A few days at home with a nasty chest infection has at last given me time in which to examine the broader picture in some depth rather than just my usual narrow focus on Counterjihad matters that is all my normal schedule permits. And what a fruitful time it has been.
To my own surprise I am far from depressed by what I have seen, perhaps because within me there is a small, primordial seam of anarchism at last rising to the surface after a lifetime watching helplessly as my country and the rest of Europe and our cultures were deconstructed piece by tiny piece and cast upon the wind.
First and foremost the brightest light on my new horizon is the fact that the giant Ponzi scheme that is European monetary union is on the verge of a well-deserved and long overdue collapse. It was always going to fail, of course, because it is a false construct designed not for the financial and fiscal benefit of the ordinary men and women of the Union but in order to enable the ushering in of a continent-wide socialist police state by means of subterfuge and stealth.
And, as is always thus with false constructs, it never did need to be destroyed from without, for the seeds of its destruction were sown in its very foundations by those political pornographers who created it. These legislative and executive elites, drunk on the dopamine of power, wallowing in hubris as they looted the coffers for their personal benefit -- they exalted in the mutual masturbation of their own egos as the little people were left to go about their meaningless lives ignored or at best humoured, of no consequence to the peddlers of this embryonic New World Order.
Fatefully for the deconstructionists, they forgot about or refused to acknowledge the inherent power and utter ruthlessness of the desperate, of the people of whom for so long they had been so contemptuous, and who are now in the process of casting off their chains.
And, yes, the deconstructionists should begin to fear, for the time of those they sought to destroy is returning. The pendulum of history has reached the extent of its current swing towards the tyranny of the left, paused for a moment and then commenced its rapidly accelerating reverse journey. I doubt if it is going to halt at the bottom of its arc.
#2
Actually the Romans were familiar with "Molotov cocktails" (AKA Greek Fire) and had tactics for counteracting them. Instead of glass have used clay pots, but the effect was the same.
A MArine MEU would be invincible in the ancient world, though. In fact it would probably be overkill.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/03/2011 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
reminds me of the winds or war movie from the 80s - a modern Navy carrier goes back to 1941 and gets ready to intercept the Japanese fleet on it's way to Pearl Harbor.
#4
the movie was Final Countdown. Actually it was dull but the premise was cool. A better one is GI Samurai in which a Japanese unit goes back to the Samurai days.
Problem is resupply. The Marines would run out of bullets pretty quickly. They'd need to create alliances to really win in the long run. The tactics however, would be on the Marines side as they would have another thousand years of history to work from. Guerilla fighting, fighting squares with halberds or longbowmen. They could pick and choose and adapt to whatever worked.
#8
Better to support Rome and become the Praetorian Guard. They usually chose the next emperor in some way shape or form.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
11/03/2011 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I don't think that Marines would destroy the Roman Empire.
They were actually the best government that Haiti ever had, and after Haiti, the Roman Empire would be a breeze to operate.
After securing Rome, proper, and taking charge over the legions, their first order of business would be to deploy some legions to fight off the Nubian invasion of Egypt. But after this was accomplished, they would go for the complete reordering and modernization of the Empire.
The hardest part would probably be teaching the Marines Latin. Though some parts would be easy (slightly NSFW).
They would also start a public education system, end slavery, create a prison system, create a written constitution and a full representative parliament, etc.
#10
I read the story the guy wrote. Entertaining as a quick one-off.
However.
The MEU would be great until the logistics ran low. Then they're a bunch of buff, well-disciplined guys who have to learn how to use swords and javelins to survive.
You know, like legionnaires.
If I were the commander of this mythical MEU, I'd sure work to make a great first impression before all the beans, bullets and bombs were gone.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/03/2011 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
>They would also start a public education system
and then it would all start to goto rat-shit again.
The MEU would be great until the logistics ran low.
This.
Where would the Marines get fuel? Bullets? Food? Medical supplies? Their on-hand supplies would eventually run out, and then they're actually poorly equipped.
And, honestly, I'm not all that sure the Romans would be phased by gunfire. Mowed-down? Sure, at first. But the reaction of "wow, those guys are better than Balearic slingers" would be followed by "spread out and CHARGE".
