I just can't leave this topic alone, but I consider it important to preserve some semblance of a "debate" in the whole Global Warming thing. It seems to have been hijacked by some sort of Luddite soft-lefty/environmentalism cabal who have an agenda I don't quite fathom.
The US Senate speech the title links to gives me some hope that there is more than one side to the issue. For the record (again), I have enough geology and history to know that the Earth's climate isn't constant, "an inconvenient truth" that Al Gore and co. don't seem to want people to know about. Check out the link provided for "the Science" and see a lot of alarmist claptrap with no supporting evidence, and if you're so inclined go look it up. I've done my research already and I know it's taken from very self-interested sources who ignore things that conflict with what they want to put across. That, by the way, is NOT science.
I am a sensible person, and I'm very much in favour of us limiting the amount of waste we dump into the ecosystem just on general principle. This is where I think our efforts should go, to keep us from poisoning ourselves and everything else. However, I remember a geology poster session I went to in the late 1980s. The topic I reported on for class was "Holocene Proxy Climate Data from the Canadian Arctic".
It was a while ago, and before the current hysteria about warming, but the upshot was that 5000-8000 years ago it was a lot warmer in the arctic than it is now, evidenced by the remnants of plant life that couldn't possibly survive there now.
So is it getting warmer? Looks like it. There are a number of other questions, the big ones being: is this such a bad thing? And, is destroying the industrialized world's economy (Kyoto Protocol, if implemented) going to make a difference to the result?
I have yet to be convinced that the answer to either of these is anything but "no". It was warmer than this when humanity thrived in places we can't really live today (e.g. Greenland). China, Russia and the entire developing world have not ratified Kyoto, so it'll only screw us over and not cool a damned thing.
Al, spend your time and money on things that will produce results, like improved alternative energy sources. The writing is already on the wall for our dependence on oil, and I am not going to freeze in the dark in the meantime to meet some feel-good international agreement that most of the world has no time for.
Saturday 30 September 2006
Friday 22 September 2006
Talk - Action = uh, something, maybe?
This encapsulates as well as anything else the problems the West has to survive.
I can understand that a lot of people are wary of another war, though it might be necessary. However, to be worried about something, and yet so mentally paralyzed as to be incapable of thinking of ANYTHING to do about it, even in theory, is something any thinking person in the “West’ should be very concerned about.
When countries are democracies, for good or ill they get the governments they deserve. With the bunch of puddin’ heads suggested by those poll results there is a lot of trouble ahead for some of these countries (not mine for the moment, but this is a minority government…) until something radical happens to make things better or much worse.
A more reasonable government could arise in Iran (odds low without outside “assistance”) or they could get nukes and give one or more to somebody who wants to use it against us. It’s not hard for me to see which option I’d prefer, and I don’t see a lot of others right now.
Personally I don’t look forward to the idea of another big war either, but with the noises Iran has made/is making and the governments’ increasing lack of relevance to the Iranian population, there may be no decent alternative. There is a long history of governments whipping up external trouble to distract from domestic trouble, and Iran seems to be on that road. How far they want to go on it will likely determine how hostile things get.
Changing topics slightly, Hamid Karzai gave a very effective speech to Canadian Parliament today, dealing fairly effectively with the self-interested political statements of certain groups (see back a few posts). NATO is not in Afghanistan for fun or profit, but because it’s the way to keep the forces that wish us ill from re-establishing there.
Others may wish to look at it as restoring a functional country to the world, but the end result is the same, and both are accomplished the same way, fighting fire with (more) fire. And now that we’re at last sending some tanks to Afghanistan, that’s exactly what we’ll be able to do more effectively.
I can understand that a lot of people are wary of another war, though it might be necessary. However, to be worried about something, and yet so mentally paralyzed as to be incapable of thinking of ANYTHING to do about it, even in theory, is something any thinking person in the “West’ should be very concerned about.
When countries are democracies, for good or ill they get the governments they deserve. With the bunch of puddin’ heads suggested by those poll results there is a lot of trouble ahead for some of these countries (not mine for the moment, but this is a minority government…) until something radical happens to make things better or much worse.
