First off, I've not been very productive here, and I'll be amazed if anyone is still paying attention. That said, I slogged through this paper on Hydrogen as a fuel source, and I think it's required reading for anyone to understand why you won't be pulling up to the pump at the local gas station to fill up your hydrogen powered car.
Your car will run on H2 with little modification; the stuff explodes just fine. The things I didn't know were the energy required to separate it and near impossibility to transport it any significant distance in any economic or useful quantity.
I did see a really good article about some engineer in the US who got grants to convert his house and car to H2. He electrolyses it himself from rainwater using electricity generated by his solar array, and the H2 he doesn't need during the summer is stored in bulk tanks and is topped up by whatever he can generate during the low solar periods and is used to run things until the sun is out enough to make it unnecessary again.
That has potential, but it's a major investment (c. $250K for your house) and not likely to be economical any time soon. Maybe some sort of planned community thing? It will work on a neighbourhood scale and may make sense there before anywhere else, but I'm not in that racket.
I won't summarize it more than that. It's a bit dry but it's only 15 pages, and those of you math-challenged like myself can skim the equations and get the gist from the graphs. We have to come up with some new ways of doing things, and there are some useful suggestions in this paper even if I don't agree with all of their assumptions about global warming.
Friday, 8 August 2008
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Who pays for this again?
First the background:
VANCOUVER -- Immigrants with HIV account for a large portion of new infections of the disease in Canada and they're slipping between the health-care cracks, warns a recent report.
I don't personally think that anyone not a Canadian citizen has any entitlement to our health care system, and I certainly don't want waves of medical refugees fetching up on our shores, but the numbers don't seem to suggest that is happening. I am also not so concerned with privacy issues as they relate to would-be immigrants carrying a deadly infectious disease. Then again, I'm not a lawyer who makes his money from those people, so I would like to think my position is hardly surprising.
This is not all about level of physical risk from a given disease; there are financial costs associated with treatment of any of these things, and people who haven't paid into the system are an undue drain upon it. It's very nice for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to "wisely" decide who is entitled to our taxpayer money, but last I checked those bureaucrats hadn't been elected. And there is the law on the matter as well:
A foreign national can be considered inadmissible on health grounds if they're likely to be a danger to public health or safety or could be expected to cause excessive demands on health or social services.
I was reading something yesterday about the reality of the costs of things and the dangers of deciding that those costs don't exist or are irrelevant. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will tell you "If you don't work you die." but it seems that a passing familiarity with the basic economics of the world, let alone our taxpayer-funded system are of little import to our "elites".
VANCOUVER -- Immigrants with HIV account for a large portion of new infections of the disease in Canada and they're slipping between the health-care cracks, warns a recent report.
Although Citizenship and Immigration Canada is considering making HIV a reportable disease, currently it is not,meaning it is not considered a public health risk and it is not mandatory to report infections to public health officials.
The recent report by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control found that about 16 per cent of all new infections in Canada are linked to people from countries where HIV is prevalent, yet they make up only 1.5 per cent of the Canadian population.
The 2005 figure means the infection rate was almost 13 times greater for immigrants - or those connected to them - from HIV-endemic countries than for Canadians.
It's not the Black Death or anything, but I think we can all agree that HIV leads (in most cases) to AIDS, and that is both terminal, transmissible and a drain on our health care system. For the record, there is some dispute about the inevitability of the HIV-AIDS link but I include that only in the interest of balance. HIV remains a reliable predictor of AIDS, if nothing else.The article continues:
Michael Battista, a Toronto lawyer who focuses on immigration and refugee law, said people are counselled about the dangers of spreading the disease."Citizenship and Immigration Canada wisely decided that people with HIV do not pose a danger to public health or safety," Battista said.
"And so I think it's on that basis that Citizenship and Immigration Canada doesn't have a strong connection to provincial health authorities in terms of reporting newcomers with HIV."
Battista believes the follow up from provincial health officials is an intrusion.
"I think there are huge privacy concerns that are raised when people with HIV go through the system, particularly given the fact that HIV is not something that is easily spread," said Battista.
Between 2002 and 2006 there were 2,567 immigration applicants who tested positive for HIV during their medical examinations among the 1.2 million immigrants to Canada accepted during the same period.
Of those HIV-positive applicants, 89 per cent were determined to be medically admissible to the country.
