-fly.

I'm on firmer footing 9such as it is) with the OIF philosophy than I am with the execution, tho.

8/29/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

the problem is definitions...

the war in iraq is over.

the war in iraq with iran is in full swing.

this is a different battle.

opening shots are fired from lebanon to the brit's moving to the border...

but the real statement is not civil war, it's iran.

8/29/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger luc said...

desert rat said...8/29/2006 07:40:27 AM

"That is the problem with staying the wrong course for to long, buddy.

Sometimes the trail peters out and the climber is left stranded on the mountain. That fellow in Utah cut off his own arm to escape with his life. Now he does beer commercials with Burt Reynolds, he's in the "Man Club"."

The fellow in Utah which cut his arm was not left stranded because the trail petered out, as I recall it; he got his arm caught/stuck in a crack. A less negative person would use that example not to suggest a “cut and run” strategy in Iraq but as example of courage to do the right thing no matter how painful!
Cheer up!

8/29/2006 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger whit said...

Wretchard asks:
"Is the glass half-full or half-empty?"

My answer: It's at 50% capacity.

That's the best answer I can give you. Does anyone know which way Iraq will go? No! Especially those of us in the hinterlands futilely as Doug has said gleaning "dots from bits." We suffer from a conflicting information overload whose main ingredients are agenda and opinion. To compound our consternation, lately, it has become difficult if not impossible to discern even the game plan of the home team much less the visitors.

As Rat as said many times, for the US, it's over, over there. It seems that we are marking time; maintaining a prescence, but as Habu said a "static orbit." We need forward progress, we need to move the ball down the field, play the game to win and not sit on a lead until time expires. The problem is, it seems to us fans in the stands that the Coaches are confused about which play to call. Not being experts, but knowledgable fans, we expect that if we do "X" the visitors may respond with "Y". We expect that our coaches know the strengths and weaknesses of both teams but unfortunately well into the game we have learned that our opposition scouts have been Curly, Moe and Larry. So here we sit, not knowing what the next play or the final outcome will be. All we can do is hope and pray for an eked out "W."

Oh well, there's always the next game or the next season.

8/29/2006 08:49:00 AM  
Blogger The Mad Fiddler said...

A substantial portion of the last thread seemed to consist of commenters whacking each other with damn great wads of cut&pasted text from other folks' writing.

I hereby challenge the community — since it is seeking its own voice — to shun the seduction of the easy path, and make a commitment to speaking with your OWN DAMN ASCII CHARACTERS.

I have no problem with people shamelessly stealing a particularly devastatin' insult or barb.

Pithy is best.

8/29/2006 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger Annoy Mouse said...

I wonder how many of us criticized Bush1 for not prosecuting Saddam’s regime from Basrah to Bagdad. The key intelligence was that the Shi’ias would be too cozy with Tehran and the tinder box would soon be ignited. Would we’ve of saved ourselves a lot of trouble or have we managed to shape the battle field by being patient? I wish I knew.

8/29/2006 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger epictetus said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 09:09:00 AM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Bush may want to punt on a preeminent strike on Iran,however several urgent challenges mitigate against that.
He knows what will happen if the Democrates succeed in wresting either part of Congress ie. their age old "hearings" which will put everything on hold to our detriment, and provide a sideshow while Iran builds the bomb.
He, I am sure after intelligence failures in seriatim knows that Iran has probably got a few older Soviet warheads in rehab right now.ie. they're closer than we think. Even if they don't have the warheads they have the Soviet tech's working full time on building several, along with accurate delivery systems.
He believes as do many that Amalxxx will fulfill his promise to use the nukes vs. Israel and thus begin to "cure" the worlds evils.
W will not wait for them to strike. He might have to give Israel the IFF to cross Iraq to do the damage but it will be supplimented by B-52,B-2, and B-1 coverage also. Iraq democratic experiment is going to be "deep freezed" until we can neutralize al Sadr's gang.
I could list many others but in conclusion if we do not show resolve Bush knows that many European nations will succumb to Islam, perhaps democratically a la Germany with Hitler, with the same results, and that a suicide "Tet" in this country is not out of the question. Even with a defeated Iran, a "Tet" human bomb wave could hit a hundred soft targets in this country. Fuelled and loaded planes at the gates are easy targets.
Bush will strike.

8/29/2006 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

Senator Moynihan once opined that the central conservative truth is that culture determines the success of a society, while the central liberal one is that politics can change that culture and lead to a far better society. Hence, conservatives talk about values and liberals of social engineering. Strange how reversed this has all become in the chaos of the Iraq war. Psuedo-conservatives now embrace the most massive, hopelessly corrupt and ill-conceived social engineering project since Johnson's Great Society while liberals have rediscovered the thick-skulled idiocy of Arab culture.

No wonder we have so many "To Hell with Them" Hawks like Nahncee, who supported the President when he betrayed conservative principles by trying to re-engineer Iraqi society and are now "bored" with Iraqis failure to be grateful. (Perhaps because there is no longer a significant mass that can call itself "Iraqi society", only Shiis, Sunni, Turkomen, Kurds, etc. Before you re-make Iraqi society, you must first recreate Iraqis!).

Conservtive regret is catching, for to support the "reconstruction" of Iraq, or "stay the course" or whatever the next vague campaign promise is, you must embrace liberalism. You must be convinced that politics, a welfare state, a more equitable distribution of goods, education programs, etc., are going to be able to transform the "Iraqi" people. Cliff May,David Frum and Richard Lowry of The National Review are all having second thoughts. Victor Hanson, lost in a fog of yesteryear, reads like he's never heard of Islamists winning democratic elections. For him they are still incompatible elements, not the real face of the "New Middle East". And then we have the curious case of Wretchard. As a Spenglerian "Death of the West" disciple his stance may be the oddest. He's convinced that liberalism is leading to decay and collapse here in the West, and yet he clings to that very same liberalism as the salvation for Iraq. Maybe that's why there's so little analysis of the actual elected politicians in his posts.

I predict the Maliki will not be able to reshuffle his young cabinet and be effective, because Maliki does not have an independent political base with which to draw on. He is a creature of Dawa and beholden to SCIRI and Sadr for support. He's a reformer without a diehard constituency, and in the present Iraq, you need not just supporters, but a militia.

8/29/2006 09:35:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

Buddy wrote:

“As far as economic globalism, the fundamental fact is that KSA runs OPEC pricing. How do we keep an influence there, once Iraq is "Greater Iran"? Or should we just say to hell with a liveable oil price, and go on emergency-footing to get out from under the blackmail? On the theory that we will not do it otherwise?”

As I imagine Trish would say ‘let Iran have that tar baby’.

Given the grief we’ve experienced in Iraq it could be a Trojan horse in our disputes with Iran. Iraq is hardly united; Iran has some youth yearning for fun. More Iranian influence may just focus the ‘evil doers’ wrath upon them and give the youth in Iran a chance to focus upon American fun instead of American dominance.

As far as oil goes, they have some, we want a bunch but it is a long path to get it from under their sand to the market and that is an area we can ‘help’ them with. Ironically, the global price of oil was much lower when Saddam was in power so the present course doesn’t appear to be working in our favor. There is no guarantee that prices would fall (or rise) upon our exit from Iraq but we have little moral right to that property. Instead of blowing the bucks on shaking up the sand we could divert them to alternative energy sources. Unfortunately it’s not as if we ‘had’ the bucks to divert and who wants our government doing anything anyway? They would just muck things up (dare I offer Iraq as an example) and nobody wants to pay taxes, do they?

8/29/2006 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Nice job of re-distributing the supply of incoherence, reocon.

I'm still pretty sure, though, that the few planks borrowed from each other's platforms do not constitute a moral equivalence on "Iraq" between the western left and right.

The right went to war when war came to the west, while the left went to politics using the war as an issue.

The results have created two different glasses, the full/empty arguments seem to cross over in a political form of which we can make no useful sense.

The two sides can't even agree that there is a war on, much less whose fault the "troubles" are, what is or isn't of our own making.

That's pretty fundamental.

If the left gets to try its theory in full, instead of forcing it halfway as it does, then it had better be right, or else the west is in for it in a big way.

8/29/2006 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

To make it simple, in addition to the presence of military forces we also need to garner all kinds of support to the liberal, secular, truly pro-democracy powers.
It is no secret that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria support extremists of both sects so why not America and other friends of democratic Iraq offer grater, or at least equal, support for the liberals/moderates?

---
That was always my dream:
Political interference with the military and beyond liberal policies like Catch and Release have put that all in Jeopardy.
Somebody forgot the ancient truth that you have to win the war to enjoy peace.
---
Meanwhile, we support the ROP in all it's forms in the USA, ignoring the very same forces that are tearing Iraq apart in all our PUBLIC and "Official Policy" positions: (PC Rules demanded of Citizens)
Anyone who disagrees HERE is immediately labeled an Islamophobic Hater.
Like those Women in Seattle that did not pre-emptively convert.
Meanwhile protecting CAIR and the Mosques they represent.
---
Islamic Revival Led by Women Tests Syria’s Secularism
The growth of Koranic schools for girls, rare in the Arab world, is one sign that Syria is becoming increasingly religious.
---
"Islamic Revival Led by Women "
“It’s true that they don’t understand what they are memorizing at this age, but we believe that the understanding comes when the Koran becomes part of you,” Ms. Kaldi, 16, said proudly.

Mr. Abdul Salam explained that such secret Islamic prayer groups recruited women differently, depending on their social position. “They teach poor women how to humble themselves in front of their husbands and how to pray, but they’re teaching upper-class women how to influence politics,” he said.
---
---
Group Therapy for Jihadists
Saudi "corrects" ideas of 700 Qaeda sympathizers :

Saudi Arabia has released over 700 suspected militants after clerics "corrected" their thinking in a special program aimed at stemming a three-year-old campaign of violence by al Qaeda, officials said.

"They became like this through provocative religious edicts on the Internet or in books, or via preachers who stir up young people's passions in sermons and lectures," he added.
Fifi said he did not blame Saudi Arabia's controversial educational curriculum which foreign rights groups and Western governments have said promote extremism.

