| Sunday,
Sounds like they're a good deal more paranoid in
London than here in the NorthEast. I'll hear more tomorrow from Diane--she
went down for the day to London to watch. I spent the day updating my
Macintosh PowerBook's operating system to 10.2.4. The previous release had
been complaining about Opera 6.0 using an depreciated interface, but now
it no longer complains--it simply blows Opera off when it tries to do what
it had been doing. A shame, too, given that Opera is so much nicer than
Internet Explorer at handling foreign scripts. On the other hand, the new
release patches a couple of security problems. I do like Apple's proactive
attitude towards security. I also put together a couple of e-commerce
lectures and read Jim Dunnigan's new book, the Next War Zone. It's not as
good as Schneier, Secrets and Lies, but it is interesting. I got a mailing
from Schneier this morning indicating that this month's Crypto-Gram was
likely to run afoul of spam filters. Since I haven't seen it yet, I
suspect that has happened.
Debka indicates things in Iraq are being delayed by
Turkish game-playing. Won't be too long, though. Given that bin Laden
seems to be looking forward to the opportunity to challenge us in the
ruins of Bagdad, this may be an opportunity to deal with al Qaeda. The
Iraqis are probably not looking forward to being the arena for a
knifefight between two sides who hate each others guts. -- --- Harry
Erwin, PhD, Senior Lecturer of Computing, University of Sunderland.
Computational neuroscientist modeling bat bioacoustics and behavior.
<http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0her/index.html>
I watch the whole thing with a sense of
inevitability. We didn't need to get into this war, but then we didn't
need to get into the Balkan Wars either. Apparently we have made our
choice.
And the protestors are out singing "All we
are saying is give peace a chance," which takes no more thought to
say now than it ever did, and answers no more questions.
I think we may come out of this with governments
less ready to give help to our enemies. That's all to the good. There were
other ways to accomplish that, but I think we don't have those ways now.
You were saying in 2/15/03's current view that there
might be a chance of war not happening.... feh. You don't turn a carrier
task force around in mid-ocean, send it thru an emergency refurb, and back
to the theater, then follow that up with actually shipping the 101st
Airborne and then placing Fleet Hospitals Bremerton and Jacksonville on
alert... only to wuss out. Dubya's mind was made up weeks ago. Iacta ilea
sunt. The die is long since cast... all that remains to be seen is whether
it's seven, eleven, boxcars, or snake eyes.
I'm thinking that the outcome of this war - for war
it will be - may well be the fall of both leaders. Which, given the TSA
and Homeland Security's penchant for power grabs, would probably be a
win-win.
-- Glenn Stone who works (currently) about 15 miles
from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (and thus sees what the locals see, which
doesn't get out much)
Oh I expect you're right. I haven't thought there
was any chance the war wouldn't start since they began ordering up
reserves and sending out the Marines. Too much of the power of the empire
has been placed now.
The President has always thought there needed to
be an end to Iraqi deception. Saddam Hussein had a chance a year ago; he
could still run for it, if there were a country that would shelter him.
Hi Jerry,
Well, I agree with Julie there. Saddam probably
would have been a secularizing although socialist totalitarian force in
the middle east.
I think my main point regarding Saddam is how it has
been since the Gulf war and what should be done. If, during the 1980s
things were handled better, Saddam could have probably remained an
"ally" of the U.S. (at what cost is interesting speculation with
his human rights abuses). I do wonder what a larger secularized area of
the middle east under Saddam would be like today.
Would we still be able to be an ally of such? I can
just see it now - France, Russia, Germany and the assortment of anti-war
folks would be mounting protests of our alliance with a brutal dictator,
suppressing human rights in the area under his control, all for big oil.
Yes, they would be calling on the U.S. to dissolve any alliance and even
overthrow the evil dictator. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Your preferred choice of being friends of liberty
everywhere but guardians only of our own, minding our own business and
developing alternative energy sources such as space based microwave
transmission of solar energy would have been a saner course than either of
the other alternatives, provided the world would leave us alone to pursue
our interests in relative but splendid isolation. Of course, that
isolation would lead us to be hated too.
What ever way we turn we will be cursed and hated.
We need to have the resolve to stick clearly to a course, now that we are
so far underway.
Excelsior,
Bruce Edwards www.TruthMaster.com
Yes I expect so: being totally unpredictable has
its advantages, but perhaps not this time.
Of all sad words of tongue and pen,
The saddest are these, 'it might have been.'
And another look at the Dell Dude:
From: Stephen M. St. Onge saintonge@hotmail.com
Date: Feb. 15, 2003 subject: the Dell dude
Dear Jerry:
Yeah, the pot bust while wearing a kilt is pretty
funny. Otoh,
"You might know Eagle Scout Ben Curtis . He's
that 'Dude, you're getting a Dell' guy on the TV commercials. On Sept. 11,
2001, the 21-year-old from Chattanooga, Tenn., found himself in the midst
of a crisis.