A person with HIV has an added burden compared to other Canadian immigrants getting into the country.A person with HIV is not inadmissable outright, but it is very difficult for HIV-positive immigrants or refugees to gain admission.
That last bit first. With the volume of people who would like into Canada, I see no reason to admit people with any serious disease, hard to get or otherwise. As well, 89% is MOST of those who try, suggesting to me that it's not as hard for them to get in as that last sentence would have us believe.I don't personally think that anyone not a Canadian citizen has any entitlement to our health care system, and I certainly don't want waves of medical refugees fetching up on our shores, but the numbers don't seem to suggest that is happening. I am also not so concerned with privacy issues as they relate to would-be immigrants carrying a deadly infectious disease. Then again, I'm not a lawyer who makes his money from those people, so I would like to think my position is hardly surprising.
This is not all about level of physical risk from a given disease; there are financial costs associated with treatment of any of these things, and people who haven't paid into the system are an undue drain upon it. It's very nice for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to "wisely" decide who is entitled to our taxpayer money, but last I checked those bureaucrats hadn't been elected. And there is the law on the matter as well:
A foreign national can be considered inadmissible on health grounds if they're likely to be a danger to public health or safety or could be expected to cause excessive demands on health or social services.
I was reading something yesterday about the reality of the costs of things and the dangers of deciding that those costs don't exist or are irrelevant. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will tell you "If you don't work you die." but it seems that a passing familiarity with the basic economics of the world, let alone our taxpayer-funded system are of little import to our "elites".
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
He got one thing right at least.
When the agent accuses Khadr of crying to avoid interrogation, Khadr tells the agent between gasping sobs, "You don't care about me."
Damned straight I don't. I wonder if he was this much of a cry-baby in Taliban camp in Pakistan but somehow I doubt it. The solution to this would have been a third bullet, since the first two were inadequate for the job; now we'll never be rid of this guy.
Damned straight I don't. I wonder if he was this much of a cry-baby in Taliban camp in Pakistan but somehow I doubt it. The solution to this would have been a third bullet, since the first two were inadequate for the job; now we'll never be rid of this guy.
Friday, 11 July 2008
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
I like to think that this is a victory for some kind of sense in this country, but it's flawed for sure.
For the record, I share his appraisal of the .357 revolver as the ideal CQB weapon for countering home invasions. It will stop anyone in their tracks, is more manageable than a .44 for follow-up shots, and as a revolver you can keep it loaded forever with no poxy magazine-spring fatigue to cramp your style.
No; in case you suspected sarcasm, I'm quite serious. It is very much against Canadian law to be prepared to defend yourself effectively so I will not suggest you rush out (to wait months or more) to get a permit to buy said pistol. You do however know, in case it's ever relevant, that a .357 Magnum is capable of taking down a fully-equipped SWAT trooper at close quarters, and your average punk home invader would be a much softer target, dusted/cracked out or not.
It is a tragedy for the family and friends of Officer Tessier that he lost his life in this manner, but it's a dangerous job and we take our chances. There are hopefully some questions being asked of the Laval PD that will avoid a repeat of this event. From a professional standpoint, it was an operational failure that this guy got the drop on him and was not neutralized as soon as he presented a weapon.
If you talk the talk, you had better be able to walk the walk; what I mean by that is if you're going to go charging in SAS style you are presumably expecting to need that sort of kinetic, lethal action, and you'd better be bloody well ready to use your training to the full. A guy swinging a gun at you certainly warrants a lethal response, and I note that Officer Tessier's fireteam partner (or whatever the cops call them) didn't empty a magazine into Mr. Parasiris, the tactically correct response to one of your buddies getting capped.
So, to sum up:
The father of two testified he thought his family was being attacked by home invaders when a police team swarmed his house on March 2, 2007.
Nine police officers smashed down the front door of Parasiris's home with a battering ram in the pre-dawn raid.
Tessier and his colleagues ran upstairs to the master bedroom with their weapons drawn.
Parasiris testified his only thoughts during the chaos were to protect his wife and children.
He grabbed his .357 Magnum and was confronted by Tessier, who was dressed in dark colours with nothing indicating he was a police officer, according to testimony in the trial.
I take only the most obvious facts into account in making my appraisal of this being a good result, that is some guy waking up disoriented in the wee hours of the morning with a bunch of guys in ninja/SWAT gear thumping up his stairs waving guns and yelling.
