So now the far-left loons in the media are saying there really isnt an organized terror threat in the world and this whole war on terror deal is a hype job. That must come as great comfort to the thousands of families who lost loved ones on 9/11. They must really appreciate the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorializing: After nearly six years of hearing the Bush administration make assertions about the war on terrorism that turn out - to put it kindly - overblown. . .
Im just wondering how overblown the terror war is for the 5,000 injured when al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, not to mention the 257 human beings who were murdered in that attack. But it might be hard to comprehend overblown when youre dead.
The nutty professor Paul Krugman, who teaches at Princeton and writes op-ed lunacy for The New York Times [NYT], is also on the diminish-terror bandwagon. This is from his desk: There isnt any such thing as Islamofascism - its not an ideology; its a figment of the neocon imagination.
Thats like saying there is no such thing as stupidity, right, Professor?
Maybe we should ask the families of the 40 dead and 300 injured in the London subway bombings, or the friends of the 202 dead in the Bali, Indonesia, attack on a Kuta Beach nightclub to comment on Krugmans opinion.
And how about Professor Paul Campos, who teaches at the University of Colorado, still the home of Ward Churchill? Campos wrote in the Rocky Mountain News: (Conservatives) have helped create a fear of terrorism out of all proportion to the actual threat terrorism poses.
Lets run that by the 1,500 human beings hurt in the Madrid train bombing. Unfortunately, the 197 people killed in that al-Qaeda attack are not available to comment.
The hits just keep on coming in the liberal media. Gen. Wesley Clark, a commentator on NBC News, says that Osama bin Laden is not an existential threat to America. The general believes that the terrorist and his crew could not destroy the entire nation. Just some of us.
Swell.
The reason the committed left media is putting out this nonsense is politics. The biggest strength on the Republican side this presidential season is fighting terrorism. All of the Democratic candidates are perceived to be soft in this area because they do not support specific anti-terror measures and are scared stiff by the far-left Internet smear merchants who believe worldwide terrorism is Americas fault.
This is no ideological game here. All over the world, thousands are dead and maimed because Muslim killers believe they can attack civilians at will and the West is too weak to stop them.
Judging by what is passing for editorial comment these days, bin Laden and his cutthroats may be right. Differences in opinion over how to fight terrorism are legitimate and necessary. But downgrading the lethal threat is irresponsible in the extreme
#2
There isnt any such thing as Islamofascism - its not an ideology; its a figment of the neocon imagination.
This just in: Cognitive dissonance no longer the exclusive domain of Muslims.
All of the Democratic candidates are perceived to be soft in this area because they do not support specific anti-terror measures and are scared stiff by the far-left Internet smear merchants who believe worldwide terrorism is Americas fault.
Which, essentially, makes all of the democratic party's candidates anti-American. To fear the wrath of those who are so morally and intellectually bankrupt as to blame America for Islam's ancient jihadist agenda is to concede the battle to our enemies. That is tantamount to treason.
1. Most of the people who push this meme believe they live in places where they will not be attacked. As a corollary, they believe that because they voted for John Kerry, the Islamostalinists would spare them. The irony being, of course, that these types would be the very first to be beheaded.
2. Believing that the Islamicist threat is an existential one is impossible for these folks. That would mean that there was some greater evil in the world than white male Christian heterosexual non-Marxists (the real existential threat, doncha know), and this simply cannot be the case, because believing that said white male Christian heterosexual non-Marxists are the greatest evil in the universe is the foundation upon which their entire world-view is based. They believe this to such an extent that the cognitive dissonance created by the notion of something being more evil is insurmountable, whether due to a lack of intellect, or simple mental laziness,or garden variety prejudice.