"He was sleeping in his Lower Manhattan
apartment when an airliner hit the first World Trade Center tower. His
roommate, a photographer, ran to the disaster scene a few blocks away, but
Ben went back to sleep, thinking the noise was a gas explosion. When the
second tower was struck, he got up and looked out the window. Seeing the
fire, he decided his roommate might need help.
"When the first tower collapsed, Ben rushed
into the subway entrance nearby to escape the flying debris. Clouds of
soot poured down into the tunnel. He took his shirt off and tied it around
his face to breathe.
"A woman came down the stairs with a severe
gash on her head. 'At first I was completely freaked out,' he said, 'but
then my Scout training came back to me.' He used his shirt as a pressure
bandage and helped the woman to safety." Not to shabby a performance,
imao. (From Boy's Life, http://www.boyslife.org/archives/2002/09/sia.html
via Lileks http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0203/021203.html
. )
Best, Stephen
DELENDAM ESSE SAUDI ARABIA!
Well, as many know, I am all for leaving drugs
entirely to the states to begin with: I don't know what Amendment allows
Congress to make marijuana a crime. And I doubt I'd be in favor of a state
prohibition of possession for use.
From: Stephen M. St. Onge saintonge@hotmail.com
Date: Feb. 15, 2003 subject: France, Russia, and
'thinning blood'
Dear Jerry:
I doubt French or Russian policy has anything to do
with cowardice. Certainly both countries have used their militaries in
recent years to support their own perceived interests.
Instead, I believe they are playing the old game of
'tear down the strongest' (as Fletcher Pratt, in _The Battles That Changed
History_, described the policy of the successor states to Alexander's
empire).
Thanks to rest of the world's fatheadedness, we have
become the globe's only 'hyper-power.' They can't challenge us directly,
so they encourage Saddam and other supporters of terrorism to annoy and
distract us. Disgusting, ungrateful, unprincipled, betraying a great
misunderstanding of the United States, possibly suicidal in the long run .
. . but if you were running French policy, and wanted your country to
_matter_ internationally again, what would you do?
As for the Russians, well, if Saddam goes, who's
going to pay those debts Iraq owes them?
The redoubtable Mark Steyn, otoh, thinks its all a
French ploy to bring down Tony Blair, thus ensuring French predominance in
the new European Union. http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=
{E661B701-D213-48BB-B83E-2F1B6C19BA66} But Steyn goes on to say
"The French have an interest in a Europe that's a counterweight to
America, but none at all in a Europe that's as pro-American as Blair and
the Vilnius Group are," so maybe we aren't so far apart.
Btw, on the subject of misunderstanding the United
States, see http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html
, for an article I found very interesting and important.
Best, Stephen
DELENDAM ESSE SAUDI ARABIA!
I am rapidly becoming less interested in the
whole mess. Which I suppose is a failing, but I have a novel to do. The
French view of realpolitik is sometimes odd.
Now from someone who clearly hasn't been reading
me very long:
Frankly, I could care a lot more than I do about
Ariel Sharon's well-being. If the Alien Space Bats took him, or smashed
Israel flat, I wouldn't care. Nobody has ever once explained to me why we
in the US seem to feel that we have to be concerned about Israel, except
that there are a lot of people who think that its existence means that the
Rapture is just around the corner. As a firm non-believer in such things,
I would far rather we had never become so closely identified with the
Israelis and what they do. Like it or not, when Israel is the single
biggest recipient of our foreign aid, people tend to feel that we share
some responsibility for what they do, and that goes double, triple and
with horseradish sauce on it when we refuse to condemn them for things
we'd condemn anybody else for. I have always thought that George
Washington's advice about "passionate attachments" to other
countries was excellent.
That said, if you don't like the situation vis-a-vis
Sharon and the Belgian courts, you should have raised a stink earlier when
Pinochet was arrested in _Britain_ on a _Spanish_ warrant for
"crimes" that had taken place in _Chile._ Whatever you think of
Pinochet, this set a precedent. Today Henry Kissinger can't travel to some
countries because they want to grab him for so-called "war
crimes" committed during the Vietnam War, and for allegedly
masterminding the coup in Chile. (Paranthetically, I could make a very
good case that the "war crimes" in question---violation of the
neutrality of Cambodia and Laos---were perfectly justified. Neutrality has
obligations as well as benefits, and one of those obligations is not
allowing your territory to be used as a sanctuary for attacks by one side
in a war. If you allow your territory to be so used, you have no beef
coming when the other side attacks you.) When the Pinochet arrest was
allowed to stand, the seeds of future trouble were sown.
Oh, and I should mention that the Entebbe scenario
almost certainly wouldn't work in Europe. Even though they aren't what
they were, European militaries are quite a bit more on-the-ball than their
sub-Saharan African counterparts.