Apparently the cops were yelling "Police, warrant" or some such, which is all well and good, but a) buddy had to hear that, b) he had to register it (he was rudely awakened after all) and c) he had to believe it.
For the record, I share his appraisal of the .357 revolver as the ideal CQB weapon for countering home invasions. It will stop anyone in their tracks, is more manageable than a .44 for follow-up shots, and as a revolver you can keep it loaded forever with no poxy magazine-spring fatigue to cramp your style.
No; in case you suspected sarcasm, I'm quite serious. It is very much against Canadian law to be prepared to defend yourself effectively so I will not suggest you rush out (to wait months or more) to get a permit to buy said pistol. You do however know, in case it's ever relevant, that a .357 Magnum is capable of taking down a fully-equipped SWAT trooper at close quarters, and your average punk home invader would be a much softer target, dusted/cracked out or not.
It is a tragedy for the family and friends of Officer Tessier that he lost his life in this manner, but it's a dangerous job and we take our chances. There are hopefully some questions being asked of the Laval PD that will avoid a repeat of this event. From a professional standpoint, it was an operational failure that this guy got the drop on him and was not neutralized as soon as he presented a weapon.
If you talk the talk, you had better be able to walk the walk; what I mean by that is if you're going to go charging in SAS style you are presumably expecting to need that sort of kinetic, lethal action, and you'd better be bloody well ready to use your training to the full. A guy swinging a gun at you certainly warrants a lethal response, and I note that Officer Tessier's fireteam partner (or whatever the cops call them) didn't empty a magazine into Mr. Parasiris, the tactically correct response to one of your buddies getting capped.
So, to sum up:
- a very unfortunate loss of a police officer in the line of duty
- an excellent precedent to reaffirm our legal right to use up to lethal force to defend ourselves and our families from home invasion, etc.
- an expose of the questionable choice of targets by the local PD
- some serious questions could be asked about all these SWAT-type officers and why they are parading around with all this kit and doing these assault operations if they aren't either properly trained for that sort of thing or not prepared to use their training when circumstances warrant.
Monday, 23 June 2008
Now THIS is somewhere we could intervene...
Zimbabwe surprises me only in that it continues to get worse, long past the point that I'd thought it had bottomed out. I have pretty much given up on Afghanistan as you may have noticed, and I'm not alone, but I think there is a case to be made for going in hard into Zimbabwe and taking out the trash.
There is no longer even a pretense of a democratic process there, and the African countries have no interest in sorting this mess out, so perhaps it's time to get "neo-colonialist" on their asses.
It wouldn't be colonialist, as I have no intention of planting colonists nor exploiting the place for advantageous trade arrangements. A bit of Regime Change is, however, exactly what the doctor ordered.
Mugabe keeps trotting out his "war veterans", but there are lot of the old Rhodesian Army alumni around who could be cadre-d with western forces to kick Mugabe's ass, destroy his powerbase, and provide some muscle for a new government centred around the MDC. They did, after all WIN the election despite widespread manipulation of the results, so I think they represent the legitimate will of the majority.
Under competent management Zimbabwe could again be the breadbasket of southern Africa, and unlike Afghanistan (and perhaps Iraq, etc.) it is not such a basket case that it can't be put back on its' feet. The neighbours can't/won't do the job, but we can, and it would be a worthwhile thing to do with a reasonable timeline and obvious exit strategy.
"In and out clever" was the old term (I think I've used it here before), and is my pragmatic approach. High intensity, medium-risk operations with clear and attainable objectives. Fix things that CAN be fixed, and/or damage our enemies badly enough to set them back. Nobody is rushing to help Zimbabwe because of a lack of pressing geopolitical reasons, overstretch in various Asian quagmires and any number of logistical and political hurdles, but it doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile thing to do.
If the support of South Africa can be secured for the logistics of an operation (in their interest, after all) it can be done. By whom and with what I have no idea at present, but I use this as an example of what we can do if we feel the need to do this sort of thing. The locals are not inherently antagonistic to us and our way of life, making the place a good candidate for nation re-building. The same cannot be said for a lot of other parts of the world.
There is no longer even a pretense of a democratic process there, and the African countries have no interest in sorting this mess out, so perhaps it's time to get "neo-colonialist" on their asses.