3. The left, in fact, does not believe that there is anything called stupidity. So much so that all the new mommy books out there have wigged out 80% of women under 40 into thinking it's the worst word a child can hear an adult saying. Check it out some time. Children are no longer allowed to know that there is a quality known as "stupidity" and God forbid they use the term, or that someone apply it to said child when the situation is appropriate.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/05/2007 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
Madeleine Bunting wrote a different column about for the London Guardian today. As victory nears, she blames the media for failing to report the news to her liking.
She cited Dahr Jamail, whom she described as a mountain guide in Alaska in 2003 who began to take an interest in US foreign policy.
Dahr Jamail decided to become an independent reporter in Iraq reporting the war from the civilian side. Said Bunting: After more than three years of reporting he has post-traumatic stress disorder, but has not lost his conviction that if the people of the United States had the real story about what their government has done in Iraq, the occupation would already have ended.
Bunting goes on to blast the media for not reporting the real story about what their government has done in Iraq.
Heres the problem with that: It has.
The trouble is so many of those Americans-are-evil stories turned out to be untrue or exaggerations at best. . . .
Bunting now blames the media for not reporting the horrors of war because if it had, the public would want the troops to be brought home immediately.
Seems to me that happened.
And yet we stayed and seem to be winning.
Buntings column began with praise for a fictional suicide bomber: Her assertion sticks in the mind because it goes straight to the heart of how we choose to forget, choose not to understand; and how from such choices it becomes possible to imagine our innocence.
After all the made-up stories and doctored photos, I can see why Bunting prefers to believe in fictional characters rather than real people.
What a fun world that Bunting must live in. All the evil of the world resides at 10 Downing Street and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and only she can see it.
Along with fictional suicide bombers.
And Captain Jamil Hussein, of course.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2007 12:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Madeleine Bunting got taken apart by humans when she chose to interview Al Qaradawi.
There are many questions that should be put to Al Qaradawi. For example, we know that Qaradawi endorses the punishment of homosexuality by stoning, being thrown from a high building, being whipped 100 times or imprisonment until death. But there has been some debate as to which of these punishments Qaradawi thinks the state that he hopes to create should impose.
I hope Madeleine Bunting will take this opportunity to ask him which of these punishments he favours.
Mr. Bay drops the hammer. The splatter ain't pretty.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/05/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hey, you pay this government 3 trillion a year - often for jobs that are hard and dangerous. If they are not selfless enough to do the hard stuff, FIRE THEM ALL and find someone with intestinal fortitude. This state department is a shame. Hear me rice?
How can you run the NFL - a run me beat me sport if you cannot run SD?
My military is tired of "filling in" for your short falls.
#4
I wouldnt want a man like Croddy in my Area of Operations, no matter how intelligent or experienced he is. For that matter, I dont want him in our State Department he is a terrible example. Character and courage matter in diplomacy. Mr. Croddy exhibits neither. Rather, he is a profile in whining.
Right on!
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2007 6:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hopefully the whining is because the enema is finally being given.
#6
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it!
Posted by: bruce ||
11/05/2007 7:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I disagree on the need for increased pay. That is precisely one of the problems: high pay tend to attract people more interested in what the country can do for them than on waht they can do for their country.
(Notice; Low pay has otyher drawbaxks: like forcing peole who are good and like their job to quit because they have children and can't provide them the best).
#9
Austin overlooks the obvious. In any bureaucracy or organization - work flows towards competency regardless of what the 'wire diagram' shows.
Just as some intel functions were moved or retained at DoD because of ineffective and non-responsive behaviors in other agencies, the same goes here. Maybe instead of trying to fit square pegs in round holes or trying to make 'systems' fit desire over function, we need to step back and rearrange things to fit based upon real world behaviors.
When the situation warrants it, the diplomacy is the responsibility [to include funding and manpower] of the man in theater. Nothing prohibits cross attachments or supplementing. However, while the work is interesting and wooly, best left to the boys willing to do violence without interference. After the settlers have moved in and are ready for statehood, then the 'professional' bureaucrats can come in and 'manage'. Till then, the popinjays can sip their lattes and read their NYTs on the Potomac.