A more reasonable government could arise in Iran (odds low without outside “assistance”) or they could get nukes and give one or more to somebody who wants to use it against us. It’s not hard for me to see which option I’d prefer, and I don’t see a lot of others right now.
Personally I don’t look forward to the idea of another big war either, but with the noises Iran has made/is making and the governments’ increasing lack of relevance to the Iranian population, there may be no decent alternative. There is a long history of governments whipping up external trouble to distract from domestic trouble, and Iran seems to be on that road. How far they want to go on it will likely determine how hostile things get.
Changing topics slightly, Hamid Karzai gave a very effective speech to Canadian Parliament today, dealing fairly effectively with the self-interested political statements of certain groups (see back a few posts). NATO is not in Afghanistan for fun or profit, but because it’s the way to keep the forces that wish us ill from re-establishing there.
Others may wish to look at it as restoring a functional country to the world, but the end result is the same, and both are accomplished the same way, fighting fire with (more) fire. And now that we’re at last sending some tanks to Afghanistan, that’s exactly what we’ll be able to do more effectively.
Sunday 17 September 2006
Ice Fishing in Hell
I didn’t think I’d see the day that I would be supporting the Pope, but that day has come.
Actually, I’d like him to tell the idiots demanding an apology for a QUOTE taken (deliberately) out of context to get stuffed, but he did the next best thing by only saying he was “sorry“ that they were upset. An old tactic of mine when I wanted to avoid trouble, but had no intention of retracting what I’d said. Well, maybe this will rile up enough Catholics to balance the equation a bit, but I doubt it.
It’s been said many other places, but I’ll put myself in the same camp; if there are any “moderate” Muslims left, I’d like someone to explain to me why every perceived slight to Islam calls for a death sentence. It’s probably in the Koran somewhere, but I think that just makes it even less likely that the West and what passes for Islam most places today will be able to live in harmony.
Free speech, or at least the ability to say things and not be sentenced to death over them, is a key element of functional democracies. Democracy of course is the worst form of government except for all the others, so I’d rather we stuck with it. If you have a problem with people saying things you don’t agree with, to the point you’ll lay a Fatwah on their ass every time, I suggest you stay out of countries (like mine) which don’t operate that way.
A snippet I culled from reports on this; “hundreds” of people were reported to have protested in major cities in Iran. Hundreds, eh? Seems the Revolution’s novelty has worn off…
Actually, I’d like him to tell the idiots demanding an apology for a QUOTE taken (deliberately) out of context to get stuffed, but he did the next best thing by only saying he was “sorry“ that they were upset. An old tactic of mine when I wanted to avoid trouble, but had no intention of retracting what I’d said. Well, maybe this will rile up enough Catholics to balance the equation a bit, but I doubt it.
It’s been said many other places, but I’ll put myself in the same camp; if there are any “moderate” Muslims left, I’d like someone to explain to me why every perceived slight to Islam calls for a death sentence. It’s probably in the Koran somewhere, but I think that just makes it even less likely that the West and what passes for Islam most places today will be able to live in harmony.
Free speech, or at least the ability to say things and not be sentenced to death over them, is a key element of functional democracies. Democracy of course is the worst form of government except for all the others, so I’d rather we stuck with it. If you have a problem with people saying things you don’t agree with, to the point you’ll lay a Fatwah on their ass every time, I suggest you stay out of countries (like mine) which don’t operate that way.
A snippet I culled from reports on this; “hundreds” of people were reported to have protested in major cities in Iran. Hundreds, eh? Seems the Revolution’s novelty has worn off…
Friday 15 September 2006
Canadian political opportunism
I don’t know why I even bother, but I do have to say something about the political reaction to the latest shooting spree in Montreal.
Because this clown used a gun, the usual suspects are calling for the retention of the Long gun Registry in Canada. This law, for those who don’t know, relates to things like hunting rifles, shotguns, and other low-magazine-capacity, bolt/pump/lever or semi-automatic weapons.