It wouldn't be colonialist, as I have no intention of planting colonists nor exploiting the place for advantageous trade arrangements. A bit of Regime Change is, however, exactly what the doctor ordered.
Mugabe keeps trotting out his "war veterans", but there are lot of the old Rhodesian Army alumni around who could be cadre-d with western forces to kick Mugabe's ass, destroy his powerbase, and provide some muscle for a new government centred around the MDC. They did, after all WIN the election despite widespread manipulation of the results, so I think they represent the legitimate will of the majority.
Under competent management Zimbabwe could again be the breadbasket of southern Africa, and unlike Afghanistan (and perhaps Iraq, etc.) it is not such a basket case that it can't be put back on its' feet. The neighbours can't/won't do the job, but we can, and it would be a worthwhile thing to do with a reasonable timeline and obvious exit strategy.
"In and out clever" was the old term (I think I've used it here before), and is my pragmatic approach. High intensity, medium-risk operations with clear and attainable objectives. Fix things that CAN be fixed, and/or damage our enemies badly enough to set them back. Nobody is rushing to help Zimbabwe because of a lack of pressing geopolitical reasons, overstretch in various Asian quagmires and any number of logistical and political hurdles, but it doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile thing to do.
If the support of South Africa can be secured for the logistics of an operation (in their interest, after all) it can be done. By whom and with what I have no idea at present, but I use this as an example of what we can do if we feel the need to do this sort of thing. The locals are not inherently antagonistic to us and our way of life, making the place a good candidate for nation re-building. The same cannot be said for a lot of other parts of the world.
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Carbon Feet of Clay
I must be feeling a bit better, as my outrage at patent stupidity is returning to near-normal levels, restoring the sense of purpose which led to me start this blog in the first place. I have had a lot of stuff on here about the Global Warming hoax/panic, and the political set are jockeying to punish us financially just as many (myself included) predicted.
The Honourable Mr. Dion is currently staking all of his political marbles on this "Green Shift" taxation scheme. I'll get more to the nuts and bolts of that in a minute, but an aside first.
There is mounting evidence that whatever warming there was was a) minor and b) over several years ago. I have documented that elsewhere so I won't re-hash it here, but I wanted to point out what I find worrisome about the recent rash of Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax, etc. initiatives from various governments. It's pretty simple: their very existence under the current circumstances.
We just had one of the longest, snowiest winters in living memory, temperatures were below average over much of the Northern Hemisphere (at least), evidence is abundant that all of Al Gore's eyewash is exactly that, AND oil prices are at an all-time high. This is the time politicians choose to try to hammer us with a Carbon Tax?
That this seems contra-indicated by economic factors alone is the most obvious point, and one which is not lost on the population, currently being punished on every level by ridiculous prices for oil. A tax on "Carbon" (does this include BBQ charcoal? My exhalations?) is a Tax on EVERYTHING, because it doesn't walk to get to you.
I linked this from a particular CTV article, and the comments section is revealing in the preponderance of comments hostile to this as a plan. There are of course many ways to explain that, but I will invoke Occam's Razor on this one; people are taxed enough, are paying punishingly high prices for gas, seeing the price of everything else go relentlessly up, and foresee even more of all the above if a carbon tax is added to the mix.
I think that such a thing should be voluntary; if you really believe that the whole thing will be "revenue neutral" for you, you sign up for it. The 90% of the population not stupid or Utopian enough to fall for it will happily let you, as long as they don't have to as well. Should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is...
The PM, in my opinion, had the pulse of the country in response to this idea when he said:
"(The carbon tax plan) is like the national energy program in the sense that the national energy program was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector -- and this will do those things. ... This is different in that this will actually screw everybody across the country."
Those of more delicate disposition have proffessed to have taken exception to his language, but personally I think he nailed it on the head.
Oh perish the use of the four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure;
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar obscene and impure.
But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase
That never quite says what you mean.
You had better be known for your hypocrite ways
Than as vulgar, impure and obscene.
Let your morals be loose as an Alderman's vest
If your language is always obscure.
Today, not the act, but the word is the test
Of vulgar obscene and impure.
Old (and anonymous, so no apologies if I've not the right version exactly) but a spade is still a small shovel and I will always respect someone more for being straight with me than for their oratorical skills in dancing around something.