#11
Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone, said Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces. Its one thing if someone believes in whats going on over there and volunteers, but its another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment, Croddy said. Im sorry, but basically thats a potential death sentence and you know it.
Gotcha! So, assignments should be based upon personal agendas? Every man jack of these upper class twits must be clamoring for attachment to the Paris delegation. All of thisfrom the Oval Office on downis a direct byproduct of the Ivy League intellectual elitism that has infested our government. It is much like the situation in America's corporate culture where the board room no longer looks to those who have risen through the ranks and instead worships the Harvard MBA as a standard of excellence. Our government and industry are crowded with wankers who've never had to get their hands dirty doing any real heavy lifting. These privileged academes pretend to be our intellectual betters as they cherry-pick their way through moral dilemmas.
#13
Imagine all those State Department employees who did volunteer to work in Iraq. Now they are to be tarred by association with the dregs to be assigned to the post.
Time to start firing people at State. Most probably starting with Dr. Rice.
#14
Time to start firing people at State. Most probably starting with Dr. Rice.
Amen! She has been a BIG disappointment!
Posted by: Phurong Prince of the Apes6029 ||
11/05/2007 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I protest! They are Ivy League snobs, not elitists. Elitists have real and significant successes that they can point to. Snobs are proud merely of where they've been and who they are, as evidenced by the silly things and people they know. I speak as a matter of personal expertise, being a snob married to an elitist. (You'd be surprised at how snobby I can be about having thrown imaginary tea parties for you-all!)
Suggest it be translated to Latin and carved over the Foggy Bottom entrance. I think the solution is to eliminate the State Dept as an independent bureaucracy. Integrate it into the only functioning worldwide command structure the US has and assign it's members as a branch to that area of responsibility (e.g. CENTCOM, AFRICOM, etc.). Only when the State Dept. Dips report to the area commanders, who are held responsible for the day to day operations of their area, and get immediate feedback will their performance improve.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2007 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I protest!
You don't have to get all snooty about it. Well ... actually, I suppose you do.
#19
If memory serves, wasn't it Madeleine Albright's "limp and unmanageable hair" response to Saddam Husseins' inquiries that encouraged him to invade Kuwait?
Seem's to me that the state department needs to understand the consequences of their actions.
#21
i think there could be some middle ground here. Give these people choices. if you don't want to go to Iraq. Fine. Totally understandable. Hell might be hiring. Why don't you try filling out an application and see how it goes?
April Gillespie, U.S. ambassador to Iraq at the time.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2007 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#23
The best solution would be canvassing all State employees and see which ones object to mandatory tours of duty in Iraq. Use that list as the first round of candidates to be sent and make sure they are assigned the diplomatic equivalent of street sweeping jobs to keep them from making trouble.
These mincing little gits need to understand that serving your country is just that, serving. Not bellying up to the trough, not cherry-picking your assignments but responding to the needs of your country.
India is in serious danger no, not from Pakistan or internal strife. India is in danger from an Indian-made vehicle: a $2,500 passenger car, the worlds cheapest.
Indias Tata Motors recently announced that it plans to begin turning out a four-door, four-seat, rear-engine car for $2,500 next year and hopes to sell one million of them annually, primarily to those living at the bottom of the pyramid in India and the developing world.
Welcome to one of the emerging problems of the flat world: Blessedly, many more people now have the incomes to live an American lifestyle, and the Indian and Chinese low-cost manufacturing platforms can deliver them that lifestyle at lower and lower costs. But the energy and environmental implications could be enormous, for India and the world.
We have no right to tell Indians what cars to make or drive. But we can urge them to think hard about following our model, without a real mass transit alternative in place. Cheap conventional four-wheel cars, which would encourage millions of Indians to give up their two-wheel motor scooters and three-wheel motorized rickshaws, could overwhelm Indias already strained road system, increase its dependence on imported oil and gridlock the countrys megacities.