It has come out that the weapon used, a Beretta CX4 Storm 9mm carbine was a restricted weapon that the shooter acquired legally and was registered according to the law. Thus, retaining the expensive, inefficient boondoggle of a non-restricted firearms registry would have no bearing on an exact repeat of this event, nor would it have had any impact on this crime.
Some sociopath slipped through the system and decided to take a bunch of other people with him as he committed suicide. That’s what happened, and all of it was against the laws we already have (murder and all), so more laws aren’t likely to have helped, just given him more to break.
Again I’m disgusted that politicians are trying to make political capital from bloodshed, but that’s what they do.
Because this clown used a gun, the usual suspects are calling for the retention of the Long gun Registry in Canada. This law, for those who don’t know, relates to things like hunting rifles, shotguns, and other low-magazine-capacity, bolt/pump/lever or semi-automatic weapons.
It has come out that the weapon used, a Beretta CX4 Storm 9mm carbine was a restricted weapon that the shooter acquired legally and was registered according to the law. Thus, retaining the expensive, inefficient boondoggle of a non-restricted firearms registry would have no bearing on an exact repeat of this event, nor would it have had any impact on this crime.
Some sociopath slipped through the system and decided to take a bunch of other people with him as he committed suicide. That’s what happened, and all of it was against the laws we already have (murder and all), so more laws aren’t likely to have helped, just given him more to break.
Again I’m disgusted that politicians are trying to make political capital from bloodshed, but that’s what they do.
Thursday 14 September 2006
It took two months to figure this out?
Gee thanks, Amnesty International, for finding the time to accuse the instigators of the latest unpleasantness in Lebanon of “crimes against humanity”. They were right quick to accuse Israel of the same thing, but hey, they’re a democracy trying to fight a terrorist organization so they MUST be amoral monsters, right?
I’d like for AI to explain to me why they take two months to determine that the indiscriminate targeting of exclusively civilian targets in Israel by Hezbollah is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict and any number of other things. As for the LOAC, I quote from the official Canadian source (available on the net)
403. DISTINCTION PRINCIPLE
1. To ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, commanders shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
AP l Arts 48, 51, 52 & 57; AP II Arts 13
404. BASIC RULE
1. Military operations shall be directed only against legitimate targets. Military operations directed against such targets must also meet the requirement of proportionality discussed below.
AP l Art 48, 51 (5) (b) & 57 (2) (a)
SECTION 2 - LEGITIMATE TARGETS
405. SCOPE
1. This section defines “legitimate targets” and provides examples of objects and personnel that are legitimate targets.
406. DEFINITION OF LEGITIMATE TARGETS
1. “Legitimate targets” include combatants, unlawful combatants and military objectives.
AP I Arts 43 (2), 46, 47, 51 (3) & 52 (2)
2. “Military objectives” are objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offer a definite military advantage. A specific area of land may constitute a military objective.
AP l Art 52 (2)
407. EXAMPLES OF OBJECTS WHICH ARE MILITARY OBJECTIVES
1. The following are generally accepted as being military objectives:
a. military bases, warehouses, petroleum storage areas, ports and airfields; and
b. military aircraft, weapons, ammunition, buildings and objects that provide administrative and
logistical support for military operations.
2. Civilian vessels, aircraft, vehicles and buildings are military objectives if they contain combatants, military equipment or supplies.
AP l Art 52 (2)
3. The following objects, depending on the circumstances, may constitute military objectives:
a. transportation systems for military supplies;
b. transportation centres where lines of communication converge;
c. rail yards;
d. industrial installations producing material for armed forces;
e. conventional power plants; and
f. fuel dumps.
You will note from this (internationally accepted) definition, Israel targeting Hezbollah’s rocket launch positions is at all times legal, and no sort of a crime under international law, regardless of the presence of civilians. The REAL “crime against humanity” is the use of these civilians as human shields by Hezbollah, but I don’t see Amnesty or any other “rights” group saying anything about that.
Good work guys; keep on keeping the world safe from the right of democracies to defend themselves against terrorists.