And eventually the Roman manpower would overwhelm them. They lost 60,000 men at Cannae -- one battle, one afternoon. Then fielded two more consular legions in a few months.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/03/2011 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Greek fire was something else, an antiship weapon.
ISTR Greek Fire was also used in defense of city walls.
Immaterial, anyway, because it was actually a very-late Roman development -- something so late it's usually called "Byzantine".
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/03/2011 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I'm not sure of the timeline but perhaps the Carthaginians could have used some help.
Carthage is one of those mixed-bags of history. They had a lot of good points, including a maritime trade economy that would have been familiar to 17th century Brits and 18th century Americans.
But they were also child sacrificers.
(Weirdly, only one of the ancient sources -- and the least reliable, at that -- makes that accusation. But the archaeological record shows it was true.)
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/03/2011 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The more I think about it, the more I come back to Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and Army of Darkness, and how one person armed with our modern knowledge would be. 2200 Marines is quite a knowledge base...electricity, gunpowder, distilling. Those vehicles out of gas are not useless, they could be stripped down for parts.
The Romans I think would have some advantages, such as walking everywhere their whole life ande familiarity with the lifestyle of the times (food, shelter, weather, etc), numbers (though only a small number of the Empire's military population would actually be in or near Rome there is the population of Rome).
I do not think you could destroy the Roman Empire by capturing or even razing Rome..the concept of Roman would be too great, likely really piss people off. Perhaps, as said, capture the government. Long term, imagine the Romans with even a 16th century technology tree, plus the knowledge of foresight of what the other major players would be up to at least initially. The dangerous part would be the mid term, wondering which major Roman families are on your side and which are a bit peeved the Marines took their turn at the helm.
#17
Where would the Marines get fuel?
Olive oil, ethanol. Make methanol and you've got biodiesel.
Bullets?
1 tank carries over 10,000 rounds. There are millions more in the ammo trucks. Not that you would need them. Run them over with armored vehicles. An armored Humvee at 40mph is an irresistible force to a bunch of spear carriers, let alone APCs and tanks.
Food?
Same place any field army of the time gets theirs.
Medical supplies?
How many casualties do you expect or you expecting to treat the Romans too?
They lost 60,000 men at Cannae -- one battle, one afternoon.
And Rome nearly lost it all then. 60,000 rounds is much less than the load out of a Marine infantry company.
#18
The more I think about it, the more I come back to Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and Army of Darkness, and how one person armed with our modern knowledge would be.
Yeah. My contention is that one modern man with a decent knowledge of chemistry, physics and history and good organizational skills can become the new Caesar.
#19
Hannibal and Carthage at peak was a bit before this timeline, and he had the best chance of turning the Italian Pininsula against the Romans as there were still Celts and Etruscans who remembered what it was like before the Romans. At this time, perhaps not so much help from the locals.
Still, as a snapshot for a story or movie, very interesting if done right.
#22
Whether Lake Trasimere or the Teutoburger Wald, if you catch the Romans out of formation and particularly in road march, they lose the advantage of their tactical system. It didn't take a modern MEU to do it. The problem was that much of Rome's opponents didn't have the organizational skills or small unit flexibility to exploit deficiencies and short comings.
#23
I think Hernán Cortés proved that point 500 years ago in Mexico..
Yes they could, but only if they forged alliances with enemies of Rome. (Actually the Tlaxcaltecas did most of the fighting against the Aztecs.)
Alone, the Marines could certainly conquer Rome (the city) for a few days or weeks, but not keep it. Nor the whole Empire.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
11/03/2011 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#24
So define "destroy". Good point about being hard to destroy the idea of Rome in its citizens.
But if you wanted to destroy the empire, you'd best be making it possible for its enemies and restive provinces to do the work. That means destroying the government in Rome.