Yes, Indian families whose only vehicle now is a two-seat scooter often make two trips back and forth to places to get their whole family around, so a car that could pack a family of four is actually a form of mini-mass transit. And yes, Tata, by striving to make a car that could sell for $2,500, is forcing the entire Indian auto supply chain to become much more efficient and therefore competitive.
But heres whats also true: Last week, I was driving through downtown Hyderabad and passed the dedication of a new overpass that had taken two years to build. A crowd was gathered around a Hindu priest in a multicolored robe, who was swinging a lantern fired by burning coconut shells and praying for safe travel on this new flyover, which would lift traffic off the streets below.
The next morning I was reading The Sunday Times of India when my eye caught a color photograph of total gridlock, showing motor scooters, buses, cars and bright yellow motorized rickshaws knotted together. The caption: Traffic ends in bottleneck on the Greenlands flyover, which was opened in Hyderabad on Saturday. On day one, the flyover was chockablock with traffic, raising questions over the efficacy of the flyover in reducing vehicular congestion. Thats the strain on Indias infrastructure without a $2,500 car.
So what should India do? It should leapfrog us, not copy us. Just as India went from no phones to 250 million cellphones skipping costly land lines and ending up with, in many ways, a better and cheaper phone system than we have it should try the same with mass transit.
India cant ban a $2,500 car, but it can tax it like crazy until it has a mass transit system that can give people another cheap mobility option, said Sunita Narain, the dynamo who directs New Delhis Center for Science and Environment and got Indias Supreme Court to order the New Delhi bus system to move from diesel to compressed natural gas. This greatly improved New Delhis air and forced the Indian bus makers to innovate and create a cleaner compressed natural gas vehicle, which they now export.
I am not fighting the small car, Ms. Narain said. I am simply asking for many more buses and bus lanes a complete change in mobility. Because if we get the $2,500 car we will not solve our mobility problem, we will just add to our congestion and pollution problems.
Charge high prices for parking, charge a proper road tax for driving, deploy free air-conditioned buses that reach every corner of the city, expand the existing beautiful Delhi subway system, and then let the market work, she added.
Why should you care what theyre driving in Delhi? Heres why: The cost of your cellphone is a lot cheaper today because India took that little Western invention and innovated around it so it is now affordable to Indians who make only $2 a day. India has become a giant platform for inventing cheap scale solutions to big problems. If it applied itself to green mass transit solutions for countries with exploding middle classes, it would be a gift for itself and the world.
To do that it must leapfrog. If India just innovates in cheap cars alone, its future will be gridlocked and polluted. But an India that makes itself the leader in both cheap cars and clean mass mobility is an India that will be healthier and wealthier. It will also be an India that gives us cheap answers to big problems rather than cheap copies of our worst habits.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/05/2007 14:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This man is absolutely nauseating. The condescension dripping from every word, the holier than thou attitude, it's just painful.
And the comment from Ms. Narain (stack the deck, force everyone to pay hidden costs) "...and then let the market work"; a 'special understanding' of the market at work here.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/05/2007 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This man is absolutely nauseating. The condescension dripping from every word, the holier than thou attitude, it's just painful.
Go and spend some time in India, pick a city, any city. You might change your tune. The very worst road here, is usually better than the best road there. India needs the Rs. 1 lahk, car like it needs more Maoists.
#3
Is this fool an example of the 'snob' TW was referring to in an earlier post?
Let the Indian market decide; they are smart and will figure out what is best for them.
What India needs is proper roads, and at least double the number of traffic lanes per road, as Lonzo Ometh1773 points out. For perspective, however, a $2,500 car is a decidedly upper middle class purchase in India, which pretty much means those who have inherited money or work for international corporations. One million units sold annually, in a nation whose population is on one or the other side of one billion (I used to know, but I've forgotten), is not going to make a significant increase in traffic, especially if it means half the number of trips for those who've moved up from a motor scooter, ie all of them.
