Props to the Sandmonkey (of all people) for this Jewish newsletter link.
I still hold that the war was a tactical failure for the IDF, but there are obviously people who feel that it is only a bump in the road. The Israelis are indeed a proud force with a lot of talented people and a LOT of motivation to finish the job, so I hope they take the lesson and are ready for next time.
Of course I lack the Int contacts to verify anything these (or pretty much any other) guys are saying here, but it sounds plausible. The stuff about the bunkers in South Lebanon is particularly interesting to me, as I wonder what the Israelis have done to root them out if they are in fact as prevalent as this article indicates. If I lacked the time/opportunity to destroy them, I’d just have the co-ordinates punched into the bunker busters that are hopefully waiting around for round 2…
I’ve seen some realpolitik stuff suggesting we use some more carrot than stick with the Syrians to unhinge Hizbollah’s logistics, and I concur. The Syrians have nothing to gain by advancing Iran’s agenda, and a lot to lose by giving either the Americans or Israelis a reason to take out or undermine the regime. I was also in favour of mending fences with Quadaffi in Libya years ago when he first started making an effort, but I’m a pragmatic guy. Libya does however show that it can be done, and something different is definitely needed. There remains the Golan thing, but I’ll just bury that fly deeper in the ointment for now.
Saturday 26 August 2006
Monday 21 August 2006
More Political Genius
Once again, leave it to the puddin’ heads to make Canada look good, and the CBC to promote their message.
Taking Hezbollah off the terror list would simply give Iran and everyone else with an axe to grind against the West carte blanche to do whatever they want AND get political recognition for it too.
Canadian MPs Boris Wrzesnewskyj and Peggy Nash come across as the sort of soft-headed appeasers who could yet spell the death of progressive western society. As apologists for those who think us infidel pigs to be conquered or killed, I think they should both be packed off to Iran (patron of Hezbollah, after all) to live for a while, and let them gob off about what the government does there. They should last about 2 days.
I was trying to come up with something clever here, but I’m just beating the same dog; just couldn’t entirely leave it lie though…
Taking Hezbollah off the terror list would simply give Iran and everyone else with an axe to grind against the West carte blanche to do whatever they want AND get political recognition for it too.
Canadian MPs Boris Wrzesnewskyj and Peggy Nash come across as the sort of soft-headed appeasers who could yet spell the death of progressive western society. As apologists for those who think us infidel pigs to be conquered or killed, I think they should both be packed off to Iran (patron of Hezbollah, after all) to live for a while, and let them gob off about what the government does there. They should last about 2 days.
I was trying to come up with something clever here, but I’m just beating the same dog; just couldn’t entirely leave it lie though…
Tuesday 15 August 2006
Death by 1001 Cuts
I’ll be blunt: Israel has lost this one.
Not news to anyone paying any attention to the latest war in Lebanon, but I had to go on the record with it. The only way to eliminate Hezbollah is to “ideologically cleanse” out every last supporter of them from within range of Israel and keep them out. Killing most of them would have been a step in the right direction too.
The reasons Israel couldn’t do that (their particular history and generally being an enlightened democracy) are the same reasons that the West’s whole “War on Terror” is going in the wrong direction. As has been said before (including by me of course) a lot more people have to die before there’s a meaningful change in the status quo.
What the hell do I mean by that, you ask? A good question, and let’s see if I can answer it.
Well, wholesale slaughter and/or effective containment will do a lot of our work for us. Less people who want the decadent Crusader-Zionist countries assimilated into some Universal Caliphate means less potential terrorists, or at least a nice contained area that we could pit our volunteer armed forces against them. I’ve read some stuff that suggested that was the Americans’ plan for Iraq, but I don’t credit them with that kind of foresight. While on that topic however, any kind of “divide and conquer” the Yanks may have been attempting there seems about ready to fall into the lap of Iran, but I won’t go there right now. Wouldn’t be the first time the US backed the wrong “enemy of my enemy”…
This of course is anathema to us enlightened democracies, and it would take a LOT to get us back into a Dresden/nuke-‘em-til-they-glow mindset. It rather surprised me, but even 9/11 didn’t do it. If the Americans had really taken the gloves off Riyadh would be a crater, the Arabian oilfields would be occupied by and run by the US for the US, and every bit of Saudi money the Yanks could get near would be as frozen as the inner circle of hell. Oh yeah, and they would have knocked over the theocracy in Iran instead of taking out (secular) Saddam Hussein.