A big problem would be intel. On the other hand, leaving all but, say, two tanks and taking the fuel saved, you could get to Rome before you had to run over more than one legion. The government wouldn't know you were coming and so they couldn't call in more legions. All you'd have would be the forces accidentally in your path. And if you were a Roman commander who'd never heard of anything amiss, watching a MEU motoring by with the guys waving, would you attack? Could you get your guys lined up before the last of the convoy was out of sight? Then what? Put some skinny guy on a horse and tell him to take this cockamamie message to Rome before these whatchamacallits got there. Every time the MEU passed a Roman post station or unit, it would be the first time any of the locals had seen such a thing. Every one would put a skinny guy on a horse and tell him to beat the convoy to Rome and pinkyswear it's true. 'course, the jarheads would get there first, anyway.
The MEU doesn't have to waste a lot of rounds destroying a legion. They start at, say, six hundred yards with snipers taking out the officers and centurions. Then maybe a thousand rounds at the part of the unit that's on the road, and roll. Eewww.
But, having destroyed Rome's government, then what?
Best bet would be to take some good farmland, do a Grantville 1632, in a sense, and make themselves unconquerable, even after the modern stuff wore out. Which, if all they did was run off interlopers, legions or bandits, wouldn't take up as much resources. Marines are legendarily, in their own minds, irresistable to beautiful women, so there'd be a bunch of junior jarheads running around pretty quick. As long as they minded their own biz, they wouldn't be much of a bone in Rome's throat, except for all the slaves wanting to get away to the new Land of The Free. Don't know if Rome could afford that.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
11/03/2011 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#25
The amusing part would be to see how the average Marine battalion comander would go about trying to convince a "vendor" to sell him all his stock of olive oil on credit:
.
(Nervous young boy barely speaking middle English): My father agrees to the per unit price, but wants to know how you intend to transport the goods. He doesn't have much.
Colonel Jessup: Tell your father we have transport we call tankers, so we can take delivery here.
(NYBBSME translates. The old man seems pleased and then says something to the kid)
NYBBSME: My father wants to know how you intend to pay for your purchase.
Colonel Jessup (nervously): Well, we don't have gold or cash, but we can provide your father with documents he can use to make a claim with our government for compensation.
(Old man seems a bit put off after hearing the translation)
NYBBSME: You have no money.
Colonel Jessup: We have no money.
NYBBSME: All this equipment and you didn't think of bringing along any gold.
Colonel Jessup: Not like we expected to be transported back almost 2000 years.
NYBBSME: My father wants to know how he is expected to pay for his help and for next years crop, if you have taken all his product?
Colonel Jessup: We can help him with that.
NYBBSME: How?
Colonel Jessup: we can provide labor and other means to help him.
NYBBSME: You're olive grovers?
Colonel Jessup: No, but a number of my people have worked on farms before.
NYBBSME: Free labor.
Colonel Jessup: If that is what it takes, yes.
#27
Couple thoughts out of my comfortable knowledge:
Would the roads of the time support the MEU vehicles?
Bridges?
How much of a river could be forded?
I seem to remember the average size of the Roman soldier as something like 5'6" and 150 lbs, do not have the time to confirm or deny that. These Marines would appear huge then, the Sons of Jupiter using the Chariots of Mars. Interesting to see what happens when their leaders just fall over shot from long range marksman fire, hit before sound.
#29
Gentlemen, ir's been wxplored thoroughly in,the book 1632,and it's sequel 1633 (Science Fiction) go to Baen Books http://www.baen.com/library/books.asp
If you wish to read these.
Jim
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/03/2011 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
#30
I suspect most tanks (not the Abrahms) run on diesel and thus could probably run on olive oil. If you could keep the engines running you could always secure ballista and other captured weapons to the exterior for use long after your ammo ran dry.
I think a useful ability would be to play prophet and wizards using your knowledge of history and science. Your reputation might do far more than your actual fighting talents.
#31
The Roman roads lasted a couple of thousand years. Keep in mind that tactical vehicles are designed for low ground pressure. And they can go over cleared ground without roads.
It's possible the legionaries were 5'6", but I ran into a military reenactor who said that the French were having trouble at the end of the eighteenth century getting guys to exceed their minimum 4'10". When I was in, the LBE harness was designed for the average soldier being presumed to be 5'8". Like short suspenders. There were a couple of bigger ones in a hundred, the captain getting one.