The key is that one million units means high paying, skilled factory jobs plus the add-on jobs for the businesses that support the manufacturers, all of whom and which pay taxes, which will pay for the road construction the affluent and articulate car buyers will soon demand. At any rate, that's how it worked in the U.S., back when Henry Ford had his mass production epiphany. For an editorialist, Mr. Friedman has less understanding of economic principle than I do -- which makes his far to the left of pathetic. I am not so unfair, though, as to expect a dynamo like Ms. Narain to have any understanding of such plebian subjects whatsoever.
#5
they are smart and will figure out what is best for them.
That's a bit optimistic. Corruption and graft are still so pervasive in India that the really big decisions are rarely free of some truly stunning conflicts of interst.
#6
Yes, Mr. freedman, God forbid that peasants in India might have the freedom and ability to go where they want whenever they want.
/sarcasam
Posted by: Mike ||
11/05/2007 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The condescension dripping from every word, the holier than thou attitude, it's just painful.
Attitude is typical of the enviro-zealot. He has the answer that must be imposed on the Indian masses.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/05/2007 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Yes, Mr. freedman, God forbid that peasants in India might have the freedom and ability to go where they want whenever they want.
Like TW said, this car will not be affordable by peasants. The average peasant makes about 1/5 per year the cost of this car. I said average, because a substantial number of those in the peasant category make far less.
And Zensters observation vis-a-vis corruption is spot on, even if a tad understated. Will the car go to market? Yes. Is it a good idea? Not in my opinion. But no one usually listens to me anyway. 8-)
#12
When, in 1907, the Chief Commissioner for Indian Railways Frederick Upcott heard of JRD Tata's plan to produce steel, he said "Do you mean to say that Tatas propose to make steel rails to British specifications? Why, I will undertake to eat every pound of steel rail they succeed in making."
Tata Steel bought Corus (the successor to British Steel) in February 2007.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/05/2007 16:50 Comments ||
Top||
#13
John, There's also Mittal. What's with India and metalurgy?
Jindal Steel and Power Ltd won the development rights for 20 billion tonnes of iron ore reserves in Bolivia, and announced plans to invest $2.3 billion over the next 10 years for mining and setting up a steel plant there.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/05/2007 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#15
What's with India and metalurgy?
A long history
The famed Damascus steel blades were made from wootz ingots inported from India.
The iron pillar of Delhi is one of the world's foremost metallurgical curiosities, standing in the famous Qutb complex.
The pillaralmost seven meters high and weighing more than six tonswas erected by Chandragupta II Vikramaditya (375-413 AD)
The pillar is made up of 98% wrought iron of pure quality. It has attracted the attention of archaeologists and metallurgists as it has withstood corrosion for the last 1600 years, despite harsh weather.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/05/2007 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#16
John, Thanks. That's part of what I love about the burg. There's not much somebody here doesn't know.
I've recently read some of Joseph Needham's work on Chinese science and technology. Has anyone made a similar study of India? I know that they have generated an enormous body of computational and mathematical work. Where could I learn of contributions in other fields?
#17
Maybe India needs to adopt what Heinlein used in his short story, "The Roads Must Roll". Ironically, the idea of moving the roads, not the cars, is not as nonsensical as it used to be.
That is, by selecting a few densely packed transportation corridors, and turning them into what amounts to giant conveyor belts, you could guarantee a consistent speed in both directions, and probably save energy in the process. Even stalled vehicles would not hold up traffic.
This is already being done with pedestrian traffic in many airports, and has proven itself able to move far more people much further and faster than by them just walking. There is also no congestion.
Importantly, the rolling roads need not run around the clock, just at times of peak congestion.
There would be a stationary center safety lane, and perhaps a faster, much narrower moving pedestrian and bicycle lanes on the outside, like in the airports. The main road would be covered by panels that would support vehicles.