"Shift out of luck" is as close as the government could actually come to telling us what we'd be if this "Green Shift" is implemented. The only "Green Shift" I see out of this is the shift of more of my "green" (and red, and brownish, and blue, etc) to the taxman and to businesses for our necessities and luxuries alike.
The Honourable Mr. Dion is currently staking all of his political marbles on this "Green Shift" taxation scheme. I'll get more to the nuts and bolts of that in a minute, but an aside first.
There is mounting evidence that whatever warming there was was a) minor and b) over several years ago. I have documented that elsewhere so I won't re-hash it here, but I wanted to point out what I find worrisome about the recent rash of Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax, etc. initiatives from various governments. It's pretty simple: their very existence under the current circumstances.
We just had one of the longest, snowiest winters in living memory, temperatures were below average over much of the Northern Hemisphere (at least), evidence is abundant that all of Al Gore's eyewash is exactly that, AND oil prices are at an all-time high. This is the time politicians choose to try to hammer us with a Carbon Tax?
That this seems contra-indicated by economic factors alone is the most obvious point, and one which is not lost on the population, currently being punished on every level by ridiculous prices for oil. A tax on "Carbon" (does this include BBQ charcoal? My exhalations?) is a Tax on EVERYTHING, because it doesn't walk to get to you.
I linked this from a particular CTV article, and the comments section is revealing in the preponderance of comments hostile to this as a plan. There are of course many ways to explain that, but I will invoke Occam's Razor on this one; people are taxed enough, are paying punishingly high prices for gas, seeing the price of everything else go relentlessly up, and foresee even more of all the above if a carbon tax is added to the mix.
I think that such a thing should be voluntary; if you really believe that the whole thing will be "revenue neutral" for you, you sign up for it. The 90% of the population not stupid or Utopian enough to fall for it will happily let you, as long as they don't have to as well. Should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is...
The PM, in my opinion, had the pulse of the country in response to this idea when he said:
"(The carbon tax plan) is like the national energy program in the sense that the national energy program was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector -- and this will do those things. ... This is different in that this will actually screw everybody across the country."
Those of more delicate disposition have proffessed to have taken exception to his language, but personally I think he nailed it on the head.
Oh perish the use of the four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure;
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar obscene and impure.
But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase
That never quite says what you mean.
You had better be known for your hypocrite ways
Than as vulgar, impure and obscene.
Let your morals be loose as an Alderman's vest
If your language is always obscure.
Today, not the act, but the word is the test
Of vulgar obscene and impure.
Old (and anonymous, so no apologies if I've not the right version exactly) but a spade is still a small shovel and I will always respect someone more for being straight with me than for their oratorical skills in dancing around something.
"Shift out of luck" is as close as the government could actually come to telling us what we'd be if this "Green Shift" is implemented. The only "Green Shift" I see out of this is the shift of more of my "green" (and red, and brownish, and blue, etc) to the taxman and to businesses for our necessities and luxuries alike.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Lessons Learned; now perhaps some recess?
I'm still not back in peak form for this sort of thing, but I just can't leave my poor blog to languish for too long if I can physically access it and have time to do so. Those two criteria being met, just a short post about Afghanistan and stuff.
With the recent jailbreak in Kandahar and the short-lived Taliban "take-over" of the Argandab there is a lot of focus on the place again. Things seem to be going largely our way for the moment (no NATO and few ANA casualties vs several dozen bad guys) but my view of the big picture, long term, what-have-you has not changed.
Pakistan (source of many of the recent Taliban casualties, apparently) is still a basket case as an "ally" and could get worse with very little warning. This is the dreaded sanctuary with which any insurgency is unbeatable. Add in external interference from meddlesome third parties (e.g. Iran) and the ambivalence of the Pashtun population of Afghanistan, and I really don't see a lot of hope for the place.
Don't hold me to this, as my mind may change later, but at this time after doing a tour there I have no interest in doing so again. There are many ways to die and or be maimed for life, but having rolled the dice once on a hopeless cause I feel no urgency to do so again.
I am, as much as I am of anything in particular, of the realist school of foreign relations. We kicked the Taliban's ass in 2001-2002, and at any other time they've been stupid enough to stand and fight us. This can continue indefinitely and what is the net gain to Canada's security? We're well past the point of diminishing returns and run the risk of ruining our Army in the process if we continue for too long.