And 5'6" 150 is pretty burly. Most Europeans who did hard work in those days were wiry, on account of what they did was not maxing out their musculature--you always try to figure out a way to make that unnecessary--but repetitive. I think it would be even a bigger difference.
Bridges would be the problem, although most tactical vehicles are designed for at least some fording capability and trench-crossing capability.
You know, if you had to abandon your transport, you could always use the wheels and make man-towed wagons with good bearings and low ground-pressure tires.
Put enough men on the ropes and you can trot right along with a substantial portion of your ammo.
The Romans walked, carrying their equipment, including encampment material. See "Marius' Mules". The MEU doesn't need to build a palisade at night. They shoot anybody sneaking up.
Route march when I was in was supposedly twenty miles a day carrying one third of your body weight. The guys are better than that now, so they could outmarch the legionaries.
I think setting up for themselves somewhere on the edge of the Empire, being by default a defense for that section, would allow them to prosper and cause the Romans to leave them alone. Best foederati the Empire ever had.
#32
No. The Romans were brilliant, ruthless, and harsh. They would figure out a way to even the odds... especially after getting a good, hard look at what the Marines were using.
#34
For reasons of fuel economy, I would not expect the Marines to use their air elements much. They could destroy Roman encampments from hundreds of miles away, but it would be pointless - the beauty of waiting until they are a dozen miles away is that they save fuel, and are in a position to slaughter them as they retreat or take prisoners to use as menial labor and loot the encampment for useful things.
#35
You know, if you had to abandon your transport, you could always use the wheels and make man-towed wagons with good bearings and low ground-pressure tires...See "Marius' Mules"
The Romans never perfected harnessing for draft animals. That was a latter development, let alone ball bearings. It's called lift.
Also, the formula for gunpowder isn't a secret. While it may not be 'modern' quality their gun/cannon tubes will surpass anything that passes for a barrel for a thousand years in handling pressures. Canister can be fabricated out of contemporary metals. Basic shop 101.
There is no way the Marine unit can win if doesn't start to get childrens,teenagers, women and start to make babies . In very short time diseases and accidents will take care of half unit.
[Dawn] IT almost seemed as if their statements had been coordinated. Western intervention in Syria, declared Hereditary President-for-Life Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad Leveler of Latakia... , would precipitate an earthquake in the Middle East, choosing to ignore the fact that a seismic shift has already been under way in the region since the beginning of the year.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's headquartered in Belgium. That sez it all.... meanwhile, declared that it had no intention of journeying down the road to Damascus ...The City of Jasmin is the oldest continuously-inhabited city in the world. It has not always been inhabited by the same set of fascisti... -- even though the Syrian dictatorship has been ruthless in its repression, which has accounted for an estimated 3,000 deaths and a vastly higher number of arrests.
Muammar Qadaffy`s ... who is now cavorting happily with Himmler and Heydrich... Libyan regime had been guilty of a lot less when it was decided to proceed against it militarily, with a United Nations ...what started out as a a diplomatic initiative, now trying to edge its way into legislative, judicial, and executive areas... Security Council resolution to impose a no-fly zone in order to protect civilian lives being loosely interpreted as providing sanction for western-imposed regime change by two of the largest ex-colonial powers and their chief neocolonial successor.
Two months after the regime had been toppled, a French warplane and a US Predator drone were still instrumental in facilitating the extremely sordid finale, when a convoy containing Qadaffy and one of his sons was apparently on its way out of Libya (reportedly with the assistance of South African mercenaries).
The subsequent hand-wringing over Qadaffy`s final moments, when the demonstrably deluded ex-tyrant was tortured and arbitrarily executed, have hardly occasioned an official expression of qualms about NATO`s blatantly partisan role in a civil war, where the mandate to protect civilian lives was on occasion turned on its head when western warplanes themselves produced civilian casualties, and wilfully ignored when the ex-rebels, by then entrenched in Tripoli, went on a murderous rampage in Sirte.