Compared to stop-and-go averaging five mph, as well as obstructions that can halt everyone for minutes at a time, a guaranteed ten mph would seem very fast indeed.
#1
The would-be regulators of the worlds climate (and your wallet) will be jetting to Bali this December for Ban Ki-Moons next UN weather fest: UN Climate Change Conference 2007. UN policy allows even the lowlier UN staffers to travel business class on long-haul flights (your tax dollars at work), the better to arrive wined, dined and ready to hit the ground and the beaches and the golf courses and the tennis courts running. Apparently there is so much to discuss that the conference will run for a full fortnight, from Dec. 3-14, at Balis seaside luxury resort of Nusa Dua.
Gah! Can these Diplo-Parasites make it any more clear? How can they even maintain the least pretense of caring about climate change when their conference's choice of venue requires the majority of participants to fly half-way around the world? IN BUSINESS CLASS NO LESS!
Ban Ki Moon has finally shown himself for what he really is. Namely, just another Annan-style blood tick ready to gorge at the public trough. The UN is nothing but a bunch of effete gangsters in striped pants.
#3
Perhaps Amrozi could have some post ramadan parole time.
Posted by: ed ||
11/05/2007 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If they were truly serious about climate change, they would either hold the conference in New York, or better yet, use teleconferencing, so no one would have to travel.
#6
I suggest meeting in Greenland for 10 days in January. Staying in tents, at the base of the receding glacier. Seeing first hand all that scary melted ice. Attendees would probably drop by 99% reducing commesurably the conference's carbon footprint.
Please remember to bring a scarf and your driving gloves...
#7
Not to mention waterproof tarps and sleeping bag covers and thick, handmade Irish sweaters. The ground gets awfully soggy at the base of the glacier, and it's that kind of creeping chill that only lots of hot grog can offset.
Here we go again! Another senior officer has retired and suddenly found his integrity, his manhood, or to be kinder his "voice."
Since the incompetence of the current administration politically and militarily in running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has become, sadly, accepted by almost all, we have been treated to a series of startling revelations by some of the very officers that ran the war. Those that have spoken up are the very officers that planned, and later commanded, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They spoke up, but after the fact, when it would not hurt their precious careers.
Now, anyone who has read these columns, seen me on TV, or heard me on the radio knows that I have been a very harsh critic of those in charge of this war. I have been saddened and enormously frustrated by many of our senior officers' inability to show even a modicum of original thought, bravery, or barring those two necessary ingredients for leadership, at least a basic understanding and love for soldiers. Alas, few seem to measure up to their own soldiers' bravery, basic goodness and innate brilliance.
'Factor' in Iraq So, when former big shots like Gen. Sanchez finally state the obvious that the media has been uneven in their reporting, and in fact has hurt the war effort, that the administration just screwed the pooch on this war, and that Iraq is a nightmare I think, Well hell! Finally, they are speaking up. However, I am also reminded that Sanchez was the guy in charge of Iraq in 2003. He was THE MAN, at least in Iraq. He had direct access to Rummy and could, when he wanted to, talk to the president. Sanchez also could have, at any time, said what he said last week while he was in the Army, when it really would have mattered.
We can all imagine the political storm an active duty three-star, the commander of all Iraq forces, would have made if he had said, The press sucks and the administration can not find its collective ass with both hands, (metaphorically speaking of course). Not one general has ever, at least not in my lifetime, spoken up saying we are not fighting correctly. Col. David Hackworth is the only officer above the rank of Lieutenant Colonel to tell it like it is in public, and that was over 40 years ago. We do not select generals to be outspoken or original in any respect. We select generals to be compliant, get along types who put themselves ahead of their men and women in order to be promoted. This hardly works in time of peace, and in this time of war, it is tantamount to opening our veins and bleeding to death.