Eric Oppen [oppen @mycns.net]
First, I certainly did protest the English action
against Pinochet, which, if nothing else, was one of the major reasons why
no dictator will ever lay down power again; one would think even the
English House of Lords would know that.
Secondly, I thought my opposition to passionate
attachments of any kind and to anyone was also well known; why in the
world are you lecturing ME on this subject? And I find Sharon someone less
than likable, and I don't much care what happens to him either. He is not quite in the same league as Begin who was instrumental
in the murder of Bernadotte and probably in some of the early atrocities
of the Stern Gang during the first Israeli war, but not very likable
either. In neither case, though, were there crimes against the Senate and
People of the United States.
In the world I grew up in, a man might be required to sacrifice
his honor for his country, but when he did so he retired; he didn't go on
to become Prime Minister. But those are personal sentiments.
What concerns me is that every little state
now thinks it wields the Sword Of Justice For All Humanity. That can't be
good. Particularly since it cuts all ways, and not all those who assert
the right to enforce universal justice will base their definitions on
Roman and Common Law. I can just see Bangla Desh insisting on cutting off
the hands of the Enron executives.
As to Entebbe, of course that's not how a rescue
would go. I never imagined that it would. But if you want to place bets on
the Belgian Special Forces vs. the Israelis, I'll take your bets. Belgian
forces fought well and honorably in WW I and WW II, but that was a long
time ago. Leave it: if you like to stipulate that Belgium can defend
itself after kidnapping an Israeli official, you may. Me, I would rather
not be part of that in any event.
But it's a bad precedent. If you can persuade a
dictator to retire, you ought then to keep your word and let him retire;
not because he deserves anything, but to make it easier to persuade the
next one that he has something to lose by fighting to the end.
Way back a long time ago, I heard Barry Goldwater,
candidate for President, suggest that the United States ought to bomb any
part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail that carried forces and supplies to the
enemies of the Republic of South Viet Nam, no matter where the trail led
including in neutral Laos and Cambodia. I heard Lyndon Johnson, President
of the United States, denounce Barry Goldwater's suggestion as "the
most trigger happy thing" he had ever heard. I had in front of me the
strike photos of our bombs falling on the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos even
as that exchange was being made. I happen to know (now) that both Johnson and
Goldwater had copies of those photos. Goldwater of course couldn't say
anything without violating the secrecy laws. Neither could the rest of us
who knew that what Johnson was denouncing as a trigger suggestion was in
fact US policy at the time. I wondered then from whom the secret was being
kept: presumably not from the North Vietnamese, since they probably knew
when the bombs fell on them. They probably told Russia and China, too. But
it was still Secret.
But no one I knew then thought that the
"neutrality" of Laos or Cambodia was an important matter given
that they were being used as sanctuary areas for belligerents.
I know something of International Law on the
rights and obligations of neutrals. Of course neither Laos nor Cambodia
had the capability of disarming and interning the belligerents using their
countries as supply lines...
Precisely what that has to do with Belgium acting
as if it were the Holy Roman Empire revived, with the right to try heads
of government for crimes committed against non-Belgians in lands never
governed by Belgium is I fear beyond me, though.
My guess is that if Belgium, or Britain for that
matter, wants to arrest Henry Kissinger on a Spanish warrant they may find
out what US Special Forces are capable of. I was mildly surprised to
discover that Chile, which is a rather proud country with naval
traditions, didn't take more action in the Pinochet affair. Heh. This
government expects Perdikardis alive or Rissouli dead...
And Joanne Dow on war and the UN:
I have come to the point of declaring that there is
just cause to toss the UN out of the US and pull the US out of the UN for
the simple reason that it does not and can not perform the primary
function in its charter. It did not prevent Gulf War chapter 1. It did not
prevent the Twin Towers event. More to the point it cannot perform these
functions. And more in the point it fosters them.
Ashutos Varshney, a political scientist at the
University of Michigan has looked at why wars and civil strife happen from
a somewhat different perspective than usual. The usual view seems to be
from the top down, leadership down to the people. Ashutos has pointed out
that the leadership cannot go to war without the support of the people.
Therefore the leadership, be they national leaders or charismatic rebels,
attempt to inflame public opinion. We all know this cycle having seen and
in many cases experienced it ourselves.
The importance I found in Ashutos' work is his study
of times war or civil strife did not happen, particularly in India, his
birthplace. He noted that the communities and cities that had networks of
professional and labor associations that were purely secular and not
aligned along religious or ethnic lines tend to prevent war. These
organizations intertwine the interests of people who might not ever meet
each other in other environments. This was rather dramatically
demonstrated in India during periods of Hindu/Moslem rioting. One
particular form of association, intermarriage, however, can foster more
problems than they solve. But for the most part when the people play
together and join the same trade associations the city is not as
"riot prone" as when these groups are heavily segregated. I
believe this is the reason the Farakahn's of the world foster segregation.
it makes it easier to demonize the opponents.