The Americans talk about the money that finances/inspires terrorists, but a lot of it comes from their buddies in Saudi, so they go after the small fish instead. If you pluck the leaves the roots are still there, and the two main sources of money to trouble western interests come from Saudi Arabia and Tehran. Short of the Iranians getting the bomb and actually being suicidal enough to use it (or give to someone who would), I don’t see the “enemy” being able to kill enough of us at once to really put the Fear of God into us and then show the radical parts of the Muslim world what we’re capable of..
However, I think at this point they’ve seen as much as they need to of what we’re REALLY made of these days. We’re too soft to do what is required to ensure the continuance of Western civilization and we will eventually reap the results of that. Israel is already being destroyed on the instalment plan, and any hare-brained scheme to take over or destroy an airliner or two can paralyse us for days on end. It won’t end with our toothpaste and bottled water, but it could if we wanted it to.
Not news to anyone paying any attention to the latest war in Lebanon, but I had to go on the record with it. The only way to eliminate Hezbollah is to “ideologically cleanse” out every last supporter of them from within range of Israel and keep them out. Killing most of them would have been a step in the right direction too.
The reasons Israel couldn’t do that (their particular history and generally being an enlightened democracy) are the same reasons that the West’s whole “War on Terror” is going in the wrong direction. As has been said before (including by me of course) a lot more people have to die before there’s a meaningful change in the status quo.
What the hell do I mean by that, you ask? A good question, and let’s see if I can answer it.
Well, wholesale slaughter and/or effective containment will do a lot of our work for us. Less people who want the decadent Crusader-Zionist countries assimilated into some Universal Caliphate means less potential terrorists, or at least a nice contained area that we could pit our volunteer armed forces against them. I’ve read some stuff that suggested that was the Americans’ plan for Iraq, but I don’t credit them with that kind of foresight. While on that topic however, any kind of “divide and conquer” the Yanks may have been attempting there seems about ready to fall into the lap of Iran, but I won’t go there right now. Wouldn’t be the first time the US backed the wrong “enemy of my enemy”…
This of course is anathema to us enlightened democracies, and it would take a LOT to get us back into a Dresden/nuke-‘em-til-they-glow mindset. It rather surprised me, but even 9/11 didn’t do it. If the Americans had really taken the gloves off Riyadh would be a crater, the Arabian oilfields would be occupied by and run by the US for the US, and every bit of Saudi money the Yanks could get near would be as frozen as the inner circle of hell. Oh yeah, and they would have knocked over the theocracy in Iran instead of taking out (secular) Saddam Hussein.
The Americans talk about the money that finances/inspires terrorists, but a lot of it comes from their buddies in Saudi, so they go after the small fish instead. If you pluck the leaves the roots are still there, and the two main sources of money to trouble western interests come from Saudi Arabia and Tehran. Short of the Iranians getting the bomb and actually being suicidal enough to use it (or give to someone who would), I don’t see the “enemy” being able to kill enough of us at once to really put the Fear of God into us and then show the radical parts of the Muslim world what we’re capable of..
However, I think at this point they’ve seen as much as they need to of what we’re REALLY made of these days. We’re too soft to do what is required to ensure the continuance of Western civilization and we will eventually reap the results of that. Israel is already being destroyed on the instalment plan, and any hare-brained scheme to take over or destroy an airliner or two can paralyse us for days on end. It won’t end with our toothpaste and bottled water, but it could if we wanted it to.
Wednesday 9 August 2006
Lucky it wasn't a retinal scanner...
I'm sick to death of all the mid-east stuff, so I'll hare off in another direction, and find as many others as I can so as not to get bogged down.
I like security for my stuff as much as the next guy, but you have to weigh the consequences of "fool proof" biometrics, as this article points out. Things are just things, and with the insurance you (should) have on big stuff, you can get another one. The article covers it quite well, but I thought it could use more circulation, as I've been saying something similar for a long time. Something to think about if you're looking to upgrade security.
If you had something that was worth your life to defend, something scanning your mental state or whatever might do the job, but the technology hasn't caught up with human ruthlessness adequately to achieve a balance. Protect those PINs people, it's the safest thing we've got...
I like security for my stuff as much as the next guy, but you have to weigh the consequences of "fool proof" biometrics, as this article points out. Things are just things, and with the insurance you (should) have on big stuff, you can get another one. The article covers it quite well, but I thought it could use more circulation, as I've been saying something similar for a long time. Something to think about if you're looking to upgrade security.
If you had something that was worth your life to defend, something scanning your mental state or whatever might do the job, but the technology hasn't caught up with human ruthlessness adequately to achieve a balance. Protect those PINs people, it's the safest thing we've got...