“Controversial” publications funded by the Saudi government.

The Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a “totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence,” and the fact that it is “being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government, namely Saudi Arabia, demands our urgent attention.”
The report finds: “Not only does the government of Saudi Arabia not have a right – under the First Amendment or any other legal document – to spread hate ideology within U.S. borders, it is committing a human rights violation by doing so.”

8/29/2006 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Raoul Ortega said...
"The glass is too big."
---
Always good to have a new and better, wit join the club.

8/29/2006 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Ash, please look into supply abd demand--explosive global growth, and what it has done to the ratio between oil production capacity vs demand. You mislead with facile price comparisons across time, misleading the price changes as being a result of the Saddam saga--which is in truth a near-exogenous factor of global supply/demand. remember that "oil prices" are set at auction, that a feature of auctions is that all info (past/future) is contained in the present auction settlement, and that prices are set "at the margin"-- what the last buyer is willing to pay for the last barrel offered.

8/29/2006 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

09:07:51 AM Mouse:
Steven Vincent's reporting, and subsequent immediate death, was a wake up call that went too long unanswered.
Seems he and the problems he wrote about were predictive of almost everything that has not gone well.

8/29/2006 10:18:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

sure Buddy, and many analysts puzzle at how supply is pretty good right now yet prices remain high.

My main point is that our actions in Iraq are not apparently helping the price of oil and, primarily, that oil is not an ethically sound reason to go to war.

8/29/2006 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

So, buddy, are we moving away from the "insecurity premium".
The theory that the "true price" of $35 bbl just another lost meme?

Now it is the demand curve makes $72 bbl a necessity?

What then will the next series of supply disruptions bring the price of oil to. $125 bbl or above could be reached depending upon the scale of destruction in western oil infrastructure.

8/29/2006 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Fiddler has his complaint:
Mine is the disproportionate response given to Ash, and now, Teresita.
Why do two posters deserve the majority of our attention as measured by number and quantity of responses?

8/29/2006 10:21:00 AM  
Blogger whit said...

Playing devils advocate to Habu:

Bush will not strike Iran.

1. Standing on principles and acting on bad intelligence has already earned him the unending scorn and criticism from domestic political adversaries and the international community. He will not wish to go down that road again.

2. A strike on Iran would doom any chances of establishing a via and sovereign Iraq thereby wasting all the spent US blood and treasure.

3. US busineses do not wish to further stir and roil the oil markets or deepen the anti-American sentiment of international customers and suppliers. Business wants to be about the business of making money, not war. The Russians, Chinese, and Indians are very busy right now playing a high stakes game of global monopoly and the US must get back into that game. Globalism, like rust, never sleeps. If you doubt their influence, look at US immigration policy.

4. US consumers can manage $3.00/gal. gasoline but $6.00/gal. for six months would devastate the US and other western economies.

5. To simply conduct pre-emptive strikes against Iran would set back their nuclear program but then what? Strike again in two or three years? No, overtly, against Iran, it's got to be all or nothing. Covertly acting risks any possible rapprochement which half the US (esp the State Department,) and all of the international world (esp Big Business) wants to see.

5. The plan will be to ease out of Iraq and concentrate on a multilateral, law enforcement phase of the GWOT. We will let the anti-Americanism cool off for a while. Talk softly, carry a big stick and wait for the next state sponsor to step over the line at which time we'll turn it over to the EU3 or the UNSC.

8/29/2006 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger whit said...

item 2 should read a "viable and soveriegn Iraq."

8/29/2006 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Quasi said...

I can imagine it now. It's 1945 and the Allies have just taken Berlin. Instead of stomping out the Nazi ideaology and hanging the leaders, Truman decides that the Nazis just need to be given a chance to elect their leaders in a democratic fasion and everything will be just fine. After all, no democratically elected government would strive to wipe out Jews and wage war on their neighbors....

Let's just say I'm glad we didn't use the Iraq strategy back then in Berlin or Tokyo.

True, we did pretty much wipe out the Ba'athists, but it turns out that they weren't the root problem. The Ba'thists are just a Nazi-inspired offshoot of the Islamic ideaology that plauges the Mid-east. That is the enemy, and we have yet to fire a single shot at it. That doesn't stop it from firing a barrage at us however.

8/29/2006 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger doolz said...

Considering where Burt Reynold's career is at, it's probably more appropriate to say that he's doing commercials with the one-armed dude.

8/29/2006 10:47:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

:-)

8/29/2006 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The story of the
One armed man

No, his story was not yhe basis for the "Fugitive".

His trail in the side canyon petered out when a thousand pounds of rock fell on him.

8/29/2006 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Whit,
1.Already conceded bad intel in previous actions but we've not yet gone into Syria to find Saddams WMD's now have we? He will give Koffi's UN the finger this time.
2.Use of "any" ruins that point.
3.We're way way beyond the Chamber of Commerce having a seat at the table. These are war councils meeting.
4.Rationing,been there done that. Live without A/C, it can be done.
5. The world, after a synthetic hiatus in the EAST vs. WEST alignment is realigning along those lines once again..see Hugo Chavez et. al. The Soviets and Chinese are fomenting this as much as they can.
5. We will freeze, not leave Iraq until they are stable or we control the oil. We will not be duped by the UN nor will we count on NATO. The Aussie and Kiwi's will help us.
The Iranians and the Islamists want control of the globe. It's not going to happen. The draft is coming back and we will win.
When the American public starts to get suicide bombed in malls and schools,rationing, the draft etc won't be a problem.
All Arab looking men and women will be targets, right or wrong. That's how it happens.

8/29/2006 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger Joe Buzz said...

Spengler today says that our problems stem from listening to three cords over and over:

"This helps explain why Americans are so stupid. Listening to the repetition of three chords does not exercise the mind after the fashion of Mozart, to be sure, but that is not the main reason that stupidity attends the culture of resentment. One learns only by accepting a suitable authority. If one rejects authority in favor of one's own impulses, one cannot learn."

Oh sorry this is only for the American Belmontiers
link:
American Idolatry

8/29/2006 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Doug, Ash gets answered because Ash so often presents the tabloid left's current thinking, and so offers a chance to "correct" one small corner of it. For example, he just did it again, with his mention that the world is currently well-supplied ("supplies at 8 yr high" a recent headline). This gives me a chance to offer the "bathtub" picture: Water is going into the tub a tiny bit faster than it is draining out (current outflow is about 1% less than current inflow). Now, picture the bathtub as holding about a million barrels, and the inflow as 83 million bbls, and the outflow as 82 mm bbls. that's your daily picture, with outflow predicted to rise a few percent per year indefinitely, and inflow running @ "peak" (meaning that new oil will come online no faster than old oil depletes).

Rat, the way the 'terror premium' works is, the Nymex sells futures, and tho the "front month" may be overpriced as per "old" geopolitics (as it it now, giving rise to all sorts of wrong conclusions), bidders bid the "out months" competitively against each other for the available supply, and the difference between old normal metrics of supply/demand, and 'new normal' is that so-called 'terror premium'.

As you know, it's called that because it is not "set" by any distribution-channel calculation, but rather as an insurance-type premium against the perceived chances of something happening to that "golden 1%" swing between production and consumption.

It's the whole globe trying to prevent politically (due to need for economical confidence) suicidal shortages -- which are, when you can't get the minimum you need through normal market operation.

And Ash, re your insufferable comment that people shouldn't war over economics, please, tell it to the history books. and then figure out how a 90% urban population gets its daily bread, and ask yourself what wars *are* fought over, if not the linkages that lead to the dinner table.

8/29/2006 11:22:00 AM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

For those who wish to make their points on logic by the use of analogy I offer the following.
With approbation to the lookup I just made, for in my logic classes I had learned that all analogies in logic are false.

Analogy, from Plato to the Middle Ages, was based on the idea
that the universe is so structured and orderly that the whole
is reproduced in the microcosmic parts, making it possible to
draw inferences by analogy. In the Middle Ages, analogies were
considered logical arguments based on this principle of the
whole in the parts. But nowadays in modern logic, they are
considered merely allegorical illustrations

8/29/2006 11:37:00 AM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Analogy, from Plato to the Middle Ages, was based on the idea
that the universe is so structured and orderly that the whole
is reproduced in the microcosmic parts, making it possible to
draw inferences by analogy. In the Middle Ages, analogies were
considered logical arguments based on this principle of the
whole in the parts. But nowadays in modern logic, they are
considered merely allegorical illustrations.

For those who enjoy using analogies as logical basis for their thesis'.

8/29/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

joe buzz,

re: Spengler's three chords

SAT scores fall by largest margin since 1975
http://www.baltimoresun.com
/news/education/bal-sat0829,0,4759919.story?
coll=bal-home-headlines

8/29/2006 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Apologies for the double comment, the site did an "error" thing on me and I thouht my original post was lost.

8/29/2006 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

And, just to close my dull rant, "spot crude' went to 78 when the eastern Atlantic storms started rising, and just today fell to 68+ (wazzat, 15% or so?) as the mkt 'priced' Hurricane Ernesto missing the Gulf of Mexico production areas.

Recall, it was Katrina's destruction--and the sudden shortages that caused the market to spike up prices until "demand destruction" occurred, and took us to the current level.

Prices are always "sticky downward" in a strong-demand situation, and the market is now in a place where a substantive decrease in mkt-skewing terror-fears (or some way to outlaw hurricanes) may be needed to deplete the terror (& storm) premium.

Spot crude closes in a few minutes, below 70.

WV: gakhigh ("Gak! High!")

8/29/2006 11:41:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

Ironic link, Joe Buzz, that calls Americans stupid and yet uses the phrase "Sola Scriptorum" when the proper Latin is "Sola Scriptura"

8/29/2006 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

buddy wrote:

"And Ash, re your insufferable comment that people shouldn't war over economics, please, tell it to the history books."