I’d like for AI to explain to me why they take two months to determine that the indiscriminate targeting of exclusively civilian targets in Israel by Hezbollah is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict and any number of other things. As for the LOAC, I quote from the official Canadian source (available on the net)
403. DISTINCTION PRINCIPLE
1. To ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, commanders shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
AP l Arts 48, 51, 52 & 57; AP II Arts 13
404. BASIC RULE
1. Military operations shall be directed only against legitimate targets. Military operations directed against such targets must also meet the requirement of proportionality discussed below.
AP l Art 48, 51 (5) (b) & 57 (2) (a)
SECTION 2 - LEGITIMATE TARGETS
405. SCOPE
1. This section defines “legitimate targets” and provides examples of objects and personnel that are legitimate targets.
406. DEFINITION OF LEGITIMATE TARGETS
1. “Legitimate targets” include combatants, unlawful combatants and military objectives.
AP I Arts 43 (2), 46, 47, 51 (3) & 52 (2)
2. “Military objectives” are objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offer a definite military advantage. A specific area of land may constitute a military objective.
AP l Art 52 (2)
407. EXAMPLES OF OBJECTS WHICH ARE MILITARY OBJECTIVES
1. The following are generally accepted as being military objectives:
a. military bases, warehouses, petroleum storage areas, ports and airfields; and
b. military aircraft, weapons, ammunition, buildings and objects that provide administrative and
logistical support for military operations.
2. Civilian vessels, aircraft, vehicles and buildings are military objectives if they contain combatants, military equipment or supplies.
AP l Art 52 (2)
3. The following objects, depending on the circumstances, may constitute military objectives:
a. transportation systems for military supplies;
b. transportation centres where lines of communication converge;
c. rail yards;
d. industrial installations producing material for armed forces;
e. conventional power plants; and
f. fuel dumps.
You will note from this (internationally accepted) definition, Israel targeting Hezbollah’s rocket launch positions is at all times legal, and no sort of a crime under international law, regardless of the presence of civilians. The REAL “crime against humanity” is the use of these civilians as human shields by Hezbollah, but I don’t see Amnesty or any other “rights” group saying anything about that.
Good work guys; keep on keeping the world safe from the right of democracies to defend themselves against terrorists.
Wednesday 6 September 2006
Jack Layton has a Plan, does he?
As I am a Canadian, the posturing of certain of my political leaders is occasionally of passing interest. Also being a military guy, the Afghanistan thing is a bit of a hot button issue for me (us) these days.
With that in mind, I’m hard pressed to be too concerned that Jack Layton, leader of the federal New Democratic Party “has a plan” to get us out of Afghanistan. This phrase was used by a woman in some shop who told my wife not to worry about me going over there for that reason.
Last I checked, he was as far from being in charge of things as he could get, even in a minority government situation. The opposition is smelling blood, and it of course comes at the price of our troops who are shedding theirs. I can see some attempt to push the government into a non-confidence situation, and I won’t waste my time speculating here about what their chances are.
What I will say is that if our casualties are used as a reason to get out of a vital mission to stabilize a perennially failed state with a recent history of exporting terror we will have contributed to losing the “war on terror” and our people will have died for nothing.
I definitely have some ideas on how this “war” should be executed, and in this case there should have been MORE troops in Afghanistan, not less. The Americans should have followed up Operation Anaconda with all the light divisions they had and all the air resources that they used in Iraq. The Taliban could then have been winkled out of every last significant hole, pushed back over the Pakistani or Iranian borders. At that point NATO could have deployed a force a bit smaller than the current one, with abundant air mobility and firepower assets to support Provincial Reconstruction Teams that would actually have a chance to do their thing.
This would of course have spared Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but History will yet judge the utility of that regime change. I am of the opinion that making an effective example of the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been a sufficiently big stick to walk a bit more softly with.
Rebuilding failed states is a tricky business, and my personal feeling is that all of our good intentions will eventually come to naught in Afghanistan. It might still be possible before the political will of the West collapses, but things were not ruthless enough to begin with, and we pay the price for that now.
The recent move by Pakistan to create a “no-go” zone on the NW Frontier may point to us a possible, if to some unpalatable, solution. If we box all the backwards fuckers who want to live in the dark ages into that general zone and then tell them we’ll leave them alone if they play nice and STAY THERE, we’ll effectively write off the ungovernable parts of two countries.