As an institution we have learned everything useful that we can from our time in Afghanistan. Some may dispute that, but we have re-established the supremacy of firepower (artillery and close-air as well as direct fire from tanks), the necessity for armour, shown the fallacy that wheeled vehicles can do anything that tracks can, and by our lack of it, the need for battlefield helicopters for mobility in an IED environment.
We have re-learned a lot of things that we shouldn't have forgotten, like that the original purpose of a tank was to help Infantry overcome strong points, NOT to fight other tanks, and (although I'm not so sure this one is really absorbed) that the maximum load an average soldier can carry and fight with all day is about 60lbs.
I saw a good article today about all of our high-tech stuff and the reality of wearing it on operations, so all is not lost, but I think we need another enforced break from international adventures so that we can rebuild the army, both in hardware and personnel. Apply our lessons learned, but not lose sight of fighting a conventional war or keep the pesky Danes and Russians from poaching our Arctic territory.
I'm out of sorts so I'm not as gung-ho as I could be, but I've lost what little motivation I ever had to get myself killed (or worse) over Afghanistan. I don't seek to dissuade others from doing their job, and anyone who could be/has been in the line of fire can disagree with me and I won't argue against you. Anyone who is NOT willing to put their ass on the line at all has no basis whatsoever to give me any opinion on my position and I will ignore yours accordingly.
There are lots of things I am still prepared to do in service of my country, but I'll feel more up to it when I can see the correlation between my risk and the security of my family. Not the official line by a long shot, but as always only my opinion, although I'm sure I'm not alone.
With the recent jailbreak in Kandahar and the short-lived Taliban "take-over" of the Argandab there is a lot of focus on the place again. Things seem to be going largely our way for the moment (no NATO and few ANA casualties vs several dozen bad guys) but my view of the big picture, long term, what-have-you has not changed.
Pakistan (source of many of the recent Taliban casualties, apparently) is still a basket case as an "ally" and could get worse with very little warning. This is the dreaded sanctuary with which any insurgency is unbeatable. Add in external interference from meddlesome third parties (e.g. Iran) and the ambivalence of the Pashtun population of Afghanistan, and I really don't see a lot of hope for the place.
Don't hold me to this, as my mind may change later, but at this time after doing a tour there I have no interest in doing so again. There are many ways to die and or be maimed for life, but having rolled the dice once on a hopeless cause I feel no urgency to do so again.
I am, as much as I am of anything in particular, of the realist school of foreign relations. We kicked the Taliban's ass in 2001-2002, and at any other time they've been stupid enough to stand and fight us. This can continue indefinitely and what is the net gain to Canada's security? We're well past the point of diminishing returns and run the risk of ruining our Army in the process if we continue for too long.
As an institution we have learned everything useful that we can from our time in Afghanistan. Some may dispute that, but we have re-established the supremacy of firepower (artillery and close-air as well as direct fire from tanks), the necessity for armour, shown the fallacy that wheeled vehicles can do anything that tracks can, and by our lack of it, the need for battlefield helicopters for mobility in an IED environment.
We have re-learned a lot of things that we shouldn't have forgotten, like that the original purpose of a tank was to help Infantry overcome strong points, NOT to fight other tanks, and (although I'm not so sure this one is really absorbed) that the maximum load an average soldier can carry and fight with all day is about 60lbs.
I saw a good article today about all of our high-tech stuff and the reality of wearing it on operations, so all is not lost, but I think we need another enforced break from international adventures so that we can rebuild the army, both in hardware and personnel. Apply our lessons learned, but not lose sight of fighting a conventional war or keep the pesky Danes and Russians from poaching our Arctic territory.
I'm out of sorts so I'm not as gung-ho as I could be, but I've lost what little motivation I ever had to get myself killed (or worse) over Afghanistan. I don't seek to dissuade others from doing their job, and anyone who could be/has been in the line of fire can disagree with me and I won't argue against you. Anyone who is NOT willing to put their ass on the line at all has no basis whatsoever to give me any opinion on my position and I will ignore yours accordingly.
There are lots of things I am still prepared to do in service of my country, but I'll feel more up to it when I can see the correlation between my risk and the security of my family. Not the official line by a long shot, but as always only my opinion, although I'm sure I'm not alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)