I never said folks throughout history haven't warred over economics I simply said that waging war to take their oil is not ethical. You appear to have taken your mask off; Iraq is about securing our access to their oil is it? A good thing to send our children off to their death ya think? I suppose you have no problem with the local crack addict securing his supply by killing and taking what he desires.

8/29/2006 11:46:00 AM

8/29/2006 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger luc said...

Ash said... 8/29/2006 10:19:56 AM

“My main point is that our actions in Iraq are not apparently helping the price of oil and, primarily, that oil is not an ethically sound reason to go to war. “

Occasionally comments betray the complete lack of knowledge of the subject addressed by the commenter. In fact in trying to sound profound one ends up making a fool of himself.

Take for instance the fact that an ethical reason for going to war does not exist for the simple fact that when Ethics has been applied to war it leads to the fields of pacifism and nonviolence.

So even if you are a nonviolent pacifist, which is a fine thing to be I guess, that does not make you more ethical than somebody willing to defend what they believe or stands for.

8/29/2006 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Ash, when isolating one facet of a issue, does one need to first rhetorically fence off every possible cheap shot that any cheap-shot artist might want to throw in?

8/29/2006 11:55:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larson said:

Now, picture the bathtub as holding about a million barrels, and the inflow as 83 million bbls, and the outflow as 82 mm bbls. that's your daily picture, with outflow predicted to rise a few percent per year indefinitely, and inflow running @ "peak" (meaning that new oil will come online no faster than old oil depletes).


You mean no new "easy oil" coming online. Welcome to the century of Difficult Oil, where oil prices are high enough to justify all sorts of exotic extraction methods.
And it is safe to say that every prediction by the peakers of world peak oil has not panned out.

8/29/2006 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

A couple months ago at my daughter's birthday party, I had a long conversation with another dad and found out that he is a major in the USMC and recently returned from Iraq. His insights about Iraq were extremely interesting.

I expressed the opinion that Muqtada al-Sadr is essentially an idiot and holds a position of authority only because of his late father and uncle's reputations. I said that if Sadr was eliminated then his replacement would almost certainly be more competent. The major didn't disagree with me and added that there had been many opportunities early in the Iraq War to remove al-Sadr but these opportunities had not been pursued. Apparently the US was told quite early in the process that ayatollas were off-limits for assassination and that one of Saddam's biggest blunders was killing high ranking Iraqi religious leaders. The major also mentioned that Muqtada maybe a drug addict. My conversation with the major confirmed an opinion that the al Mahdi army (Sadr's milita) must first be rendered insignificant and only after that, Muqtada al-Sadr handed over to some Iraqi political or religious authority for final disposal.

8/29/2006 12:11:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larson said:

And Ash, re your insufferable comment that people shouldn't war over economics, please, tell it to the history books. and then figure out how a 90% urban population gets its daily bread, and ask yourself what wars *are* fought over, if not the linkages that lead to the dinner table.

1. The Pacific war was fought to avenge the destruction of the fleet at Pearl.

2. The Great War was fought to make Kaiser Bill stop sinking our ocean liners.

3. That splendid little war with Spain was to avenge the "Maine" supposedly.

4. Civil War was about the issue of cecession.

5. The Mexican War was to avenge a border incursion.

6. The War of 1812 was to avenge the insult of Britain kidnapping our sailors.

7. The Revolutionary War was about standing up to the insane edicts of a tyrant King.

8/29/2006 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

One thing IS "checkable", tho, teresita--the big international exploration & production companies are barely if at all replacing reserves, despite the last few years of double-digit growth of exploration spending, which set off several years before any real price reaction, and due to expanding demand from the growing world economy (currently @ 4.5%, says the IMF, the highest growth rate ever registered).

8/29/2006 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Buddy (11:22)
That was no rant. I checked with Possumtater's edition of "On Ranting" and it said see "Habu"

No seriously I thought it was a concise presentation of the situation. My one concern is that when you begin discussing futures contracts that many in the group wnd up with the MEGO effect. My eyes glaze over.
Job well done

8/29/2006 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Kirk Sowell writes of the Battle of Baghdad, over at
"Awaited Offensive Expands into Multiple Sections of the City, Iraqi Forces Left in Cleared Areas Appear to be Holding Up"

8/29/2006 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

The average human has a blood volume of about 5 quarts (4.7L).

Suppose a vampire were to begin systematically reducing that blood volume by, say, 1% per month.

How long would it take someone like Ash to recognize the danger and begin to fight for survival?

Given the vampire’s millennia’s long history of predation, would Ash scruple resistance?

How long would it take the vampire to render the host helpless?

8/29/2006 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Teresita (12:15)
It's not that I can't but I'm not going to waste my time on your fallacious reasoning or fatuous presentation.

I DO HOWEVER REINTERATE THAT SINCE YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BLOG WHY NOT USE IT? YOU ARE PIMPING THIS BLOG.

8/29/2006 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger CatoRenasci said...

It's a scary world indeed for everyone, liberals, conservatives, optimists, pessimists, and nudniks when NONE of the alternative courses of action is the least bit attractive: which is where I think we are now viz-a-viz Iran.

As a classical liberal, I'm every sceptical of the efficacy of wholistic or utopian social-engineering. This makes me leery of the notion that democracy can be engineered into the Middle East, yet we have reasonable evidence that democratic values can be successfully inculcated in societies which had previously resisted them - Germany and Japan - but, I also note those societies had seen their entire political society collapse as a result of an overwhelming and devastating military defeat. Have the Iraqis or others been so overwhelmingly defeated that they are receptive. I think the jury is out, and one needs to be willing to give it time.

The Iranian threat is real in my view and more imminent than the left would like to believe.

The problem in dealing with Iran is that there are no good alternatives. Appeasement of Iran - or simply doing nothing which counts as the same thing - will mean war or some sort of surrender of that part of the world to Iran within 5-10 years and probably the destruction of Israel. The long term consequences of that are unclear, but undoubtedly it will mean militarization of society and probably a major nuclear war.

Conventional war now brings the prospect of vastly higher gas prices with the huge economic disruptions that always accompany a large change in supply and hence a massive change in factor prices. And that's the good news: it will also mean probably successful terrorism against the US, militarization of society and probably a reinstatement of the draft - with who knows what political consequences.

Nuclear war now probably provides the only obviously militarily successful alternative, but the political and economic costs probably mean no administration, not even this one, will have the political will to do it.

Given the possibilities, it is no wonder no one wants to make a choice - which is of course in itself making a choice. I think the position of those who simply want to wish it away is completely understandable, if irresponsible.

Ultimately, I think we have to decide and decide sooner rather than later. I think an effective - which I think means tactical nuclear and conventional war. Difficult in the short run, but probably less world disruptive in the long run. But, have we the will? I just don't know.

8/29/2006 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger luc said...

8/29/2006 11:46:52 AM
When one impugns the veracity of a comment based on the POSSIBLE misspelling of a word, one leaves themselves open to criticism as to the appropriateness of their comments also based on a REAL a misspelling.

While ‘sola scriptura” is the correct Latin form of the expression denoting one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century CE “sola scriptorium” has also been use by several other authors making the criticism somewhat fastidious.

Misspelling buddy’s name as larsOn, now that is a very serious error.

8/29/2006 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

Teresita said...

"You mean no new "easy oil" coming online. Welcome to the century of Difficult Oil, where oil prices are high enough to justify all sorts of exotic extraction methods. And it is safe to say that every prediction by the peakers of world peak oil has not panned out."

I believe Dr. Marion King Hubbert's prediction in 1956 that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970 was correct, refer to:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

All the information that I have indicates the era of cheap oil has ended. Of course there are huge amounts of expensive energy sources (solar energy tops the list). Unfortunately, cheap energy is the basis of our economic system and high standard of living. As energy becomes more expesnive, our standard of living will deteriorate.

8/29/2006 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

CatoRenasci said...

"I think an effective - which I think means tactical nuclear and conventional war. Difficult in the short run, but probably less world disruptive in the long run. But, have we the will? I just don't know."

How do you view the end game of such a war that you propose? What would the world look like in your view? Not only is the political will required but the economic. Can the US economy, as presently indebted, service as opposed to manufacturing oriented, and oil dependant, satisfactorily survive the short term upheavals of such a war? Will we retain 'exchange currency' status? Will the fight and outcome resemble Israel's fight with Hezbollah?

My opinion, and I agree with you about the raft of bad choices, is that going to war over our 'fear' of Iran getting stronger (i.e. nukes, dominance in Iraq) and the unethical nature of 'oil grabbing' makes alternate courses of action more rational.

8/29/2006 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

CatoRenasci said...

"Given the possibilities, it is no wonder no one wants to make a choice - which is of course in itself making a choice.... Ultimately, I think we have to decide and decide sooner rather than later. I think an effective - which I think means tactical nuclear and conventional war."

If we (the US) blunder politically then we'll have a nuclear war in the Middle East. President Bush's whole strategy in the Middle East can be summarized as recognition that we are at a historical branch point. The Bush administration has been making a desperate attempt to avoid nuclear war. However it maybe impossible. Soon (the November elections for the House of Representatives?) the American people might call time on Bush. That will probably trigger a sequence of events resulting in millions of people dying in a Middle Eastern nuclear war.

8/29/2006 12:48:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Misspelling buddy’s name as larsOn, now that is a very serious error."
---
12:25:58 PM: Luck - maybe you'll have better next time.

8/29/2006 12:52:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

I think her 'reasons for war' post was facetious, habu. All those American wars were fought by an America that formed herself in response to events set off by George III's "Stamp Act". A pocketbook issue, an Ash would (likely) have said, "unworthy of dying for".

But the Founders saw it larger than mere selfishness, they the issue as determining their ability to build a world for "their" people.

And the same thing pertains re the oil issue. Thewre's two sides on a ledger book because ledgers have to reflect nature. Nature says that resources determine the outcomes of competition.