Friday 4 August 2006
In for a Penny, In for a Pounding
In the continuing war against dark-ages revanchism (aka the “War on Terror”) we continue to lose troops in ongoing combat operations. Yesterday was a bad day for Canadian troops in Afghanistan, with 4 dead and 10 wounded.
Again, this is the cost of defending our way of life, since we must be defended against things that menace us as far from our shores as possible. So far Canada has lost 20 soldiers to enemy activity (and 4 more to a trigger-happy American pilot) in the ‘stan, and there will be more. I won’t get into the casualties the US has suffered, but I will add a bit of historical perspective for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Canada, since they seem to need it.
All-Canadian forces took the “impregnable” Vimy Ridge position from the Germans between 9th and 14th April 1917, and suffered 3598 DEAD in that one battle. Five days (most of the casualties on the first day) versus 4 years with an average to date of 5 dead per YEAR. Yes I know that average is a meaningless statistic, but I think I’ve made my point.
All of our troops are volunteers, and a lot of them are quite eager to pay these Taliban, etc. idiots back with interest for every one of our people who gets hurt or killed. Our side’s taking some stick, but we’re more than happy to give it back, and despite the cursory news coverage, we’ve been doing so.
Pansy-ass politicians (who aren’t even in power) should keep in mind the fact that people out on the sharp end signed up knowing what the risk was, and had every opportunity to get out of the Forces if they felt they didn’t want to deal with it. Comments suggesting that things are “too dangerous” are an insult to the troops, since (a) they’re professional soldiers, and (b) the guys making these comments were in power when Canada was committed to Afghanistan. That’s right Liberal Party; YOU put the troops there, so shut up and let us do the job that YOU saddled us with.
I could get in some trouble for making statements like this, but that’s why my name isn’t all over this. I’ll take a few chances, or I shouldn’t be in the military. To dig things a bit deeper for myself, I’m impressed with how our present government is handling things, and I know the troops appreciate the fact that the people who took over have our backs.
Don’t get the idea that I think troops are disposable; I don’t. One thing you can say though; I want a lot of payback for our losses, and I don’t care that a lot of pudding heads would say “that won’t solve anything”. If you haven’t yet read the poem that my space is named after, I’ll give you the relevant passage:
With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem,
The troopships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap, alas! as we are dear.
Again, change the names and technology, but the concept hasn’t even budged since Kipling’s time.
Again, this is the cost of defending our way of life, since we must be defended against things that menace us as far from our shores as possible. So far Canada has lost 20 soldiers to enemy activity (and 4 more to a trigger-happy American pilot) in the ‘stan, and there will be more. I won’t get into the casualties the US has suffered, but I will add a bit of historical perspective for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Canada, since they seem to need it.
All-Canadian forces took the “impregnable” Vimy Ridge position from the Germans between 9th and 14th April 1917, and suffered 3598 DEAD in that one battle. Five days (most of the casualties on the first day) versus 4 years with an average to date of 5 dead per YEAR. Yes I know that average is a meaningless statistic, but I think I’ve made my point.
All of our troops are volunteers, and a lot of them are quite eager to pay these Taliban, etc. idiots back with interest for every one of our people who gets hurt or killed. Our side’s taking some stick, but we’re more than happy to give it back, and despite the cursory news coverage, we’ve been doing so.
Pansy-ass politicians (who aren’t even in power) should keep in mind the fact that people out on the sharp end signed up knowing what the risk was, and had every opportunity to get out of the Forces if they felt they didn’t want to deal with it. Comments suggesting that things are “too dangerous” are an insult to the troops, since (a) they’re professional soldiers, and (b) the guys making these comments were in power when Canada was committed to Afghanistan. That’s right Liberal Party; YOU put the troops there, so shut up and let us do the job that YOU saddled us with.
I could get in some trouble for making statements like this, but that’s why my name isn’t all over this. I’ll take a few chances, or I shouldn’t be in the military. To dig things a bit deeper for myself, I’m impressed with how our present government is handling things, and I know the troops appreciate the fact that the people who took over have our backs.
Don’t get the idea that I think troops are disposable; I don’t. One thing you can say though; I want a lot of payback for our losses, and I don’t care that a lot of pudding heads would say “that won’t solve anything”. If you haven’t yet read the poem that my space is named after, I’ll give you the relevant passage:
With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem,
The troopships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap, alas! as we are dear.
Again, change the names and technology, but the concept hasn’t even budged since Kipling’s time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)