| Thursday,
July 26, 2007
This refers to my comments about Ron
Paul, Iraq, and the Legions If you have not read that, read it first.
Jerry, on Wednesday's View, you said, "Before I would
adopt an Iraq policy, I would want to know a great deal more about what the
Legions believe we must do."
But the soldiers in Iraq are not the Legions of Rome;
indeed they are not even the citizen-soldiers of the Republic of the US.
What they are is nothing more than employees of the federal government, with
as little - or as much - political pull as any other federal bureaucracy.
Which is the reason why the army can be, and is, misused by Mad George. IOW,
no politician cares what the soldiers think. For the soldiers, it's "shut up
and soldier", and very unlikely that their commanders would try to seize
power.
Let's get out of Iraq now. I can see no tactic today
which will allow us to get out without massive Iraqi bloodshed, either now
or later. As far as I can tell there are already three civil wars raging
there, with the army suffering the death of a thousand cuts by being in the
middle of the various factions. That alone will ensure the "fury of the
Legions" you so often refer to.
We have already destroyed the honor of the United
States by these so-called preemptive wars. Continuing such wars only makes
the situation worse and gives our leaders an excuse to take us from a
Republic, not into an Empire, but instead into an outright tyranny.
One last thought. You have considerable influence with
your readers and your political contacts. If you should back Congressman
Paul this early, you may well help him to buy the time he needs to pull
together a coalition of conservatives from all the parties. H. Ross Perot
scared the bejeebers out of the Dems and Repubs by doing this - but they
quickly forgot the lesson. Congressman Paul is the only candidate today who
might have a chance of slowing the US's headlong march into tyranny. Or who
even wants to try.
Cheers, Brian Claypool
Begin here: if the war in Iraq is truly
lost and the troops know it, then of course we ought to be looking at how to
extract the army from that theater. If we must cut our losses and run, then
we should do that. Apparently Ron Paul believes that. I don't doubt
his sincerity. I presume Harry Reid and most Democrats believe it too; they
say so often enough.
But is that the situation? Is it
inevitable? There seem to be signs that we are in fact winning, that the
Iraqis of all factions are beginning to believe that there is hope for
stability and the rule of law. This is a matter of projections: what can we
accomplish in Iraq if we are determined to stay? One thing is certain if we
cut and run now, everyone will be convinced that the result will be Made in
America. Our troops will believe their comrades bled and died in vain, not
because we were defeated, but because they were betrayed by the politicians.
It is not at all clear to me that the Army
believes that we are defeated. There's considerable evidence that the
Legions believe we can win. I would never have sent them to Iraq, but now
that this is done, do we not owe them the chance to put things back
together? I understand that this won't be easy.
Regarding the nature of the Legions:
you're wrong. Dead wrong.
These are not hirelings, civil servants
with the typical bureaucratic mentality. These are warriors, mostly citizen
volunteers, others citizen candidates. They are not stupid cannon fodder,
nor are they timeservers.
What we have in Iraq is the best trained
and best equipped military force on the planet. Your assessment is wrong.
As to Mr. Paul, I doubt my endorsement is
all that important to his future. I agree that a candidate determined to
restore the Old Republic will terrify the country club Republicans and the
fever swamp Democrats. Had not Mr. Paul committed himself to an instant
retreat from Iraq I would be an enthusiastic supporter.
I have hated our Middle East entanglements
since before the First Gulf War. No one wants us out of there more than me.
But I want to bring our soldiers home with their heads high.
==
From a serving officer no longer in
theater:
http://op-for.com/2007/07/a_new_citizen.html
"Caption: U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Sona Babani, 20, an
Iraqi native -- with Jim Nicholson, secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, center, and Gregory Christian, Washington director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services -- is congratulated on becoming a
citizen. (By Nikki Kahn -- The Washington Post)
"I am an American. I am a citizen of a country I am
fighting for," Babani said, explaining her desire to become a citizen. "It's
kind of personal. I have loved America since I was little."
Marine, you have more integrity and courage than many
of your fellow citizens who haven't seen one percentage of the horrors
you've seen. Welcome aboard!
(PS: And kudos to WaPo for a good article.)"
Having recently discussed foreigners in the service.
Now go see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
This is quite well done and I recommend it
to your attention.
==
Bird's Eye View
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/birds-eye-view.htm
"The idea is to get the Iraqis to run their own cities
but most of the old leaders are gone, and the new ones are like throwing
babies to cow udders. Many just don't know what to do, and in any case, most
of them have no natural instinct for it. So our soldiers are mentoring Iraqi
civil leaders, which is a huge education for me because I get to sit in on
the meetings. The American leaders tell me what they are up to, which
amounts for free Ph.D. level instruction in situ: just have to be willing to
be shot at. (The education a writer can get here is unbelievable.) Meeting
after meeting—after embeds in Nineveh, Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala—I have seen
how American officers tend to have a hidden skill-set. Collectively,
American military leaders seem to somehow intuitively know how to run the
mechanics of a city. ...
I have wondered now for two years why is it that
American military leaders somehow seem to naturally know what it takes to
run a city, while many of the local leaders seem clueless. Over time, a
possible answer occurred, and that nudge might be due to how the person who
runs each American base is referred to as the "Mayor." A commander's first
job is to take care of his or her forces. Our military is, in a sense its
own little country, with city-states spread out all around the world. Each
base is like a little city-state. The military commander must understand how
the water, electricity, sewerage, food distribution, police, courts,
prisons, hospitals, fire, schools, airports, ports, trash control, vector
control, communications, fuel, fiscal budgeting, fire, for his "city" all
work. They have "embassies" all over the world and must deal diplomatically
with local officials in Korea, Germany, Japan and many dozens of other
nations. The U.S. military even has its own space program, which few
countries have. In short, our military is a reasonable microcosm of the
United States – sans the very important business aspect which actually
produces the wealth the military depends on. The requisite skill-set to run
a serious war campaign involves a subset of skills that include diplomacy
and civil administration."