If Ash can't tolerate the idea that one power bloc feels duty-bound to open-market transparently-allocate a vital (think "weapon") resource, then maybe Ash can tell us the likely outcome of any other scenario. Say, if for instance the open-market, transparent-allocation system breaks into two systems, with one power bloc squeezing Colorado & Canadian shale at a production-cost of $70 bbl, while the other power bloc lifts it from thew mideast for a tenth or twentieth of that production-cost.

That's the war, from the economic perspective.

The one-system, or the two-system.

If "fair' comes into it, then you have to say, the "same rule for all" (meaning the current, albeit beleagured, system) is ipso-facto fairer and potentially less catastrophic for a "short-of-oil" world, than is that thing trying to form up, out in the nightmare shadows where Bears and Imams and fat Venezuelan Nazis see to their gold hoards.

So, Ash, it ain't just a matter of being selfish, it is a matter of future national security. Imagine a foreign power bloc operating at a tenth the energy-cost of USA. Imagine the results reflected in, say, the Chinese blue-water of 2050. Do you have kids?

I'm sure you 'get' all this--it ain't difficult. So the real question is, why do you act so deliberately obtuse?

8/29/2006 12:55:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

All Arab looking men and women will be targets, right or wrong. That's how it happens.


Increasingly, I wonder what would happen if we just did an Occam's Razor thing and sent all Muslims back home and didn't allow any of them in for any reason. Nor on airplanes ever for any reason.

We wouldn't have to kill anyone and could conduct all business via video and long distance phone and e-mail. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the two civilizations to have to interact unless they screw up their oil refineries and we have to come in (temporarily) and fix it for them.

Same with Malasia and other hotbeds of non-Arab Muslim-ness. They can do what they like, but their Muslims are not allowed within the borders of the United States of America. We just don't need them and there's not enough pay-back for the grief they bring.

Canada, France, England, Germany, et al., could do what they like and we certainly wouldn't be telling the rest of the world what to do. But as long as Muslims insist that theirs is the best way and they have a right to behead us to prove it, it would be best for everyone if they just stayed in their own countries and did their best-way thing to their little heart's content without expecting us to play too.

8/29/2006 12:58:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

catorenasci; 12:25 PM

“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking.” - On War, by Karl von Clausewitz

From short piece Clausewitz v. Rumsfeld at http://acepilots.com/mt/
2006/08/27/clausewitz-v-
rumsfeld/

8/29/2006 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Are the Ad hominems to be used exclusively, since analogies are considered illogical by some?

I think not.

8/29/2006 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Let's look at some positives for a moment. As with all scientific or epistemological thesis one must begin with an assumption.

1.Assume the draft begins again. San Fransisco will be a ghost town as the fags exit en mass. Once again it will become a great place to visit. Vancouver unfortunately will greatly suffer.
2. A Republican Congress & President might pass a law withdrawing US citizenship from those who dodge the draft. Jimma sent a bad example providing cover for cowards.
3. The cowards will move to coward country..France.
4. Fewer leftists left in the USA.
5. More Aussies and Kiwis will hpoefully come to our shores and stay..they have spines.
Just a few bright notes.

8/29/2006 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

habu

You sure like sticking your finger in peoples' eyes.

8/29/2006 01:17:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

Buddy, I think you are reducing things to a simplistic world where there are two power blocs vying for resources where it is a zero sum game in which one gains only when the other loses. First of all there isn't the 'other' discreet power bloc to square off against but rather many interconnected powers. Secondly we are talking about (well this is never really clear what the heck we are all jabbering about but..) war to secure access to Iraqi oil, and now Iranian oil as well with Cartonescasi wading in. In any case, yes our economy has flourished with cheap oil and we believe that our good life will not continue unless we continue to have access to cheap oil. We do not have a right to live the best life amongst the world, it is nice, but it isn't ordained. The desire to live well does not justify our doing whatever it takes to remain in the comfy chair. If it is true that our national security depends upon cheap energy then we should address that problem. Addressing it doesn't mean simply killing those that have it and taking it but rather addressing our need for such means of existence i.e. alternate fuel, less use, ect. but warring to keep the porn channel on cable tv for 9.95 isn't a good option....sorry let me rephrase that, warring to keep my daily commute only costing $3.25 isn't the answer.

p.s. how come we don't buy Iranian oil? Is it because they refuse to sell it to US or are we sanctioning them?

8/29/2006 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

You see, with oil, almost all the cost of a new supply is in the first barrel. After that, it just comes outta the ground. It's like a new drug, the first pill costs millions, the next pill costs a nickel. But, with the shale, and the coal, and the ethanol, and the biodiesel, and everything else, the costs are distributed per-unit of production. Yes, technical breakthroughs count, as do economies of scale, but by-and-large, every barrel of shale oil will need to be processed at a cost that is not even in the same category as the cost of the "second-barrel" of liquid oil. This is the central problem of letting the global reserves of the liquid fall out of the global allocation system (is your light bulb switching on yet, Ash?).

8/29/2006 01:23:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

One should at least attempt to conquer.

1. deductive arguments
2. inductive arguments
3. catagorical syllogisms
4. modus ponens
5. and to keep from dragging horse
do-do into the house.
You're out of your league. Stick to used cars in Panama.

8/29/2006 01:23:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

PB,
The world has become so accustom to PC that veracity is an unheard word.
Pusillanemous I am not. Pugnacious,certainly.
Someone has to be with the feminization of this country.
Meterosexual .... seems to be a good deal of that all around.

PB..you run toward the sound of the gunfire, not away.

8/29/2006 01:29:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

It's not a matter of "comfort"--it's a matter of forestalling the conditions of a really big, WWII-sized (or even bigger, bloodier, and more existential) war coming upon a world with no global, voluntary, allocation system. Jeez, read my posts, dammit. Or are you just trying to wear me down with all that spongebob squarepants sh*t o' yours?

8/29/2006 01:30:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

buddy, how do you square your view of oil with your view of property rights? Is it exempt?

8/29/2006 01:31:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

There you go
We'll know who has the correct read on your reality in 70 days.
It is War or Retreat, on the habu schedule.

Is it going to be a decisive knock out or just a poke in the eye?

8/29/2006 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Property rights? Oh, jeez. I give up. Who owns Iraq's oil, Ash? Where do the sales receipts go? Do you ever READ my answers to you? OIF is about several different issues, Ash, *one of which* is protecting the global market system.

What is your major malfunction, that you can't get beyond your "stealing oil" fixation? Where is your evidence of theft? Can you produce a witness?

You're eating my day with a single dumbass notion that you read off a bumbersticker somewhere. I give up. Go thru life an idiot, see if I care.
>:-(

8/29/2006 01:42:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

As to running to the sound of the guns, where are those guns most likely to be used against US interests, Latin America and the trade routes or the grasslands of Montana?

There should be more to life than skeet shooting.

8/29/2006 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

DR,
Try to understand something very basic. I've mentioned it before but it's apparently needed.

Everything on this blog is someones thesis or simple opinion. None of it is the yet to be written history. I could easily be wrong. Would you prefer it if I just agreed with everything you said. A new mantra DR is correct,DR is correct..ain't gonna happen.
So unclench, exhale, enjoy life.
Hate only hurts the one doing the hating. Zen Master Tater

8/29/2006 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

rat, can't we just get habu to shoot ASH?

No, really think about it.

8/29/2006 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

Buddy, really, who owns the oil? Is it Iraqs? If so they have a right to sell it as they see fit to whom the choose at what price they choose. If you own land Buddy are you obliged to sell it on the open market to the highest bidder? No you are not. So, back to oil, do you believe that a sovereign nation has the right to dispense with the oil they own as they choose or are they obligated to sell it to the highest bidder?

8/29/2006 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

buddy

The USA is so interested in stealing oil that we spend billions upon billions every year keeping the world's shipping lanes open and free of privation for everybody's tankers.

8/29/2006 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

habu can shoot ash but only if he trespasses on his Montana spread. The alternative is to declare ash an enemy of the state and let the death squads do it.

8/29/2006 01:53:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

DR,
Wherever those guns are sounding,I'm sure you'll be going the other way,pronto.

And may I say that Teresita's blog could use some of your comments. Come on, man up, and help the girl out. Blog there for a day. It'll be like volunteering to work in a soup kitchen at Christmas.

8/29/2006 01:55:00 PM  
Blogger just a marine said...

American media reporting and what to think

Wretchard at the Belmont Club blog has an Iraq post about “is the glass half full or half empty”. It prompts this post.

As always, wretchard makes us think. Thank you.

First the emotional vent stuff about Iraq reporting. Any reporter using a trip with a general as his reference is getting points at home, and losing respect with me. People like me know the higher up the chain of command you go, the less you know about what is really going on, and the slower you know it. The report of the general’s opinion is the only news. I am not trying to be sarcastic. Any reporter who uses the usual green zone photo report spots for TV reporting is also suspect to me as to credibility. I assume many use local stringers who we already know are suspect as to credibility. Last any reporter using another reporter is probably doing what I call reverberation reporting…just bouncing around the same old report to fill a hole/make a report/keep themselves safe.

Let’s move from Iraq back to the USA. Let’s skip BBC and Reuters and their staged news problems.

People at this blog are good. We do a lot of reading and research, and are well educated in the historic sense. Our judgment as to the source and credibility of media reports is a relatively new requirement, I suggest.

So I offer questions, more than ideas, about American media as you read and think.

Like in a Hillary Clinton analogy, is there was some vast XXXX conspiracy to do political and agenda reporting?

Is the 24/7 news cycle on TV skewing the whole profession to do timely investigative reporting with two sources?

If old fashioned investigative reporting can’t make money, is it time for government funded news?

Has the education system that teaches journalism as a profession missing the point that reporters should know something about which they report? The idea is to ask the correct question, and know when something is BS or smells wrong. It helps to know things like the difference between a Major and a Major General, as a simple example.

Is American media just one more symptom of the dumbing down of America?

While I want to bite on the “half empty half full” question, I won’t just yet. I need to read more and sniff more, and now and then listen more. All the while I will use the source and credibility criteria mentioned in this post.

8/29/2006 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I'll leave that to you, habu

It seems to be the center of your current interests. Best to leave it to those that care.