This would give us borders we could watch, and set up small highly mobile forces to obliterate any terrorist/bandit sally from it. High endurance UAVs, airmobile troops operating out of firebases, and gobs of short notice firepower would keep them contained, giving the NATO countries an ongoing deployment to hone their special and light forces. And finally, the more civilized elements in Afghanistan could with our assistance get on with their lives, largely if not completely unmolested.
The de-facto Islamic bandit kingdom between Pakistan and Afghanistan isn’t a very Westphalian solution to the problem, but I think it’s past time we started thinking about what will work, as opposed to what we’d ideally like to see.
I’d love to see Jack Layton top that plan.
With that in mind, I’m hard pressed to be too concerned that Jack Layton, leader of the federal New Democratic Party “has a plan” to get us out of Afghanistan. This phrase was used by a woman in some shop who told my wife not to worry about me going over there for that reason.
Last I checked, he was as far from being in charge of things as he could get, even in a minority government situation. The opposition is smelling blood, and it of course comes at the price of our troops who are shedding theirs. I can see some attempt to push the government into a non-confidence situation, and I won’t waste my time speculating here about what their chances are.
What I will say is that if our casualties are used as a reason to get out of a vital mission to stabilize a perennially failed state with a recent history of exporting terror we will have contributed to losing the “war on terror” and our people will have died for nothing.
I definitely have some ideas on how this “war” should be executed, and in this case there should have been MORE troops in Afghanistan, not less. The Americans should have followed up Operation Anaconda with all the light divisions they had and all the air resources that they used in Iraq. The Taliban could then have been winkled out of every last significant hole, pushed back over the Pakistani or Iranian borders. At that point NATO could have deployed a force a bit smaller than the current one, with abundant air mobility and firepower assets to support Provincial Reconstruction Teams that would actually have a chance to do their thing.
This would of course have spared Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but History will yet judge the utility of that regime change. I am of the opinion that making an effective example of the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been a sufficiently big stick to walk a bit more softly with.
Rebuilding failed states is a tricky business, and my personal feeling is that all of our good intentions will eventually come to naught in Afghanistan. It might still be possible before the political will of the West collapses, but things were not ruthless enough to begin with, and we pay the price for that now.
The recent move by Pakistan to create a “no-go” zone on the NW Frontier may point to us a possible, if to some unpalatable, solution. If we box all the backwards fuckers who want to live in the dark ages into that general zone and then tell them we’ll leave them alone if they play nice and STAY THERE, we’ll effectively write off the ungovernable parts of two countries.
This would give us borders we could watch, and set up small highly mobile forces to obliterate any terrorist/bandit sally from it. High endurance UAVs, airmobile troops operating out of firebases, and gobs of short notice firepower would keep them contained, giving the NATO countries an ongoing deployment to hone their special and light forces. And finally, the more civilized elements in Afghanistan could with our assistance get on with their lives, largely if not completely unmolested.
The de-facto Islamic bandit kingdom between Pakistan and Afghanistan isn’t a very Westphalian solution to the problem, but I think it’s past time we started thinking about what will work, as opposed to what we’d ideally like to see.
I’d love to see Jack Layton top that plan.
Friday 1 September 2006
Jaw-Jaw during War-War?
(My apologies to the late Sir Winston for mangling his quote for my own mundane purposes)
I misplaced the link, but I read somewhere today a question about whether we should be negotiating with al-Qaeda.
The keystone to getting along in the world is finding a meeting of interests, if not minds. If as these people claim, Bin Laden and co. “merely” wants the US out of the mid-east, it’ll probably be a while before they get together at the table. The loss of the Saudi government (the inevitable result of said disengagement) would be no skin off our noses, since they’re at least as repressive as anything Bin Laden would like to put in their place. Indeed, as long as we have an agreement with whoever controls the stuff we want, we have, well, the status quo. If only it were that simple…
For the sake of argument, I’d happily shop the Saudis to some other Wahabbist group, albeit on the model of the US disengagement from South Vietnam by simply moving my troops elsewhere, like say Iran, on the condition that the “jihad” bullshit was ceased and desisted from. That would likely keep the Sunnis off our backs, so then just to deal with the Israel issue and the government in Iran.