I do not like Sanchez. I suspect he became a general for reasons other than competence. Having said that, he was dead right all his points, 100 percent on the money on the administrations failures, the lack of intellectual honesty in the media, and the complicity of the American people in this nightmare in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What eats at me, and what I hope gets to you too, is this: can you imagine what those same words would have meant if they were said from a podium in Iraq, on worldwide television ... or standing on Rummy's chest pointing a finger and yelling at the top of his lungs? Gen. Sanchez did none of these things. He took the cowards way out, and in so doing, he and the rest of us have blood on our hands.
General, you could have really made the difference but you did not; you stood silent, watching your men and women die. You stood silent and watched Abu Ghraib flush this great country's reputation down the toilet; watched as Iraq descended into total chaos. So, while we appreciate you finally finding your manhood, we are not impressed. In fact, we turn our backs to you, waiting to see if anyone who really matters will finally do what you failed to do: tell the truth and care more about their soldiers than about getting their next star.
#1
The degree of confidence exhibited by so many about the decisions on the conduct of the war on Islamofascism amazes me - both from those agreeing with what was done at any given time and those who disagreed. For those on the 'outside' - you have nowhere near complete information on which to build that confidence. For those on the 'inside' (like Sanchez) - even if you were totally aware of everything anyone (on our side) knew, from 2001-2007, you still have no way to know how the enemy would have responded, had we pursued the policy you, in hindsight, think we 'obviously' should have. NOBODY could possibly KNOW what would have been best. It's a crap shoot. You go with your best bet, and adapt as seems fitting. Learn from the past, but don't dwell there - let your enemy dwell there. There lies the road to victory.
#2
TOPIX > FREE MARKET NEWS > BUSH ADMIN HAD SECRET NUCLEAR ATTACK PLANS - agz states aspiring to acquire Nukes-WMDS including Iran, Saddamist Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
#3
It's the difference between a manager and a leader. Peacetime armies have a hellva time to tell the difference. Wartime provides evidence that can't be disputed in open observation.
I received orders to move against Colonel Thomas Harris, who was said to be encamped at the town of Florida, some twenty-five miles south of were we then were Harris had been encamped in a creek bottom for the sake of being near water. The hills on either side of the creek extended to a considerable height, possibly more than a hundred feet. As we approached the brow of the hill from which was expected we could see Harris camp, and possibly find his men ready formed to meet us, my heart kept getting higher and higher until it felt to me as though it was in my throat. I would have given anything then to have been back in Illinois, but I had not the moral courage to halt and consider what to do; I kept right on. When we reached a point from which the valley below was in full view I halted. The place where Harris had been encamped a few days before was still there and the marks of recent encampment were plainly visible, but the troops were gone. My heart resumed its place. It occurred to me at once that Harris had been as much afraid of me as I had been of him. This was a view of the question I had never taken before; but it was one I never forgot afterwards. From that event to the close of the war, I never experienced trepidation upon confronting an enemy, though I always felt more or less anxiety. I never forgot that he had as much reason to fear my forces as I had his. I never forgot that lesson. Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant
Senior ayatollah Montazeris eldest son, Ahmad Montazeri, talked with Rooz in an exclusive interview with the online newssite about his views on the growing international ýpressure on Iran. Here are the excerpts of the interview.
Rooz (R): As you are aware international pressure is on the rise over Iran and the nuclear ýdossier is reaching its critical stage. What is your reading of this?
Ahmad Montazeri (AM): We have to look and conclude what is the value of what we are trying to accomplish and acquire. What must we sacrifice and pay for it. And then compare and conclude whether what we want to get is worth the cost. It appears that at the moment, the territorial integrity of the country is under threat. If God forbidding, a military attack occurs on Iran, the Iranian nation will be subjected to the same suffering that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have been experiencing. It is under these circumstances that confidence building acquires special importance.
Continued on Page 49
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Here we go again! Another senior officer has retired and suddenly found his integrity, his manhood, or to be kinder his "voice."