8/29/2006 02:10:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

eggplant said:

> Teresita said:

> And it is safe to say
> that every prediction
> by the peakers of world
> peak oil has not panned out.

I believe Dr. Marion King Hubbert's prediction in 1956 that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970 was correct


Please read what I wrote...not US peak oil, but world peak oil.

8/29/2006 02:11:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larsen said:

One thing IS "checkable", tho, teresita--the big international exploration & production companies are barely if at all replacing reserves, despite the last few years of double-digit growth of exploration spending

If profits are double-digit and exploration spending remains flat as a percentage of profits, then exploration spending goes up double-digits. Proven reserves are defined as oil and gas reasonably certain to be producable using current technology at current prices. I said we are coming to the end of easy oil, but that doesn't mean peak oil. Prices and technology will both increase.

8/29/2006 02:18:00 PM  
Blogger CatoRenasci said...

Eggplant wrote:

If we (the US) blunder politically then we'll have a nuclear war in the Middle East. President Bush's whole strategy in the Middle East can be summarized as recognition that we are at a historical branch point. The Bush administration has been making a desperate attempt to avoid nuclear war. However it maybe impossible. Soon (the November elections for the House of Representatives?) the American people might call time on Bush. That will probably trigger a sequence of events resulting in millions of people dying in a Middle Eastern nuclear war.

I agree that the Bush administration is desparately trying to avoid a war that will (in my opinion) inevitably become nuclear - at least on the tactical nuclear level - and that the administration recognizes that we are at a major historical cusp or decision point. That's part of my point in saying there are NO good alternatives. Sometimes, however, we don't have any "acceptable" alternatives and we have to choose among "unacceptable" alternatives - not made any more palatable by being our only choices.

I think it's a close call whether it would be worse to fight the Iranians now or to wait and see a bit longer - at least from the American perspective. From the Israeli perspective 'wait and see' is riskier because, as someone noted, Israel is (almost) a "one bomb" state that would be devastated it were nuked. Because of this historical value of Jerusalem, I don't think that's what the Iranians would target, rather Tel Aviv. But, I dirgress.

I think Bush understands that if loses the House, he has to act before the Democrats act to impose appeasement - he'd be impeached but he'd have solved the problem. Would he do it? I sort of think so. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Others ask what I think the end game of war would be. Allowing for the fact that the outcome of war is never what we expect, I think what we would do is take out their known nuclear facilities - possibly using tactical nukes to penetrate the bunkers and try to decapitate the leadership. (Special Ops on what are in essence certain death missions?) We'd probably also take out their air defenses and destroy as much of their military establishment as we could in a wave of a few weeks' worth of strikes. Possibly we'd seize some of their oil fields, possibly not. I think we'd do some serious terrorist hunting in Iran with special forces. And, I think we'd tell the Russians and the Chinese and the Pakistanis to stay out "or else" - and believe me they would understand the "or else" when we'd popped nuclear bunker busters.

I also think we'd inform the Iranian leaders that we don't kill very publicly that any terrorism retaliation will be met with nuclear attacks on Iranian cities. That the US is finished messing around.

I wish I were confident that either waiting a long time or a purely conventional war would work. One point I should make is that I view Iran as "our problem" in the sense that it was an American president, the odious James Earl Carter, who is responsible for the Iranian problem to begin with, and with it Islamic radicalism as a serious force.

It is very popular to wish the Israelis would do our dirty work and attack the Iranians because they have more to lose. To me, that's like the Frogs and the Brits hoping in 1937 that the Czechs would attack the Germans before they attacked the Czechs. I think that is cowardly and also probably more dangerous to world stability: the Israelis do not have the means to really stop Iranian nuclear weapons unless they try to annihilate Iran - delay, sure, but actually do enough damage to force a permanent stop? No. They just don't have the capability short of all-out nuclear war.

In that sense, an American attack - that uses tacitical nukes if our people think they'll be necessary - would probably (1) be more effective militarily than an Israeli attack and (2) be less destructive to the civilian population. Is it really moral to wish for the Israelis to attack Iran because they face the most immediate existential threat, knowing their ability is less than ours and would more likely require them to go strategic nuclear? I don't think so.

This is all very depressing.

8/29/2006 02:20:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

That's the point alright, Ash--it's Iraq's oil, and Iraq is a member of OPEC, which itself is a prime target of the bad guys/enemy/misunderstood patriots/freedom fighters/terrorists/KGB, whatever you wish to call 'em.

OPEC recycles the petrodollars through western debt markets--thus creating in OPEC a strong bias toward a future which preserves the values of those financial assets.

OTOH, OPEC's enemies are willing to sacrifice those asset values, in return for the power of controlling the future. This will beggar the world (see Weimar inflation), but that will augment the Will-to-Power.

But, back to topic, what you're saying is that "Iraq" should be whoever shoots their way into office.

Others say, "Iraq" is whoever gets voted into office.

You think you're for peace, Ash, but, in the longer run, when it comes to bullets vs ballots, you is a bullet man all the way. You just don't realize it. Alas.

8/29/2006 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

just a Marine,
Years ago before the internet was in the public domain,I worked undercover for the CIA on a global basis. When I would read what the "popular press" was often reporting I KNEW it wasn't the truth.
Then I left the Company and had to find intel other ways. In the early 80's about the only two publications that got cloose were, "The American Spectator" published by R. Emment Tyrell and William F Buckley's "national Review. Others followed as the conservatives shook off their lethargy and started using the media/press.
TO YOUR POINT: In one article in one of those two publication, and I believe it was "The American Spectator" the author wrote an article on the top journalism schools in the country. Surprisingly professor admitted teaching that "exact quotes weren't essential) as long as you got YOUR point across. It's much worse now. It's blatantly advocacy journalism that is taught. But given that 98% of all professor's rate themselves as liberals one should expect no less. It is so easy to corrrupt a teen out of high school with Marxist ideology and anti-American cant. Not very pretty.

8/29/2006 02:24:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

eggplant said:

Unfortunately, cheap energy is the basis of our economic system and high standard of living. As energy becomes more expesnive, our standard of living will deteriorate.

Only if you judge a high standard of living as millions people driving Hummers down eight-lane freeways by themselves to go to the mall because Bon Macy's has the new purfume being hawked by Paris Hilton. Other people find that riding a bike is really living.

8/29/2006 02:26:00 PM  
Blogger epictetus said...

Buddy and others,

There was a poster on the other day detailing the vast hydrocarbon reserves in Canada. To provide one specific example, this is direct from Suncor's website.

They are producing 265,000 barrels per day from oil sand with a cash cost of $18.65 today. They hope to expand that to 350 kbpd by 2008 and 530 kbpd by 2011. These cash costs are very competitive with prices 50% below today's.

They are one of several producers.
Shell Canada Ltd. for instance is producing 155 kbpd and wants to ramp it to 500 kbpd in "several" years.

Total PROVEN reserves in Alberta's oil sands are something on the order of 175 billion barrels. That's a lot.

I haven't even gotten to coal and how much methanol we could squeeze out of our own 500 year reserves of coal.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976
/article_detail.aspduce

The problem is this stuff takes a lot of time to do and there was little money going this way from 1982 through 2002. The reserves are there though and they are in North America. We don't NEED to take the middle east's.

Ash is right on one thing, if Uku-Faka-Nuki in the middle of some jungle wants to destroy our country and all he has is a couple of spears, we certainly have the time to try to convince him not to do so. Iran, because of their oil, is in a different position. Not only can they restrict short-term supplies of oil (which, ASH, would probably result in hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths worldwide due to famine), but the oil's proceeds allow them to fund their nuke program. Since they have vowed to, "wipe Israel off the map" and regularly lead their peoples in chants of "Death to America," such nuke program appears to be a threat to our survival.

Is it not ethical to try to survive?

8/29/2006 02:30:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Seems to me you were the one that rode up on the white stallion to save the fair maiden.
You interjected yourself into todays colloquy with me so if the heat is too hot hit the A/C.

Unless you'd like to pick up the gauntlet of defending what she won't,AFTER her attack on Marines honor on Guadalcanal..so go ahead defend the UNIT 731 the Japs had.

8/29/2006 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger CatoRenasci said...

For all of those who are concerned about property rights in oil and the notion of a war for oil: it is indisputable that the Islamic radical states (Iran and Syria for sure, Libya formerly, and frankly, Saudi Arabia as well since it is a major sponsor of Wahabi Islamic radicalism) have used their oil revenues to foment terrorism and attacks on the west. I think that is probably a sufficient causus belli - at least in long-term historical context - to seize their oil fields as compensation and in the way of reparations. It's not that they didn't have property rights in the oil that nations believing in private property recognized, it's that they have used those assets to finance aggression and criminal behavior. So, they are forfeit.

8/29/2006 02:34:00 PM  
Blogger The Mad Fiddler said...

I propose a new weekly institution:

.......... 1st Annual Belmont commenters'

............. BLOG CRAWL ..............

8/29/2006 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

rcw
Fiddler:
Kindly explain.

8/29/2006 02:46:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

teresita, re your 2:18:33, look into balance-sheets before koolaiding the expanding profit margins. No industry is more heavily vetted (the Dems would LOVE to get something more potent than calumny and innuendo), so you can believe the books.

Which say that E&P profit margins are middling the industrial sectors, more than food-service, less than pharmaceuticals, and so forth.

As prices have gone up, the oil-field service industries have raised fees, too, as they need to finance their own growth to maintain capacity for the increasing levels of drilling and production activity.

In this cycle, the big bonus that price should deliver is on the balance sheets mostly in 'old' proven reserves coming out from under old cheaper long-term contracts.

Yes, the oil companies are worth more than when oil was in severe oversupply. It's capitalism, demand creates value.

But the number which tells the tale on rapaciousness is the net profit margin.

(you'll find 2006 Y2D "majors" @ less than 10% --up from 0+% a few years ago when oil spent a half decade under $20)

8/29/2006 02:56:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

CatoRenasci (2:34)

I believe you have the correct historical and legal basis for a seizure of those ME oil fields that have produced revenue to foment terrorism.