Some description of this work can be found in this
interview: http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/
opinterview.jsp?id=ns23821
Now. if I look at the UN behaviors it is rightly
respecting ethnic lines. It is fostering the strife it is supposed to be
mitigating. It has fostered the environments in which Mugabes, Saddams.
and bin Ladens can thrive. As such it needs to be eliminated as a cause of
world strife.
Alas, I fear this is too late and that we may be
headed for a WWIII global war, that hopefully will not go thermonuclear.
As we become preoccupied with Iraq in Baghdad the neighboring countries
will move in to carve out their pieces of Iraq. We'll vet Baghdad and
nothing else out of the exercise. And "they" tell me it's for
the oil.
Maybe we should not be preserving old
"ethnics" and "ways" and instead should be creating
new ones with blends of the old. Change is the road to the future, always.
{^_^}
Well, stability is valuable too...
I do not vouch for or deny the authenticity of
the following:
Subject: Don't shoot - We're Republicans
http://webhome.idirect.com/~jproc/radiostor/porter.html
The unfortunate history of the American destroyer
William D. Porter.
It's a hoot. {^_^}
I never heard that story before.
But friends in the Pentagon more or less confirm
it.
USS Porter's history on a .mil web site: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/
sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd579.htm
The Department of the Navy's web page is a bit less
luridly written -- the five-inch guns aboard WWII destroyers aren't
generally called 'heavy' weapons -- but it confirms most of what the
Sacramento Bee reporter said.
Incidentally, DDG 78, a Burke Class destroyer, is
also named for Commodore Porter.
v/r, Rod McFadden
From: Stephen M. St. Onge saintonge@hotmail.com
Date: Feb. 15, 2003
subject: possibly interesting, or, the war may
already be on
Dear Jerry:
See this piece in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/articles/A331-2003Feb12.html Apparently, this will NOT be
Gulf War II operationally.
Best, Stephen
DELENDAM ESSE SAUDI ARABIA!
Indeed. We have been hearing these stories for a couple of weeks.
James Woolsey has some thoughts on my late night
mail:
Jerry,
Just a few brief comments....
(a) IMHO, after thinking about the current
situation, the time to have made a decision to withdraw from supporting
Israel was in 1948. Having made that committment, we cannot back down,
even now.
(b) If Sharon is guilty of war crimes, Arafat surely
is also. Is Belgium also going to try to arrest him? I'm sure they could
do so now with Israel's blessings...
(c) Sharon is caught between a rock and a hard
place. The most nearly exact sociological analogy understandable to
Americans would be an uprising of the Native American population which
resulted in about 45,000 deaths over the past three years. (Ratio of
populations x the 1000 Israelis killed by Palestinian suicide bombers in
the past three years). If that were to happen (though it's very unlikely,
since the relevant Native American wars were mostly settled by the
beginning of the last century), the American population would
understandably be up in arms about it, bulldozing reservations and taking
other actions that they otherwise would not now contemplate. Spider
Robinson's fictionalized "Second Civil War" of African-American
vs. Anglo-American populations ("Night of Power" and various
short stories) would be a similar analogy. I thought that the last accords
in Israel were supposed to make the Palestinian population self-policing
for terrorists; what Israel is doing is enforcing that requirement. The
mechanism is horrendous and may be making things worse -- but I personally
can't think of any other possible, defensible course of action which
offers a snowball's chance of success. (I presume that announcing a US
sponsored relocation of one population or the other to a new location is
impossible at this point, and the genocide of either populaiton to be
indefensible, though that IS the stated policy of the Palestinian
terrorists towards Israel. We should all be glad that Israel hasn't
responded in kind.)
I don't find much to argue with there except the
first sentence, and I am not even sure about that one. I have often said I
am glad I am not in charge in Israel.
But I do think accepting Bernadotte's murderer as
PM was a bit much.
Jerry...
You posted my mail as by "James Woolsey."
Please note that I'm not R. James Woolsey, former
DCI.
I'm James K. Woosley (note spelling), sometime
radiation physicist, chemical agent demilitarization process
engineer/scientist, missile defense systems engineer, propulsion
chemist/physicist, astro/particle physicist, safety/security consultant,
aspiring counterterrorism consultant, aspiring optical remote chemical
sensing specialist, aspiring FTL drive inventor, and aspiring SF/fantasy
writer. (I could probably throw in schizophrenia with that kind of a
resume for free....) In other words, I know just barely enough about
everything to be dangerous ("a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing.")
Thanks again,
Jim Woosley
Right, I knew that but it's well to be on the
record here.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW
Entire Site Copyright, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 by Jerry
E. Pournelle. All rights reserved. |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