Well, abandoning Israel is out of the question, but the status quo there isn’t tenable either. Carrot to the Sunni extremists would have to be balanced with one massive dose of Stick to the Shiite factions. Instead of taking the troop dividend from pulling out of Saudi and dumping it straight into Iran, send it into Lebanon (with Israeli Int support at least) and settle Hezbollah’s hash for good and all. I’m sure that some sort of proof of Iran’s involvement (better than that against Iraq, for sure) could be found picking through the wreckage of Hezbollah bunkers and on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard bodies that would be the result.
This would necessitate sorting Syria out, but I think they are amenable to some arm-twisting short of regime change. The last thing I want to see in the current political state of the ME is a decapitation of Syria’s power structure (aka "Son of Iraq"). Hopefully the result would be political justification to launch a decapitating strike on the Iranian government, which is something I’d very much like to see as would, I believe, most of the Iranian population.
I won’t worry about the details of all this since it won’t happen, and in any event I’ll have nothing to do with it. The upshot is that as long as you can reach an accommodation with the bad guys, as long as that won’t make the situation worse than it is or is likely to be otherwise, it’s not out of the question to try.
However, the universal rule of negotiations is to do so from a position of strength, so keep kicking ass while you’re talking so they don’t think you’re doing it through fear or lassitude. US foreign policy is the source of a lot of discontent, but most of that discontent is manufactured for other political purposes and would disappear if the ringleaders could be co-opted. Killing them will just lead to more of the same, but until we have a better option we’d better keep smacking them.
I misplaced the link, but I read somewhere today a question about whether we should be negotiating with al-Qaeda.
The keystone to getting along in the world is finding a meeting of interests, if not minds. If as these people claim, Bin Laden and co. “merely” wants the US out of the mid-east, it’ll probably be a while before they get together at the table. The loss of the Saudi government (the inevitable result of said disengagement) would be no skin off our noses, since they’re at least as repressive as anything Bin Laden would like to put in their place. Indeed, as long as we have an agreement with whoever controls the stuff we want, we have, well, the status quo. If only it were that simple…
For the sake of argument, I’d happily shop the Saudis to some other Wahabbist group, albeit on the model of the US disengagement from South Vietnam by simply moving my troops elsewhere, like say Iran, on the condition that the “jihad” bullshit was ceased and desisted from. That would likely keep the Sunnis off our backs, so then just to deal with the Israel issue and the government in Iran.
Well, abandoning Israel is out of the question, but the status quo there isn’t tenable either. Carrot to the Sunni extremists would have to be balanced with one massive dose of Stick to the Shiite factions. Instead of taking the troop dividend from pulling out of Saudi and dumping it straight into Iran, send it into Lebanon (with Israeli Int support at least) and settle Hezbollah’s hash for good and all. I’m sure that some sort of proof of Iran’s involvement (better than that against Iraq, for sure) could be found picking through the wreckage of Hezbollah bunkers and on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard bodies that would be the result.
This would necessitate sorting Syria out, but I think they are amenable to some arm-twisting short of regime change. The last thing I want to see in the current political state of the ME is a decapitation of Syria’s power structure (aka "Son of Iraq"). Hopefully the result would be political justification to launch a decapitating strike on the Iranian government, which is something I’d very much like to see as would, I believe, most of the Iranian population.
I won’t worry about the details of all this since it won’t happen, and in any event I’ll have nothing to do with it. The upshot is that as long as you can reach an accommodation with the bad guys, as long as that won’t make the situation worse than it is or is likely to be otherwise, it’s not out of the question to try.
However, the universal rule of negotiations is to do so from a position of strength, so keep kicking ass while you’re talking so they don’t think you’re doing it through fear or lassitude. US foreign policy is the source of a lot of discontent, but most of that discontent is manufactured for other political purposes and would disappear if the ringleaders could be co-opted. Killing them will just lead to more of the same, but until we have a better option we’d better keep smacking them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)