8/29/2006 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

It seems to me that we are putting the cart before the horse with the drum beating about Iran.

From Wretchard's post: One sorry name keeps popping up - Muqtada al-Sadr. Someone earlier said (was it just a marine?) that a Major told him that Sadr's militia had to come down before Sadr could be taken into custody. Well, apparently when we had the rat cornered previously, we screwed up and quit too soon. Well, the word's out. We read it in Yahoo. The US Army is about to take down Sadr's militia.

It's about time and it can't happen a moment too soon.

Like yesterday.

8/29/2006 03:03:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

BC'ers

If we had all the oil we ever needed would we allow Islam to dictate to us?
Would we turn and walk away from Israel?

8/29/2006 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

Buddy:
Do you have any idea how much the oil companies are investing in alternatives, especially ethanol. (BP advertises itself as an energy company.) It seems to me that these guys would get in on the ground floor especially now with record profits.

And whats with Archer Daniels Midland? They have been advertising themselves for years, one would think they had the equivalent of a Standard Oil by now.

8/29/2006 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Wretchard,

I do believe you could simply write,
"Good morning all", let it go at that and the debates would fire right up.

8/29/2006 03:10:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

teresita, granted that bike-riding vs hummers is a no-brainer life-style wise, but the point you dispute is actually more along the lines of a 70% consumer-driven driven economy that creates (near) full-employment via selling a lot of consumer-discretionary products. That's the vulnerable portion of the economy, and the vulnerability is that period of time between cheap energy and whatever the adjustment will be (if any).

8/29/2006 03:11:00 PM  
Blogger CatoRenasci said...

Whit wrote:

From Wretchard's post: One sorry name keeps popping up - Muqtada al-Sadr. Someone earlier said (was it just a marine?) that a Major told him that Sadr's militia had to come down before Sadr could be taken into custody. Well, apparently when we had the rat cornered previously, we screwed up and quit too soon. Well, the word's out. We read it in Yahoo. The US Army is about to take down Sadr's militia.

It's about time and it can't happen a moment too soon.


Agreed. Taking out Sadr is a necessary condition to dealing with Iran. Hopefully this will happen forthwith.

8/29/2006 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

I'll say one thing.

I've learned one helluva lot from Mr. Buddy Larsen today. Great stuff.
Thanks..oops Possontater wants a say..
Buds, you been scool'in me ta day like my momma use ta teach us how ta make a gud bog nest.P-tater

8/29/2006 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

It would indicate a change in course, a compass correction at least.

8/29/2006 03:17:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

Until I see this country serious about kicking its oil habit, developing alternative sources of energy, (especially ethanol and nuclear) I will not think it is serious about beating back radical Islam.

We are not preparing ourselves for worst case scenarios such as a long oil supply interruption. So, I'm led to believe that either we're not serious or the threat isn't serious. Since 9/11 was serious to me, I'll go with the former assumption.

8/29/2006 03:18:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Whit, beyond the anecdotal stories of this project or that, I don't have the industry numbers on what the industry as a whole plows back into alternatives. But all the energy sectors have about double the market capitalizations of a couple years ago. The big shale projects are joint ventures with an operating company selling limited partnerships, which the majors often buy. Search the American Petroleum Institute's sites--the API is the traditional, august, wise, publication-of-record for the energy industry.

8/29/2006 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

habu, thanks for dat. I jus' get tired of Mr. Cartoon-Bubble (Ash) accusing others of 'over-simplifying'.

8/29/2006 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

whit said:

Well, the word's out. We read it in Yahoo. The US Army is about to take down Sadr's militia.

Maybe, but it's not going to happen until November 8. Think about it.

8/29/2006 03:33:00 PM  
Blogger PossumTater said...

whit (3:03)

I dun hopes and prays dat yo be rit 'bout tak'in dat al Sadr out for a tree swing.
damn dat be gud all 'round

8/29/2006 03:35:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I do not have to defend the atrocities of Unit 731, the US Government already excused them, all but one Unit member paroled prior to the year of my birth, 1955. The one exceptional miscreant held 'til '56.

"... Trial.
Thirty people were brought to trial by an Allied War Crimes Tribunal in Yokohama, Japan, on March 11, 1948. Charges included vivisection and wrongful removal of body parts; 23 were found guilty of various charges. Five of the guilty were sentenced to death. None of the death sentences was carried out. By 1958, all those convicted were free. The Soviet Union also held trials. Sentences there were carried out.

War Crimes Trial
High-level Japanese war criminals were tried by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The prosecution team was made up of justices from eleven Allied nations: Australia, Canada, China, France, Great Britain, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The Tokyo trial lasted two and a half years, from May 1946 to November 1948. The principle charges were making aggressive war and allowing atrocities against POWs and civilians.

The Verdict
Two of the twenty-eight defendants died of natural causes during the trial. One had a mental breakdown on the first day of trial, was sent to a psychiatric ward and was released in 1948. The remaining twenty-five were found guilty. Seven were sentenced to death by hanging, sixteen to life imprisonment, and two to lesser terms. All seven sentenced to death were found to be guilty of inciting mass-scale atrocities, among other counts, and hanged Dec. 23. Three of the sixteen sentenced to life imprisonment died in prison. The remaining thirteen were paroled between 1954 and 1956, with less than eight years in prison for their crimes against millions of people. ..."


So that'd have been Ike, aye?

8/29/2006 03:35:00 PM  
Blogger PossumTater said...

whey naw i dunt knows lots but i be think'in ..would we done be put out da xact time and place of our bidness on yahoo?

8/29/2006 03:39:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The source of Unit 731 info
World War II in the Pacific

The part about "... On May 5, 1945, an American B-29 bomber was knocked down over southern Japan. Eight American airmen prisoners were made available for medical experiments at Kyushu Imperial University. The eight were dissected organ by organ while they were still alive.

This is the only site where Americans were incontrovertibly used in dissections and the only known site where experiments were done in Japan. Kyushu University, Fukuoka, is midway between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ..."


Makes one wonder what Ike was thinking, to allow such men parole.

8/29/2006 03:39:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larsen wrote:

That's the vulnerable portion of the economy, and the vulnerability is that period of time between cheap energy and whatever the adjustment will be (if any).

Any downward adjustment to the US economy brings oil demand down worldwide, which pushes out the date for peak oil.

8/29/2006 03:40:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

catorenasci,

re: tactical nukes

For some time it has been obvious that the US has not done the things required for a conventional war with Iran, e.g. seeking Congressional funding and approval to bring more brigades on stream.

That being the case, only three other possibilities come instantly to mind:
1) UN intervention
2) a sustained air campaign
3) tactical nukes

Of course, some mix of these various inputs is possible, but not probable given the anticipated ferocity of the Iranian response. In short, time is the essence.

The use of nukes will place the US in a difficult diplomatic position, in that America will lose the ability to advise others to show restraint under scenarios of perceived comparability.

We are, as you suggest, between a rock and a hard spot, which is why the President must get in front of this thing, unequivocally. Succinctly, if Iran is the strategic threat claimed, then, that mantra must be hammered home with every public statement of every administration figure.

8/29/2006 03:40:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

whit; 3:03 PM

re: al Sadr

The following link clearly shows the problem the US will continue to face in years to come. The Iraq government forces are fighting as clans rather than as the military of a sovereign state. Moreover, as the article proves, the Iraqi government is reinforcing this misapprehension.

If the government of Iraq viewed itself as sovereign, it would not negotiate with terrorists or the al Sadr militia; instead, the government would throw every asset into the fray and establish its authority definitively.

“Iraq strikes peace deal with militia”
http://www.theaustralian.
news.com.au/story/0,20867,
20301536-23109,00.html

8/29/2006 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger PossumTater said...

Dr...
Great work sir for not defending the UNIT 731 atrocities but rather offering an historical overview of the proceedings.
Did the tribunal get to call any of the survivors to the stand?
OJ got off too. Or was it knocked off two?
Anyway fine job. (apologies for the habuese on P-taters time)

8/29/2006 03:51:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

teresita, the phrase "peak oil" refers to production capacity--unrelated to consumption, technically speaking. But your point is that conservation is good, and that price conserves. Sux for the poor, tho, as it acts like a regressive tax. Lesson: "don't be poor, if you can help it".

8/29/2006 04:07:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

"Ike, he was the best clerk I ever had"
Douglas MacArthur
Medal of Honor Winner (as was his father)

Ike..never saw combat.

DR, you'e right, what the hell was he thinking?

8/29/2006 04:25:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

This cannot be of help to the war effort.

“Navy Officer Charged with Revealing Secret Gitmo Info to NGO”
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

8/29/2006 04:26:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Ike was thinking "USSR".

8/29/2006 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

There you go, buddy.
Mr Will seems to think it's time for Japan to arm up. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Jr learned a new application for pencils, the car business didn't make it out of the Operations Order phase.
Seems the spreads where not as great as he thought, Craigslist does have it's uses.
Perceptions create realities

8/29/2006 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Iraq is now and will continue to be an Islamic state. A state cannot be democratic if all citizens are of unequal status. Woman have an unequal status in Islamic states, as do Jews, Christians, homosexuals and all others that wish to convert away from Islam. Islam is not going to be changed by any state from the outside. No outside state, including the US is prepared to annhilate Islam. Islam has no method or ability to change itself. Islam in not going to change, nor become democratic or change itself. Anyone who continues to believe otherwise is delusional or at best a Panglossian extraordinaire.

The pot of gold at the end of the Iraqi rainbow is an overflowing caldron of shit. It is time to go. Let the bastards kill each other.

8/29/2006 04:37:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

Allen

A couple years ago I searched the net and some paid databases for information on Iraqi tribalism. One of the reasons I have continued to believe that Iraq will eventually become a success is because the most powerful clans cross ethnic and sectarian divides. Tribalism predates Saddam, the Ottomans, Islam, and the modern stresses. The Iraqis have always managed to survive the flare-ups and to find a way to live together without killing each other wholesale, and I suspect that cycle will repeat.