Although the National Transitional Council (NTC) has agreed to investigate Qadaffy`s murder -- after initially falsely claiming that he had been caught in crossfire -- it has been reported that the identity of the man who put him out of his misery is common knowledge in Misrata, but that the new authorities wouldn`t dare try to apprehend him for fear of unleashing factional violence within the ex-rebel coalition.
It is no doubt true that other ex-dictators have in the past suffered comparable consequences -- the fate of Benito Mussolini towards the end of the Second World War and that of Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife in 1989 have been cited as precedents.
Perhaps the closest analogy, though, is with the lynching of Najibullah following the Taliban`s capture of Kabul. It has also been noted, not entirely without justification, that plenty of Qadaffy`s opponents came to a sticky end in circumstances that weren`t recorded on phone-cameras.
There can be little doubt, however, that the manner of his execution complicates Qadaffy`s opponents` quest for the moral high ground even more than their crucial reliance on NATO forces to bring about regime change.
Notwithstanding the NTC`s nomination of a new interim prime minister this week, it will continue to combat perceptions of puppetry. It is incidentally notable that the NTC wanted NATO, which suspended its military operations on the weekend, to continue with its sorties until the end of the year.
This suggests, above all, that the transitional council is uncertain about the level of its popular support. True, there has lately been little evidence of sympathy for Qadaffy -- but to some extent that may well be an expression of the same sort of fear, albeit from a different source -- that dampened the urge to revolt in Tripoli earlier this year.
For all that, the expressions of jubilation that greeted Qadaffy`s demise suggest the powers that helped to bring it about are rather pleased with themselves -- perhaps not least in the light of the extended debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If they are so confident, though, of having acted sensibly and righteously in Libya, then why not proceed to do the same favour for the Syrians? Is it because Assad has more solid networks of international support, with Russia and China prepared to veto Security Council resolutions rather than merely abstain, as they did in the Libyan context?
It`s less than a decade ago, though, that such a resolution was not deemed necessary before the launch of US-led aggression against Iraq.
That misadventure is expected to conclude at the end of the year. The shape of things to come in Iraq remains indeterminate, although it`s likely Iran will assert greater influence over the nation`s future than the US.
Last week`s Tunisian elections sounded a considerably more sonorous note of hope than any such exercise in Iraq, despite the primacy of an Islamist party called an-Nahda -- which, not surprisingly, is more willing to identify itself with Turkey`s ruling AKP than with Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason,.
The trajectory of events in Egypt, on the other hand, provides deeper cause for concern, particularly in view of last month`s massacre -- by the supposedly interim regime`s forces, mind you, rather than Islamists -- of Coptic Christians.
The mercurial and unpredictable Qadaffy was considered untrustworthy even by the nations that sporadically collaborated with him -- either as part of the so-called war on terror or in interests of exploiting his nation`s natural resources.
That`s one of the main reasons why no one was particularly sorry to go -- with the exception of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, who helped to perpetuate a fallacy among sections of the left by elevating him to the status of an anti-imperialist icon. Assad, on the other hand, is seen as a guarantor of stability; even Syria`s supposed arch-enemy Israel sees him "better the devil you know...."
That could, of course, change if his Alawite clan`s grasp over Syria is further eroded. However, some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them... as things stand, when Barack I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money Obama`s reacted to Qadaffy`s death by suggesting it should serve as a warning to all dictators, he might well have added: `...unless your name is Assad or President-for-Life Ali Abdullah Saleh ... Saleh initially took power as a strongman of North Yemen in 1977, when disco was in flower, but he didn't invite Donna Summer to the inauguration and Blondie couldn't make it... , or you happen to be a thoroughly unrepresentative potentate presiding over a preponderance of oil wealth`.
Sometimes it`s hard to decide what`s worse: the American military role in the region or Washington`s breathtaking hypocrisy.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/03/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yokay, just a darn minute, BING + BOB + DOROTHY made a "ROAD TO DAMASCUS" MOVIE???
Who knew - does ABBOTT-N-COSTELLO, BOWERY BOYS, SHIRLEY + the LITTLE RASCALS KNOW???