Thought you'd find this interesting.
Graves
==
Subject: What do the Legions think?
Dr. Pournelle The concept of asking the people who are
actually paying the piper what should be done in Iraq certainly hits the
mark. Too bad there is no process to limit a plebiscite just to people who
are directly involved. The answer might be startling. Not only as regards
Iraq but in any number of things. My son, currently in Iraq, thinks that we
should stay. Not just for the Iraqis but to ensure we are not held to be a
laughing stock in the world and have to battle again far sooner than we
would normally need to.
As far as causing more death and destruction than
Saddam ever did I would point you to the recent Michelle Malkin article for
additional data. Even before I read this article in my mind the number of
fatalities is at least a question still to be resolved. >
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/25/document-
drop-a-new-critique-of-the-2004-lancet-iraq-death-toll-study/
Thank you very much for both hosting and contributing
to a site where people can disagree or agree but they will certainly LEARN!
Best regards
Ed C
That is certainly my goal. Thanks for the
kind words.
There are many consequences of defeat. One
is the need to demonstrate that even wounded lions are dangerous. Make no
mistake: if we cut and run in Iraq, that is defeat. It is my major
disagreement with Ron Paul. I do not want to bring a defeated army home. I
do not want the American Legion to become the Stahlhut.
==========
Subject: I beg to differ
Jerry,
You said,
Actually, we clearly don't believe in any of the
ideals we want to export to other nations. Instead, we disarm the citizens,
express horror at the notion that people can assist in protecting
themselves, and we allow conspirators to set up the citizens and then sue
hell out of them. It is as if we are determined to progress from republic to
empire.
I don't disagree with any of your summary arguments,
or that we are determined to move away from the Republic in some direction.
However, I'm not at all sure that the current chaotic
meandering could be referred to as progress, and I regretfully submit that
"satrapy of the Caliphate" may be a more likely terminal point of our
journey than "Empire," though perhaps if we're lucky a more benign
plutocracy may be in the offing.
J.
Oddly enough, I think the Legions will
prevent that. Perhaps not. But imperial actions and policies generate
Empire. Even in a democracy like Athens.
======
========
Pentagon looks to the Internet for Space Solar Power
Study
<<070725_techwed_pentagon_spacepower.url>>
Jerry:
Thought you might be interested in this.
...........Karl Lembke
Shortcut to:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070725_techwed_pentagon_spacepower.html
=========
Politically Correct Apes
Bonobos are celebrated as peace-loving, matriarchal, and sexually
liberated. Are they?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker
Following link leads to graphic depiction
related to above article. Some may find it salacious.
http://www.scienzz.de/magazin/upload/forschung6/Sexanthr-Bonobos.jpg
Is there anything now that isn't?
JD
========
Dr. Pournelle:
I came across this tribute to Heinlein in this
morning's Wall Street Journal:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010381 <http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010381>
In my mind I was taken back 35 years (to the 6th
grade), when I first read Between Planets.
Best regards,
Bill Kelly
Indeed. I missed Between Planets when it
was published, being out of high school and otherwise engaged; but it is one
of my favorite Heinlein stories.
========
Subject: Renewable Energy Wrecks
Environment
Jerry, I think a lot of us had already figured out
that burning food to run our cars is not a good idea, but this analysis puts
numbers to the insanity.
Gordon
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070724160209.htm>
Renewable does not mean green. That is the
claim of Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York.
Writing in Inderscience's International Journal of Nuclear Governance,
Economy and Ecology, Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms,
damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy
demands will wreck the environment.
Ausubel has analyzed the amount of energy
that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms of Watts of
power output per square meter of land disturbed. He also compares the
destruction of nature by renewables with the demand for space of nuclear
power. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims, "Considered in Watts per
square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors."
On this basis, he argues that technologies
succeed when economies of scale form part of their evolution. No
economies of scale benefit renewables. More renewable kilowatts require
more land in a constant or even worsening ratio, because land good for
wind, hydropower, biomass, or solar power may get used first.
A consideration of each so-called renewable
in turn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables.
Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about
900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall,
and storing it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the
total power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains.
Put another way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide the
electricity for just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient
and destructive of nature. To power a large proportion of the USA, vast
areas would need to be shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same
electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would
require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of
biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must
spare land for nature. Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2
hectares."
Turning to wind Ausubel points out that
<snip>
==
Subject: Priests of Environmentalism openly accuse
another of heretical teachings
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12346-renewable-energy-could-rape-nature.html
Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of
Rockefeller University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are
quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale,
the fallout is going to be horrible."
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of
nuclear. "If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy
solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and
nuclear power."
later in the article
"To have a debate on the various issues is good, but
setting himself up as a demagogue with this heretical stuff, takes away from
the focus and value of the debate," says John Turner of the US government's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Then again, it might just be an instance of the Iron
Law, since Renewable Energy would lose funding if an effective non-renewable
resource is found.
Will Albenzi
Clearly I have always agreed. Lord, we
miss Petr Beckmann.
===========
THE VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE
Forget What You've Seen On Star Trek
There's more to deep space than starbows.
As camera pixels grow smaller, telescopic Infrared
images of the sky are growing ever more refined. A new mosaic of the whole
Milky Way just released by Japan's JAXA program may inadvertently provide a
futuristic glimpse of the real view from a starship bridge racing toward the
galactic center
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/07/the-blazing-sky.html
-- Russell Seitz
=============w
f
g
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
iPhone Exploit 