We should also not forget that the historical center of the Shia is Iraq and not Iran. Whatever influence Iran may have in Iraq is more likely temporary than not, and being used to gain political advantage within the Iraqi polity, and not as a precursor to Iranian hegemony. If the Arab Shia in Iraq wanted to become Persians they would have done so long, long ago.

Baghdad will not ever become 18th Century Philadelphia but an independent Iraq with an army sufficiently robust to create pause among the Persians is good enough for me.

8/29/2006 04:39:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

My son's air-taxi investigation is also yielding some untoward numbers. Seems you need a lot more than a million in order to buy a half-chance of not going broke.

8/29/2006 04:40:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

PB
What do you think of the counter flow theory, that a Sgia Iraq will influence Iran to a greater extent than Iran will influence Iraq.

I advocated for that meme early on, but realities or reporting have made the floatsom seem cascading towards Iraq.

8/29/2006 04:44:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Oh dear, the cash flow that was going to finance the entire thing damaged again:

"News | 29.08.2006 | 23:00 DW
Dozens dead in Iraqi pipeline blast

A blast at a pipeline in southern Iraq has killed at least 30 people and injured several more. Police said people had been siphoning fuel from the pipeline near the city of Diwaniyah when the explosion occurred. It's believed their actions may have caused the blast. The pipeline carries oil to the capital Baghdad and is often targeted by saboteurs."

8/29/2006 04:50:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

From al-Reuters:
By Imad al-Khozaie

NEAR DIWANIYA, Iraq (Reuters) - At least 29 people were killed when a blast ripped through scavengers siphoning petrol from pools around a breach in a disused pipeline in central Iraq late on Monday, health officials said.

8/29/2006 04:59:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

allen:
I never could get that Australian link to work.

8/29/2006 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger Rem870 said...

Some links from DoE Energy Information Administration:

Long Term World Oil Supplies

International Energy Outlook 2006

Annual Energy Review 2005

Presented without comment except I'll say that these reports contain alot of answers to questions that keep coming up. Peruse at your leisure.

8/29/2006 05:06:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

Chavez arrives in Syria
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez arrived in Syria on Tuesday to show solidarity with the Arab nation that has defied Washington for years.
Chavez's popularity in Syria and the Arab world has shot up after he ordered Venezuela's envoy in Israel home earlier this month to protest the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon and threatened to break off diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

This guy is an absolute idiot.

8/29/2006 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

DR

I have no idea. I followed the Lebanese civil war in the 70s and even with a program, a scorecard, and the names of the players on the back of the uniforms it was almost impossible to keep tack of who was fighting whom. Syrians + Christians vs. Amal. Israel + Druze vs. Syria. Private army 1 + Private army 2 vs. Everybody else. The Players changed sides every other inning.

I suspect that much of the same thing is going on in Baghdad.

8/29/2006 05:09:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A pipeline carrying oil byproducts exploded in a southern Iraqi city Tuesday, sparking a massive fire and killing at least 27 people, officials said.

Several people had been siphoning fuel from the pipeline when the explosion occurred in an industrial zone south of Diwaniyah, 130 kilometers (80 miles) south of Baghdad, police Lt. Raid Jabir said.

He said at least 34 people had been killed and another 45 injured.

But Khalil Jalil Hamza, the governor of Qadisiyah province, of which Diwaniyah is the capital, said the death toll was inflated. Speaking on Iraqi television, he said 27 people had been killed and 15 other injured. It was not immediately possible to reconcile the two accounts.

The reason for the explosion was not immediately clear, and a huge fire in the area was hampering rescue efforts, Jabir said.

Jabir said Iraqi and coalition forces had cordoned off the area.

The pipeline is 10 kilometers (six miles) south of Diwaniyah.

It was originally used to transport gas from the Shuaiba oil field in Basra to the Musayyib power station, but former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein converted it in 2003 to hold gasoline reserves for the army, Jabir said.

8/29/2006 05:14:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

whit, 5:01 PM

re: I never could get that Australian link to work.

I am having no success either. The article can be found a Lucianne.com, pg two (scroll through first page, and hit "next 25"). It appears just below the story of Mr. Kemp campaigning for Senator Lieberman.

8/29/2006 05:23:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

From Buddy's link to American Petroleum Institute:

Not encouraging news from the API which reports that currently domestic production of bio-diesel is 75 million gallons per year which .2% of the annual on-road consumption. Prospects do not look promising for increased production in the near term.

8/29/2006 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

biomass diesel contributes .2% of the yearly on-road diesel consumption.

8/29/2006 05:27:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Riddle: if you're a Caracas Jew, what do you think of Jimmy "I certify the election" Carter?

8/29/2006 05:32:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

MADMAN IN SUV MOWS DOWN 14 ON STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO...
No doubt another random act, probably Lebanese.
I'll bet no Jews are injured, right?

8/29/2006 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

KCBS-COM

8/29/2006 05:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Jewish neighborhood, probably a coinkydink says Susan Sweetness of the Dept of Homeland Security.

8/29/2006 05:41:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Omeed Aziz Popal ... just a misunderstood SUV driver....

Just wait til they start bombing malls,schools,buses,flying light aircraft loaded with fuel and some fertilizer into a football stadium.
You know if your angle of attack is just right you could probably kill or injure what 10-20,000 people. The debris field alone would do a number on ...well anyway they would never do that.

8/29/2006 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

doug, 52 wk range, $3.50 to $9.37. Wazzat, up what %?

8/29/2006 05:49:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

POPAL OMEED

8/29/2006 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

6 hours later, not on Fox or CNN
It ain't nuthin.

8/29/2006 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Remember, boys and girls, when the 2nd Amendment is out there saving yer chilluns, which party has been trying to slow-strangle it for Lo! these many years.

8/29/2006 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Dianne Feinstein used to live there, Hewitt caller's daughter goes to Jewish Preschool there.

8/29/2006 05:53:00 PM  
Blogger SarahWeddington said...

2+ weeks after the ceasefire and Hassan Nasrallah is still in hiding, still yet to appear in public to his adoring throngs. I wonder why?

Nasrallah recently giving an in hiding interview in which he apologizes to the public and admits he would not have conducted the op if he knew what the result would be(losing their long range missile threat, 50%+ of their entire missile threat, a UNIFIL expanded by 750%, the Lebanese Army in the south for the first time in 30+ years, 600+ dead terrorists, 1000+ wounded, their Beirut headquarters and capital in rubble, thousands of ATGMS gone(and used rather ineffectively at that), no prisoners released, over in a month and unable to act as a stall or deterrent against Iranian sanctions, etc...)

Feyn Hassan?

8/29/2006 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

He's just a nut.

Move along folks, nothin' to see here.

8/29/2006 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 05:57:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Sarah, and note (as doug has stressed) that the casus belli has been nazrollah'd back to a slow-idle, merely a 'kidnapping incident'.

8/29/2006 05:58:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larsen wrote:

teresita, the phrase "peak oil" refers to production capacity--unrelated to consumption, technically speaking.

And production capacity is related to technology. Why don't Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia let companies like BP get in there and pump that oil? Because they can make a lot more money creating an artificial shortage by discouraging investment, and pumping up the price.

8/29/2006 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

....."those frantically rushing from the stadium into the parking lot for safety ran into a minefield of parked cars as IED's.Police believe there were between thirty to fifty cars rigged with explosives,killing thousands more. Democrats said it was the work of Republicans attempting an October surprise in a desperate attempt to maintain power. Oakland Mayor "Moonbeam" Brown said he would investigate it as a criminal ,not terrorist matter."

8/29/2006 06:00:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

sarah said:

2+ weeks after the ceasefire and Hassan Nasrallah is still in hiding, still yet to appear in public to his adoring throngs. I wonder why?

Gosh, you're right Sarah, where's his Saddam-style post Desert Storm "victory" rally complete with pistol rounds fired out over the crowd. Oh well, Mike Wallace still believes he won hands down, maybe he can get an interview.

8/29/2006 06:02:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

SF Mayor Gavin Newsom said it is not a Hate Crime!
---Hewitt Caller
KCBS Radio does not give drivers name on air.

8/29/2006 06:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Keep going to Afghan Websites in Google search.
No Hits yet.

8/29/2006 06:12:00 PM  
Blogger SarahWeddington said...

I admit, Hezbollah and Nasrallah must be hurt more than they're letting on if he's remained in hiding for 2 weeks and they haven't had a victory rally yet. Their MO is a big open air public victory rally.

Nasrallah knows that as soon as he appears in public, the clock will be ticking towards his demise.

even Debka, whoch has been very critical of Olmert and the IDF noted in their report today taht HB's entire long range arsenal was taken out in the first 35 minutes and that Nasrallah has initiated a huge purge to figure out who leaked the info.

8/29/2006 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...

Speaking of Mr. Nasrallah's victory, here's an interesting article about how some Lebanese Shi'ites dissent from Mr. Nasrallah's historiography of recent events.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008847

8/29/2006 06:16:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Bloodied sheets and rags are left on the sidewalk at California Street near Presidio in front of the Jewish Community Center after a hit-and-run incident. Chronicle photo by Liz Mangelsdorf
---Pictures at SFGate.com

8/29/2006 06:17:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

" hit-and-run incident"

8/29/2006 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Doug,
It's San Fransissyco. They do not want the tourist scared away just because ONE guy mistook the accelerater for the brake pedal and at the same time had a steering lock up.
I wonder if he was a member of The Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club? (it's for real folks, it's SFO)

8/29/2006 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Two SFPD officers discuss the hit-and-run at Sutter and Steiner streets. Chronicle photo by Liz Mangelsdorf
SHTEINER Street:
They deserved it!
Cops "look Jewish"

8/29/2006 06:20:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 06:20:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

epictetus said:

Since they have vowed to, "wipe Israel off the map" and regularly lead their peoples in chants of "Death to America," such nuke program appears to be a threat to our survival. Is it not ethical to try to survive?