1. Ineptocracy
*_Ineptocracy_****(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) a system of government where the least
capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers*
Use in a sentence:
The occupy protesters are part of the ineptocracy movement.
h/t Chaos Manor
As a bishop who regularly preaches to congregations of every age and at widely different levels of prosperity and education, I have some grasp of the challenges in presenting a point of view to the general public. This helps me to understand the propaganda achievements of the climate extremists, at least until their attempted elimination of the Medieval Warming and then Climategate. I was not surprised to learn that the IPCC used some of the worlds best advertising agencies to generate maximum effect among the public.
In the 1990s we were warned of the greenhouse effect, but in the first decade of the new millennium global warming stopped. The next retreat was to the concept of anthropogenic global warming; then we were called to cope with the challenge of climate change. Then it became apparent that the climate is changing no more now than it has in the past. Seamlessly, the claim shifted to anthropogenic climate disruption.
My suspicions have been deepened over the years by the climate movements totalitarian approach to opposing views, their demonizing of successful opponents and their opposition to the publication of opposing views even in scientific journals. A point to be noted in this movements struggle to convince public opinion is that their language veers toward that of primitive religious controversy. Believers are contrasted with deniers, doubters and skeptics.
The rewards for proper environmental behaviour are uncertain, unlike the grim scenarios for the future as a result of human irresponsibility, which have a dash of the apocalyptic about them. The immense financial costs true believers would impose on economies can be compared with the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences. Some of those campaigning to save the planet are not merely zealous but zealots.
Remember Canute. The history of climate change provides no reassurance that human activity can control or even substantially modify the global climate, although humans can effect important local changes for good or ill.
The debates about anthropogenic global warming can only be conducted by the accurate recognition and interpretation of scientific evidence. The evidence of historians is also vital because this is not simply a mathematical problem, not pure science.
Rather than spending money on meeting the Kyoto Protocol, which would have produced an indiscernible effect on temperature rise, money should be used to raise living standards and reduce vulnerability to catastrophes and climate change (in whatever direction), so helping people to cope better with future challenges.
In essence, this is the moral dimension to this issue. The cost of attempts to make global warming go away will be very heavy. They may be levied initially on the big polluters, but they will eventually trickle down to the end-users. Efforts to offset the effects on the vulnerable are well intentioned, but history tells us they can only ever be partially successful.
We must be sure the solutions being proposed are valid, the benefits are real and the end result justifies the impositions on the community, particularly the most vulnerable. I have concerns on all three fronts.
Sometimes the very learned and clever can be brilliantly foolish, especially when seized by an apparently good cause. My request is for common sense and more, not less; what the medievals, following Aristotle, called prudence, one of the four cardinal virtues: the recta ratio agibilium or right reason in doing things. We might call this a cost-benefit analysis, where costs and benefits are defined financially and morally or humanly, and their level of probability is carefully estimated.
Are there any long-term benefits from the schemes to combat global warming, apart from extra tax revenues for governments and income for those devising and implementing the schemes? Will the burdens be shared generally, or fall mainly on the shoulders of the poor?
Another useful Latin maxim is In dubio non agitur: Dont act when in doubt.
#1
Let's nail 95 copies of The Skeptical Environmentalist to Al Gore's door.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
11/03/2011 7:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The cost of attempts to make global warming go away will be very heavy. They may be levied initially on the big polluters, but they will eventually trickle down to the end-users.
IMO the goal has always been to 'equalize' the economic condition of all the people of the world (well, except for the administrators) - by pulling down the wealthy. What they fail to understand is that you cannot pull down the wealthy without pushing down the poor at the same time. If the rich get poorer, the poor will get poorer, and the poorest won't survive.
#7
Chaos Manor keeps reprinting or re-expressing the perennial wisdom of humanity, and is worth following on a daily basis.
Here's another recent gem linking economics, politics, and getting things done: it was clear to me that economics was more concerned with its models than with reality. It was also clear that politics trumped economics every time, and understanding politics would be a requirement for getting the space program going. -- or getting any public program going.
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.
Hereditary President-for-Life Bashir 
... Saleh initially took power as a strongman of North Yemen in 1977, when disco was in flower, but he didn't invite Donna Summer to the inauguration and Blondie couldn't make it...