Throughout the cold war the USSR made various bellicose statements like "We will bury you" and they had enough firepower to do it. That we're not living in Bartertown this day can be attributed to a principle, derived from our national character, of not shooting first. Even the Bush Preemption Doctrine is a lot of talk with only a single $200 billion dollar failing instance of being put into practice.

8/29/2006 06:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Who Milked Harvey?

8/29/2006 06:22:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

He was later shot!

8/29/2006 06:22:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

He can shoot no more Milk can't.

8/29/2006 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

teresita, OPEC has an annual meeting, where they set member-state production ceilings. It's no secret that most of the members could surge-produce an excess of their agreements. Oil ministers are always trying to produce at their forecasts of maximum total "life-of-the-field" rates of return. You're right, a temporary glut could be engineered. But to what effect? cheaper pol that runs out sooner? remember, producers--unless there is a politcal attack underway--do not want to drive their customers into either recession OR--and this is an isidious threat to them--inflation (which lets a creditor pay debt in cheaper dollars). Healthy growth will always be in the interests of the business model.

Tho the business model is itself under attack, a fact which we have touched on quite a bit lately.

An artificial-shortage conspiracy that includes exploration companies drilling ever deeper and in ever more hostile environs, for ever longer-shot reservoirs, would be a tight, intense, far-reaching, and miraculously quiet conspiracy indeed.

Remember that the deeper you go, the hotter the hole, the more tenuous the mechanics, and the far greater the well-cost.

A 15,000' well doesn't cost twice a 7,500' well--more like 4x as much. And over 15,000', the costs curve goes parabolic. Offshore has the same sort of dynamic arithmetic per water depth, before a drill bit ever touches the ground.

Seimic work identifies prospects all the time that go undrilled because the economics aren't there. Oil prices change the risk-reward, so the marginal prospects that won't be drilled @ $40/bbl might well be drilled @ $70/bbl.

Does this constitute an "artificial shortage created in order to raise prices"?

I dunno--maybe. Let's nationalize the industry and see.

8/29/2006 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

seismic

8/29/2006 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

Teresita,
There is an upside to not using your own blog site. I would have missed all of Buddy's erudite,accurate, and educational information on the oil situation.

BUT GIRL YOU'RE STILL PIMP'IN IN THE ARGOT OF THE BLOGSPHERE.

8/29/2006 06:37:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larsen said:

But, with the shale, and the coal, and the ethanol, and the biodiesel, and everything else, the costs are distributed per-unit of production.

This is mitigated by the fact that you don't have to do exploring in the case of shale and coal and ethanol and biodiesel, and worry about drilling a dry hole. In the case of ethanol and biodiesel, you don't have to worry about running out, too. And by investing in alternative fuels, or even in novel ways of extracting classic oil, there's a synergy as lessons get learned and applied to the next iteration.

8/29/2006 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger rufus said...

Peter, I believe your post is the "definitive," one. That outfit is frustrating, but they just don't look like a bunch that really want a big old "Civil War." There has been an awful lot of intermarriage, and, although, stressful times cause people to lose their tempers (especially, when it's 120 degrees, and there's no a/c) the people seem not to be very interested in mass killing.

In short, although, Iraqi "Politics" has always been an incredibly bloody sport, the people don't seem all that intereted in joining in the game.

8/29/2006 06:45:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larsen said:

An artificial-shortage conspiracy that includes exploration companies drilling ever deeper and in ever more hostile environs, for ever longer-shot reservoirs, would be a tight, intense, far-reaching, and miraculously quiet conspiracy indeed.

My artificial-shortage conspiracy isn't that Grand, it merely rolls out from the fact that “The resources on which we are going to rely are closed to investment by any private company. The decisions on investment and production are controlled by Governments…which may not always be aligned with the interests of international consumers."

8/29/2006 06:46:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
Samual Johnson

8/29/2006 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 06:54:00 PM  
Blogger rufus said...

It was my "feeling" from the press conference onwards, that Bush brought Maliki over here to give him an ultimatum.

I think it went something like this: Let us take care of Sadr, or I'm announcing a Big-Ass Drawdown; in other words, you're on your own, Buddy. I think it pissed Maliki off, but he had no choice.

You know, Iran might not be having that good a week. Nas is still in hiding, apologizing; the Lebanese are, upon reflection, pissed (Signiora even said something, today, about having disarmed some Hez folks;) and the U.S/Iraqi Armies are starting to hunt down a few Mehdi Militiamen.

Ahmanutjob might be thinking that this could get out of hand.

8/29/2006 06:54:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

buddy larsen said:


Seimic work identifies prospects all the time that go undrilled because the economics aren't there. Oil prices change the risk-reward, so the marginal prospects that won't be drilled @ $40/bbl might well be drilled @ $70/bbl.


Bingo. You see why global peak oil is not imminent? Some of the larger fields might not even be discovered yet because they were too deep and the estimates of the likely EROEI were too unfavorable at the prices being obtained at the time.

8/29/2006 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

CNN had a video of a dog that did that - 2 Days ago a CAT that walked on it's FRONT FEET!
(back legs deformed)
---
-The crew checked in at 5:15 a.m. but boarded the wrong plane at first, Hersman said. They started preparations before a ramp worker alerted them to the error.

-Jackson said newspaper reports about her son were lies, but her boyfriend and business manager, Antonio Cruz, confirmed newspaper reports that Polehinke's wife, Ida, shot him in the abdomen with a handgun in 1999.

-Polehinke was flying the plane when it crashed, but it was the flight's captain, Jeffrey Clay, who taxied the aircraft onto the wrong runway, Hersman said. Clay then turned over the controls to Polehinke for takeoff, the investigator said.

-Earlier Tuesday, the FAA admitted it violated a policy, outlined in a November 2005 directive, requiring that control tower observations and radar approach operations be handled by separate controllers.

8/29/2006 06:56:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

That's a huge point, teresita--that foreign governments control about three quarters of world oil production. We don't hear much about that, because it doesn't serve the MSM's support for the Democratic meme that Bush is Oil and prices are are a GOP conspiracy. lord brownes speech just illustrates the weirdness--the science says the easy oil is done with, some politicians say the opposite, apparently depending on the political effect they seek.

8/29/2006 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Keep gettin double posts, sorry.

8/29/2006 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Don'tcha think bloggers ought to do their best to make up for the MSM Coverup of the latest Antisemetic TERROR ATTACK?

8/29/2006 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

instapundit has it--

8/29/2006 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Habu_3 said...

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
--George Bernard Shaw

8/29/2006 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

It's too damned much trouble:
I'm Adaptin.
I'm the ADAPTABLE MAN for the New Millenium.

8/29/2006 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger rufus said...

It's starting to look like it was Ted Stevens. (R) Alaska

8/29/2006 07:27:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sure hope they never stoop to showing a picture of the Peaceful Jihadi, er Muslim. pbuh

8/29/2006 07:27:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/29/2006 07:28:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Correction, Peaceful ASIAN.
Probably a yut.

8/29/2006 07:28:00 PM  
Blogger Ari Tai said...

re: gasoline (at $6/gal)

Is still less than every other 1st world country (and we'll continue to get twice as much product from it as anyone else).

Some suggest we (the U.S.) should tax oil (to encourage conservation and alternative innovations). The fact that the current high-prices have not spurred a 20 year revolution is likely due to the 20 lean years following the 1980s melt-down in prices (that destroyed Houston).

A better solution would be to tax the non-free governments who exploit their oil wealth without the consent of their governed (and state that we are doing this in their peoples' interest). Call it a "defense tax" (pay our DoD's bills and bank the rest in their citizens' name) enforced by the threat of destruction (from the air, something we -can- do effectively with an air force). And any country's armed forces that stand with us (in harms way) will get their fair share of the tax revenues. Which might even be enough to rebuild the European countries' militaries into something more than unionized show-bands.

Levy this tax (on the non-free oil-producing countries) at a rate to hold the worldwide price (initially) at $100/bbl, and guarantee the free world's energy companies that the price will stay more than $70/bbl for more for 20 years.

Russia will love it, and it gives Mr. Putin a reason to (at least have the appearance of) having regular free elections. China will hate it, and discover a reason to free the Norks and liberalize their own political system. Chavez might show more respect for democratic processes.

The (free) worlds' energy companies won't be able to resist the opportunity in coal-to-methanol, shale-oil, nuclear, etc, that are very profitable at $50/bbl. As the non-free countries become free, they go on probation until the 20 years are up, continuing to pay the tax, but now sharing in it as they shoulder their own burden as allies in the GWOT.

8/29/2006 07:30:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Death toll reaches 73 in Iraq fighting:

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a key architect of U.S. policy on the treatment of prisoners and the rule of law in Iraq, arrived in Baghdad for a one-day visit on Tuesday.

Gonzales, who has been criticized in the past for his position on the treatment of non-American prisoners held outside the United States, met Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh.

Gonzales Visit

8/29/2006 07:33:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

...it looks like if any form of metal comes between a Muz and a Jew, it will often suddenly fly into the Jew. Metal, metal...must watch the metal.

8/29/2006 07:34:00 PM  
Blogger Db2m said...

Habu_3 said...
A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
Samual Johnson

*******

Not too shabby, Habby.

A few nights ago I pointed out that all the old BC guys were being Twitterpated. Guess not ol' Habby though.

8/29/2006 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Desert Rat,
Wrong message from Aaron Ralston's travail.If you read of his life and character,his strength was his willingness to keep heading down the path.When the world caved in,he dug his way out and kept on keepin' on.
Forget Iraq,the war against Islamic monsters will require cats like Ralston,real men with heart for the fight.
I want to de-recommend a book I recommended,"Faith at War".It's way pessimistic(Gee somebody here might have written it).Here's another one though,worth a read:"Prayers for the Assassin" by Robert Ferrigno.It's like Jihad on crystal Meth,a raging novel about what happens if we lose this war.Make your hair stand on end.
Habu,keep up the anti-PC stuff.I am a fan.What's with all the furriners in SUV's running down the dhimmis?

8/29/2006 07:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger