Did the DOD ever have a real rationale for the end-purpose of those 767 tankers? I recall reading a bit about them but never followed up.
I do think we need to spend more money towards battlefield style area denial anti-missile systems. We certainly won't have to defend against ICBM attacks on a large scale, at least not for the foreseeable future (I hope) but operative and reliable missile defense systems on the tactical scale would be very useful and save a lot of lives, in addition to developing the tech enough that larger scale systems might become practical.
If you are seeking to pour money in to the pockets of your friends a program with a multidecade life span which may or may not actually bend any metal or go anywhere for a decade, if ever, is a pretty good program.
Yeah, 'vaporware' projects seem to have been the 90s+ fad. They existed before, but do so on a much larger scale now. WRT to military expenditures I regard that as fraud. Screwing the military is pretty damned stupid.
Regarding Halliburton, I wonder what's going to happen to their PR once a lot of our soldiers come home and start writing books? The blatant crap they are pulling over there makes me angry as hell.
One of the reasons that full-serve has/is dying out is that you have to have at least two attendants on duty (more in busier stations). One way that stations save money is with self-serve - all you have to have is an attendant behind the register, and your liability costs get passed to the customers, not to your employee insurance.
I do agree that full-serve stations should be required by law; and there also should be some state-supervised training of attendants. I've seen entirely too much stupidity - especially with some years of experience working nights and 2nd jobs at stations, you wouldn't believe what you see out there (see my other post in this article:) and not just from the public, either.
That actually happened to me many years ago when I worked a gas station nights during college. This drunken idiot left the pump running and came in to get a few things (normal); then paid when the pump quit running and left. Normal everyday occurrence.
But he forgot to remove the nozzle of the pump from his car, drove off and tore the nozzle and hose off of the pump. Scared shit out of me for a few moments until I realized that the auto-shutoff had worked and there was no fire.
SOP at the station under those circumstances was to call the cops and the FD, so I did (I also knew the guy and could describe his car). Needless to say they caught him just a few miles down the road, and he and the cops returned to the station.
This guy had the GALL to refuse to admit to his mistake. There was a lively little argument going on between us all when a cop came up to the door with the nozzle and line that he'd found lying in the road a few hundred yards away.
Turns out that when this idiot drove off the handle of the pump caught in the fuel door catch on his car and tore the fuel door off the car. The fuel door was still hooked in the pump handle.
I've never seen anyone so red in all my life. Turns out he ended up with a DWI, reckless endangerment and a couple of other charges I can't remember anymore. But I'll always remember the look on his face and the laughter of the cops when we saw that fuel door. This was before "Priceless":) but it sure fits.
To his credit, when I contacted 782CDs's owner, Jim Lockwood, he apologized, and offered to let me send check in the future -- and even said that he'd ship the CDs before he got the check, on my word that I'd sent it. And now, 782Cds accepts both Paypal and credit cards directly.
I've had some good experiences doing similar things with ebay sellers who require Paypal - when I contacted them directly and explained that I refuse to give out my SS# online (or other info like my bank account numbers), they were good enough to accept Western Union money orders. Those who wouldn't I simply refused to do business with.
Call me paranoid if you wish, but I feel that by not opening myself up to risk by giving out my personal financial info online, I'm doing the best I can to avoid identity theft. YMMV,etc. Personally I'd rather avoid the whole potential mess as much as possible.
I remember reading Isaac's words, and thinking it one of the most profound things I'd ever heard. Lately I've been reading a lot of old F&SF magazines I found that contain his columns, and it's amazing how insightful he was, especially into people.
Reminds me of the old saying "One learns something new every day" - and the caveat to that I read somewhere once (don't remember who wrote it) "But only if you keep your mind open to the possibility that you can still learn."
I said nothing about us not having bases all over; neither did I dispute the fact that we are doing so. What I said originally was that for us to capture and squat on the major oilfields in C.A. would inflame much of the Muslim world and most of the countries to which those fields belong. Our military may be the most powerful in the world, but we can't fight most of Central Asia all at once.
(I do agree with you that many or most of them like having the security of US forces nearby to help them defend the fields, but that's not the same thing as what you first said, which was pure untrammeled speculation and an idea that I'd consider extremely foolish, and I said so.)
Most of the rest of what you've said makes sense, however - but I'll still disagree that "Japan attacked us because of the oil embargoes" - considering we had military bases in much of the South Pacific, it was likely only a matter of time until they did attack us -because we would have been in the way of their expansionist policies; and the way they did so was the logical way, in trying to get rid of our main Pacific fleet. I noticed you backed off from your original statement and said that the oil embargoes probably "contributed" to tensions; which is something I do agree with.
If the U.S. has military bases sitting on your soil they have a massive influence on what your country does and doesn't do, especially if you are a little third world country with no military.
For example its pretty unlikely you are going to try and nationalize oil fields being developed by a U.S. company and you are going to think twice before you redirect the oil contracts to an American adversary. Its also a trip wire to prevent any of your neighbors from laying claim to your oil fields.
Now *that* makes sense, much more than your original speculation about simply occupying oil fields all over the ME and CA.
SB
(Note to moderator: Disagreement with strong language does not consitute a troll, a direct personal attack does - which I did not do, if you read my posts, I was attacking the speculations brought up and not the poster himself. Reread the moderator guidelines.)
The US having bases under treaty there does not equate whatsoever to us occupying the oilfields. None of those countries would agree with nor acquiese to us occupying their energy production facilities.
I'm not saying that we *couldn't* occupy the oilfields - I'm saying that we *don't* and that the cost to do so would be enormous (and we probably wouldn't be able to supply those troops sufficiently to guarantee ownership, either, given where those oilfields are and the logistics of supply delivery.) Do you think we have endless resources?
There's a huge difference between having military forces in a country on delineated bases, and having them occupy strategic and defended resources in that country; which you don't seem to understand at all. We may have the best military in the world, but that doesn't mean that all our opponents would roll over as easily as Iraq's military did.
Quit quoting google at me and tell me what basis your speculation in the original post has some basis. Just how much more overseas deployment do you think the public would stand for before even the GW administration had to bow before that pressure? Good Lord.
Good night. I'm not going to post till tomorrow night due to work, so think your response over.
I support "no professional politicians". Single terms for every elected office. No more than 10 years total government service or involvement, and no pensions whatsoever. Medical and survivors bereavement benefits for veterans, or people in current employ only. Limit campaign contributions to 100$, from individuals only, no soft money from corporations, no lobbying gifts, trips, speakers fees, etc. Let's call bribes "bribes" and finalize outlawing them. It's not a free speech issue.
Ditto here. It should be just as much "service" as the military is. Chopping all the bennies might not totally stop corruption, but it'd damned well slow it down. Making it voluntary service might work, if you can legally guarantee that the candidates/officers won't be influenced by monetary parties.
Of course it'd take Congress voting on it to implement it (or a major groundswell/moderate armed revolution by voters) to make it happen - so it probably won't.
Yeah, I'll go along with that. Twang twang, and all. (Spanish guitar, OTOH ->:)
I have entirely too many hobbies.
Including brewing very good beer:)
My feeling is that there won't be any of the "william" dark left after tonite; regardless of my ten hour day tomorrow, I feel the need...and it's so GOOD - proud of my mix, yay, verily forsooth, etc. I just hope I can find the notes on what I put into it. Been a while.
t_m_p; Photoshop *is* a hobby. After all, it's fun, you enjoy it, and you don't get paid for it, neh?
That makes it a hobby in my book. Hobbies are supposed to be FUN!
Cheers! SB (PS - Yeah, I'm weird. It gets worse when you get older, assuming you don't get assimilated. I tend to think of it as cultural divergence for individuals. Perhaps we need a support group;-)
If we (the US) are going to play Empire, we ought to at least be competent at it. The way we're going about it right now is not by any means so.
One of the lessons that the Romans learned was that you can't do conquest by half measures - you either go all the way, or don't attempt the venture at all.
Our "rationale" for going into Iraq was less than paper thin - and the major evidence for that is that we didn't have any longterm plan other than some nebulous concept of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" - which is just plain foolish idealogical thinking. But if we're going to try to play empire - start forcing other "nation-states" out there to conform to our way of government - we should do it competently. That involves a lot more weapons than military ones, and requires resolve not just on the part of our civilian leaders, but our military. We don't have that.
We aren't, and for the foreseeable future, we won't, either, going to change the way the Middle East is, not for the better.
SB PS - For some of the pedantists out there, yes, I do read Pournelle, and I happen to think he's right. I'll listen to debate but not flamebait.
The Neocons are in fact looking ahead to when the day there isn't enough oil to meet demand. When that day comes they will look pretty smart when they have the U.S. military sitting in the middle of all the old oil fields in the Middle East and all the new ones in Central Asia. When that day comes some people will get the oil their economies need and some nations will go dark.
The neocons would look a whole lot smarter in the long run if they would pour the hundreds of billions being sunk into a very risky attempt at introducing democracy to the Middle East, if they would take that same amount of money and use it to make the US energy independent. Solar satellites, new fission reactors, hydrogen economy research, it won't matter to the historians looking back fifty years from now.
and all the new ones in Central Asia.
Don't make me laugh. That's just plain stupid. Have our military forces sit on oil fields in Central Asia? International militaristic blackmail doesn't work, no matter how powerful your military is. The Soviets learned that lesson really well.
It's becoming pretty clear that our attempt to introduce democracy into the Middle East, while a laudable goal, is probably an impossible one - we're trying to alter thousands of years of culture and cultural politics into a form we consider "acceptable" - and that's not going to happen, barring direct intervention from one diety or another - not saying that in the long run it couldn't work, but that run is simply too long for the US electorate to withstand, so it won't. We won't tolerate having our troops over there that long.
Our best bet would have been to continue the Afghanistan fight, leave Iraq and the Middle East alone, and pour all that money into making this country independent of Middle East oil. The technology is already there, just massively underfunded - for several hundred billion it can be done, assuming that the money isn't swallowed by "friendly" corporations such as Halliburton.
What I've said is not just IMO, either - many of the premier analysts, military, civilian, long employed, are saying the same thing. The real damning part of the analysis is that the American public is not going to stand for a long term troop presence in the ME - which will be absolutely! necessary if we are really willing to try to convert the ME to democracy (anyone who thinks that some kind of "cascade effect" would happen if we managed to make Iraq into a stable democracy is being foolish).
Putting the money into energy independance for the US would have been smarter, and if for no other reason than the "Look, we're doing it, here's the technology, and we'll help you do it" reason. Teach by example, give the technology away, we'd make a lot more friends that way than we will by trying to force our current society on them.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the U.S. was embargoing Japan's access to U.S. controlled oil fields in Indonesia.
WTF? No. That's revisionist bullshit. Well before PH the Japanese were into conquest, Indonesia we had little real interest in, we had internal sources for oil that were much cheaper.
Pearl Harbor was an attempt at neutralizing the US Pacific Fleet in order to insure that we didn't become involved in the Japanese conquest of most of the Far East. The irony of that is that if they hadn't attacked us, we probably would have stayed out of the war in the Pacific entirely, at least for a few years.
Too many people are not remembering their history nor understanding the difference between competent Republic and incompetent Empire. Not that our current administration has shown a whole lot of longterm competence or thought, particularly in this.
In any case, we're already there; we have to make the best meal out of the broken omelette that we can. *shrug* Pulling out now is not the worst course nor the best course of action. In the military it's called a clusterfuck. Damned if you do, damned
Sorry, but that's crap. Beauty is a totally subjective standard, but health isn't.
I know this really ugly former Marine sergeant who runs 10 miles a day. He's ten years older than me (in his 50s) but he could outrun, outlast, outfight, and outdrink 99.9% of anyone, not to mention people who are "beautiful" - and then get up the next day and do it all over. If there's anyone I've ever known likely to live to be a hundred years old, it's him.
His only lament is that he's so damned ugly (he is, even speaking as another male) that he can't find an even semi-goodlooking woman who'll sleep with him. (Well, he does have one fault - as I remind him every so often:)
Y'know, I grew up in farm country. I've heard all the arguments from all sides a million times. I also know that countries like India, China and many others manage to feed themselves without resorting to massive ranching - and they produce some pretty bright people, too. Sure, there are a lot of people starving in those countries - but the ratios aren't that different from here in the US. People who are getting obese on the junk provided by corps such as McDonalds are essentially starving themselves of the proper diets.
What I see is that there is a massive conglomerate of corporations whose sole interest is to see that they get their quota of beef - no matter how it's raised, no matter the effects on the people, the land, the economy, no matter WTF. It's a bottom line $ figure to them, no more - some of the things I brought up in my response mean nothing to them - they don't read history nor are most of them cognizant of the longterm limiting factors of land demand and supply. That's why there are people in SoAm razing millions of acres to produce beef for American corps - we can't sustain our own demand off of available rangeland, because it's been overgrazed and overused. That's just *one* of the limiting factors to overheavy reliance on meat.
The basic argument you brought up is one that I've heard a bazillion times - and I could counter it, but not in a slashdot post and not without you having experience that one cannot get from a basic math education and the ability to do some basic calculations.
That is why I lit off at you. I'm sorry about that - I don't do it often - but I'm just sick of seeing incomplete figures like this bandied around. It really pisses me off, because there are entirely too many people who really believe that crap.
All I'll say is that you should do some real research into what you said before you spout it off as gospel. You'd be surprised at what you'll find.
No, I'm not going to provide links. Learn it yourself. There's nothing I could say or point to that would convince you as much as you can do.
Sorry for lighting off at you, anyway. I'm not a vegetarian nor am I a PETA nut (fuckers) but I do get pissed at seeing what I consider statistical and mathematical FUD being expoused.
No, it's more likely to be a bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people making war on each other because they are pumped up on hormones and have nothing better to do (all the good jobs already having been taken) and because there are entirely too many of them elbow to elbow.
Oh, and they'd be making lots more kids. Who would grow up the same way (and have even less education/learning/wisdom than the previous generation, because what's the point of *working* for something if you can get most or all of the benefits from a pill?)
The only thing that would prevent disaster would be a new frontier. Like...space. Give those who want something to do, something to do. Let some of them get killed off -that's social evolution (which is stagnating, already, here in the US)
There seems to be a limit with full exploition, too - how far you can go until the built-on-scaling-up monopolies own your government, and can dictate what they want to.
We seem to be running into that limit about now...
It isn't that the analysis "isn't trivial" - it's how much it cripples your country, economy, education, etc in the long run.
Rome built aqueducts; but easy living for those who had it was it's downfall. Too focused on their own conquests they would be, those who would incite the wrath of the legions.
[bad paraphrasing, I know; but is it none the less true? s/legions/masses/military, then recompute:( ]
Nice analysis. You should be working for the government farm statistics assholes. You have a good grasp of stastitics.
You forgot a few things. Like land use, water tables, sustainable feed supplies vs. growing land vs. range land, shipment of feedstocks, corporate suppliers of nutriet supplements for the land that can no longer supply decent range cattle, oh, fuckit.
You are *such* a insightful commentator. Worked Ag, have you? What fucking qualifications do you have? Go argue with zogger, if you dare.
Putting out basic Ag101 figs (or the kind of shit produced by the ranchers associations).
I listened to that shit every day from the reps from Monsanto and many other firms - twenty + years ago. If you think you have something new to contribute to contribute to the discussion, you are way off base.
I am getting so sick of hearing the corporate bottom line getting espoused in conversations about the "food machine" (garf) that feeds our country, and many others, that I could puke.
Just keep on believing what you've been fed. Sooner or later, it won't feed you. Bwwwwuaaah.
I'm sorry, I've been so busy just surviving for the last few year I'm not keeping up *weep*:(
And de centralised power is better for national security! A few more million points of production spread out over the USA makes it much less likely that if any large plants go out from attack/damage/political & economic shenanigans that it will have as bad an effect.
Fuckin'A right!
Not even mentioning the reliability and economic return from having distributed energy sources - I agree with Pournelle wrt to orbital solar/mw delivered, but that is what should power our industries - if there's anything that technology is giving us, the most valuable is the ability to produce our own power! (Bog forbid that it might take some *work* to do so!)
I better stop ranting now, been sampling some of the dark, but zogger, feel free to give our other brother in this thread my email)
SB ( halfway beyond the sidewalks and FUCK the prices of land around here - the caretaking position got taken:( -Me,dumb- )
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are right on the mark, there.
Did the DOD ever have a real rationale for the end-purpose of those 767 tankers? I recall reading a bit about them but never followed up.
I do think we need to spend more money towards battlefield style area denial anti-missile systems. We certainly won't have to defend against ICBM attacks on a large scale, at least not for the foreseeable future (I hope) but operative and reliable missile defense systems on the tactical scale would be very useful and save a lot of lives, in addition to developing the tech enough that larger scale systems might become practical.
If you are seeking to pour money in to the pockets of your friends a program with a multidecade life span which may or may not actually bend any metal or go anywhere for a decade, if ever, is a pretty good program.
Yeah, 'vaporware' projects seem to have been the 90s+ fad. They existed before, but do so on a much larger scale now. WRT to military expenditures I regard that as fraud. Screwing the military is pretty damned stupid.
Regarding Halliburton, I wonder what's going to happen to their PR once a lot of our soldiers come home and start writing books? The blatant crap they are pulling over there makes me angry as hell.
SB
One of the reasons that full-serve has/is dying out is that you have to have at least two attendants on duty (more in busier stations). One way that stations save money is with self-serve - all you have to have is an attendant behind the register, and your liability costs get passed to the customers, not to your employee insurance.
I do agree that full-serve stations should be required by law; and there also should be some state-supervised training of attendants. I've seen entirely too much stupidity - especially with some years of experience working nights and 2nd jobs at stations, you wouldn't believe what you see out there (see my other post in this article
SB
Heh, hilarious.
That actually happened to me many years ago when I worked a gas station nights during college. This drunken idiot left the pump running and came in to get a few things (normal); then paid when the pump quit running and left. Normal everyday occurrence.
But he forgot to remove the nozzle of the pump from his car, drove off and tore the nozzle and hose off of the pump. Scared shit out of me for a few moments until I realized that the auto-shutoff had worked and there was no fire.
SOP at the station under those circumstances was to call the cops and the FD, so I did (I also knew the guy and could describe his car). Needless to say they caught him just a few miles down the road, and he and the cops returned to the station.
This guy had the GALL to refuse to admit to his mistake. There was a lively little argument going on between us all when a cop came up to the door with the nozzle and line that he'd found lying in the road a few hundred yards away.
Turns out that when this idiot drove off the handle of the pump caught in the fuel door catch on his car and tore the fuel door off the car. The fuel door was still hooked in the pump handle.
I've never seen anyone so red in all my life. Turns out he ended up with a DWI, reckless endangerment and a couple of other charges I can't remember anymore. But I'll always remember the look on his face and the laughter of the cops when we saw that fuel door. This was before "Priceless"
SB
SCO charges $699 a line for their blow. Going after them is not worth a crack at it, considering the crack team of lawyers SCO has.
SB
To his credit, when I contacted 782CDs's owner, Jim Lockwood, he apologized, and offered to let me send check in the future -- and even said that he'd ship the CDs before he got the check, on my word that I'd sent it. And now, 782Cds accepts both Paypal and credit cards directly.
I've had some good experiences doing similar things with ebay sellers who require Paypal - when I contacted them directly and explained that I refuse to give out my SS# online (or other info like my bank account numbers), they were good enough to accept Western Union money orders. Those who wouldn't I simply refused to do business with.
Call me paranoid if you wish, but I feel that by not opening myself up to risk by giving out my personal financial info online, I'm doing the best I can to avoid identity theft. YMMV,etc. Personally I'd rather avoid the whole potential mess as much as possible.
SB
That depends on whether you have ever smashed a shopping cart to pieces with a sledgehammer for the sheer satisfaction it can provide.
In short, No.
SB
I remember reading Isaac's words, and thinking it one of the most profound things I'd ever heard. Lately I've been reading a lot of old F&SF magazines I found that contain his columns, and it's amazing how insightful he was, especially into people.
Reminds me of the old saying "One learns something new every day" - and the caveat to that I read somewhere once (don't remember who wrote it) "But only if you keep your mind open to the possibility that you can still learn."
SB
I said nothing about us not having bases all over; neither did I dispute the fact that we are doing so. What I said originally was that for us to capture and squat on the major oilfields in C.A. would inflame much of the Muslim world and most of the countries to which those fields belong. Our military may be the most powerful in the world, but we can't fight most of Central Asia all at once.
(I do agree with you that many or most of them like having the security of US forces nearby to help them defend the fields, but that's not the same thing as what you first said, which was pure untrammeled speculation and an idea that I'd consider extremely foolish, and I said so.)
Most of the rest of what you've said makes sense, however - but I'll still disagree that "Japan attacked us because of the oil embargoes" - considering we had military bases in much of the South Pacific, it was likely only a matter of time until they did attack us -because we would have been in the way of their expansionist policies; and the way they did so was the logical way, in trying to get rid of our main Pacific fleet. I noticed you backed off from your original statement and said that the oil embargoes probably "contributed" to tensions; which is something I do agree with.
If the U.S. has military bases sitting on your soil they have a massive influence on what your country does and doesn't do, especially if you are a little third world country with no military.
For example its pretty unlikely you are going to try and nationalize oil fields being developed by a U.S. company and you are going to think twice before you redirect the oil contracts to an American adversary. Its also a trip wire to prevent any of your neighbors from laying claim to your oil fields.
Now *that* makes sense, much more than your original speculation about simply occupying oil fields all over the ME and CA.
SB
(Note to moderator: Disagreement with strong language does not consitute a troll, a direct personal attack does - which I did not do, if you read my posts, I was attacking the speculations brought up and not the poster himself. Reread the moderator guidelines.)
Yah, go figure. I suspect it was the same mod who hit me on my disagreement with demachina.
Ditto on the beer. Most darks one gets in the states just aren't dark enough!
Whups, gotta get back to work...
SB
The US having bases under treaty there does not equate whatsoever to us occupying the oilfields. None of those countries would agree with nor acquiese to us occupying their energy production facilities.
I'm not saying that we *couldn't* occupy the oilfields - I'm saying that we *don't* and that the cost to do so would be enormous (and we probably wouldn't be able to supply those troops sufficiently to guarantee ownership, either, given where those oilfields are and the logistics of supply delivery.) Do you think we have endless resources?
There's a huge difference between having military forces in a country on delineated bases, and having them occupy strategic and defended resources in that country; which you don't seem to understand at all. We may have the best military in the world, but that doesn't mean that all our opponents would roll over as easily as Iraq's military did.
Quit quoting google at me and tell me what basis your speculation in the original post has some basis. Just how much more overseas deployment do you think the public would stand for before even the GW administration had to bow before that pressure? Good Lord.
Good night. I'm not going to post till tomorrow night due to work, so think your response over.
SB
I support "no professional politicians". Single terms for every elected office. No more than 10 years total government service or involvement, and no pensions whatsoever. Medical and survivors bereavement benefits for veterans, or people in current employ only. Limit campaign contributions to 100$, from individuals only, no soft money from corporations, no lobbying gifts, trips, speakers fees, etc. Let's call bribes "bribes" and finalize outlawing them. It's not a free speech issue.
Ditto here. It should be just as much "service" as the military is. Chopping all the bennies might not totally stop corruption, but it'd damned well slow it down. Making it voluntary service might work, if you can legally guarantee that the candidates/officers won't be influenced by monetary parties.
Of course it'd take Congress voting on it to implement it (or a major groundswell/moderate armed revolution by voters) to make it happen - so it probably won't.
But we can dream, can't we?
SB
Yeah, I'll go along with that. Twang twang, and all. (Spanish guitar, OTOH -> :)
:)
;-)
I have entirely too many hobbies.
Including brewing very good beer
My feeling is that there won't be any of the "william" dark left after tonite; regardless of my ten hour day tomorrow, I feel the need...and it's so GOOD - proud of my mix, yay, verily forsooth, etc. I just hope I can find the notes on what I put into it. Been a while.
t_m_p; Photoshop *is* a hobby. After all, it's fun, you enjoy it, and you don't get paid for it, neh?
That makes it a hobby in my book. Hobbies are supposed to be FUN!
Cheers!
SB
(PS - Yeah, I'm weird. It gets worse when you get older, assuming you don't get assimilated. I tend to think of it as cultural divergence for individuals. Perhaps we need a support group
Agreed.
If we (the US) are going to play Empire, we ought to at least be competent at it. The way we're going about it right now is not by any means so.
One of the lessons that the Romans learned was that you can't do conquest by half measures - you either go all the way, or don't attempt the venture at all.
Our "rationale" for going into Iraq was less than paper thin - and the major evidence for that is that we didn't have any longterm plan other than some nebulous concept of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" - which is just plain foolish idealogical thinking. But if we're going to try to play empire - start forcing other "nation-states" out there to conform to our way of government - we should do it competently. That involves a lot more weapons than military ones, and requires resolve not just on the part of our civilian leaders, but our military. We don't have that.
We aren't, and for the foreseeable future, we won't, either, going to change the way the Middle East is, not for the better.
SB
PS - For some of the pedantists out there, yes, I do read Pournelle, and I happen to think he's right. I'll listen to debate but not flamebait.
The Neocons are in fact looking ahead to when the day there isn't enough oil to meet demand. When that day comes they will look pretty smart when they have the U.S. military sitting in the middle of all the old oil fields in the Middle East and all the new ones in Central Asia. When that day comes some people will get the oil their economies need and some nations will go dark.
The neocons would look a whole lot smarter in the long run if they would pour the hundreds of billions being sunk into a very risky attempt at introducing democracy to the Middle East, if they would take that same amount of money and use it to make the US energy independent. Solar satellites, new fission reactors, hydrogen economy research, it won't matter to the historians looking back fifty years from now.
and all the new ones in Central Asia.
Don't make me laugh. That's just plain stupid. Have our military forces sit on oil fields in Central Asia? International militaristic blackmail doesn't work, no matter how powerful your military is. The Soviets learned that lesson really well.
It's becoming pretty clear that our attempt to introduce democracy into the Middle East, while a laudable goal, is probably an impossible one - we're trying to alter thousands of years of culture and cultural politics into a form we consider "acceptable" - and that's not going to happen, barring direct intervention from one diety or another - not saying that in the long run it couldn't work, but that run is simply too long for the US electorate to withstand, so it won't. We won't tolerate having our troops over there that long.
Our best bet would have been to continue the Afghanistan fight, leave Iraq and the Middle East alone, and pour all that money into making this country independent of Middle East oil. The technology is already there, just massively underfunded - for several hundred billion it can be done, assuming that the money isn't swallowed by "friendly" corporations such as Halliburton.
What I've said is not just IMO, either - many of the premier analysts, military, civilian, long employed, are saying the same thing. The real damning part of the analysis is that the American public is not going to stand for a long term troop presence in the ME - which will be absolutely! necessary if we are really willing to try to convert the ME to democracy (anyone who thinks that some kind of "cascade effect" would happen if we managed to make Iraq into a stable democracy is being foolish).
Putting the money into energy independance for the US would have been smarter, and if for no other reason than the "Look, we're doing it, here's the technology, and we'll help you do it" reason. Teach by example, give the technology away, we'd make a lot more friends that way than we will by trying to force our current society on them.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the U.S. was embargoing Japan's access to U.S. controlled oil fields in Indonesia.
WTF? No. That's revisionist bullshit. Well before PH the Japanese were into conquest, Indonesia we had little real interest in, we had internal sources for oil that were much cheaper.
Pearl Harbor was an attempt at neutralizing the US Pacific Fleet in order to insure that we didn't become involved in the Japanese conquest of most of the Far East. The irony of that is that if they hadn't attacked us, we probably would have stayed out of the war in the Pacific entirely, at least for a few years.
Too many people are not remembering their history nor understanding the difference between competent Republic and incompetent Empire. Not that our current administration has shown a whole lot of longterm competence or thought, particularly in this.
In any case, we're already there; we have to make the best meal out of the broken omelette that we can. *shrug* Pulling out now is not the worst course nor the best course of action. In the military it's called a clusterfuck. Damned if you do, damned
A global economy based on beer... now that would be something :)
:)
I'm all for it!
SB
(yeah, slashcode discriminates against fast typists and one-liners. Deal with it
Sigh.
How soon kids forget.
It's "Nanu Nanu".
SB
Sorry, but that's crap. Beauty is a totally subjective standard, but health isn't.
:)
I know this really ugly former Marine sergeant who runs 10 miles a day. He's ten years older than me (in his 50s) but he could outrun, outlast, outfight, and outdrink 99.9% of anyone, not to mention people who are "beautiful" - and then get up the next day and do it all over. If there's anyone I've ever known likely to live to be a hundred years old, it's him.
His only lament is that he's so damned ugly (he is, even speaking as another male) that he can't find an even semi-goodlooking woman who'll sleep with him. (Well, he does have one fault - as I remind him every so often
What was your point again?
SB
Y'know, I grew up in farm country. I've heard all the arguments from all sides a million times. I also know that countries like India, China and many others manage to feed themselves without resorting to massive ranching - and they produce some pretty bright people, too. Sure, there are a lot of people starving in those countries - but the ratios aren't that different from here in the US. People who are getting obese on the junk provided by corps such as McDonalds are essentially starving themselves of the proper diets.
What I see is that there is a massive conglomerate of corporations whose sole interest is to see that they get their quota of beef - no matter how it's raised, no matter the effects on the people, the land, the economy, no matter WTF. It's a bottom line $ figure to them, no more - some of the things I brought up in my response mean nothing to them - they don't read history nor are most of them cognizant of the longterm limiting factors of land demand and supply. That's why there are people in SoAm razing millions of acres to produce beef for American corps - we can't sustain our own demand off of available rangeland, because it's been overgrazed and overused. That's just *one* of the limiting factors to overheavy reliance on meat.
The basic argument you brought up is one that I've heard a bazillion times - and I could counter it, but not in a slashdot post and not without you having experience that one cannot get from a basic math education and the ability to do some basic calculations.
That is why I lit off at you. I'm sorry about that - I don't do it often - but I'm just sick of seeing incomplete figures like this bandied around. It really pisses me off, because there are entirely too many people who really believe that crap.
All I'll say is that you should do some real research into what you said before you spout it off as gospel. You'd be surprised at what you'll find.
No, I'm not going to provide links. Learn it yourself. There's nothing I could say or point to that would convince you as much as you can do.
Sorry for lighting off at you, anyway. I'm not a vegetarian nor am I a PETA nut (fuckers) but I do get pissed at seeing what I consider statistical and mathematical FUD being expoused.
SB
No, it's more likely to be a bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people making war on each other because they are pumped up on hormones and have nothing better to do (all the good jobs already having been taken) and because there are entirely too many of them elbow to elbow.
Oh, and they'd be making lots more kids. Who would grow up the same way (and have even less education/learning/wisdom than the previous generation, because what's the point of *working* for something if you can get most or all of the benefits from a pill?)
The only thing that would prevent disaster would be a new frontier. Like...space. Give those who want something to do, something to do. Let some of them get killed off -that's social evolution (which is stagnating, already, here in the US)
SB
The DMCA already covered that.
Don't violate their intellectual property, and sure as HELL don't try to reverse engineer it.
SB
If you haven't seen the Mad Max films you have no business moderating on a forum for geeks.
Well, not on this particular thread.
Agreed.
Deeper than that; but, yes.
SB
There seems to be a limit with full exploition, too - how far you can go until the built-on-scaling-up monopolies own your government, and can dictate what they want to.
:( ]
We seem to be running into that limit about now...
It isn't that the analysis "isn't trivial" - it's how much it cripples your country, economy, education, etc in the long run.
Rome built aqueducts; but easy living for those who had it was it's downfall. Too focused on their own conquests they would be, those who would incite the wrath of the legions.
[bad paraphrasing, I know; but is it none the less true? s/legions/masses/military, then recompute
SB
Humans sure have a strange way of dying.
I'll agree with that; and I'm not even a vegetarian.
SB
Nice analysis. You should be working for the government farm statistics assholes. You have a good grasp of stastitics.
You forgot a few things. Like land use, water tables, sustainable feed supplies vs. growing land vs. range land, shipment of feedstocks, corporate suppliers of nutriet supplements for the land that can no longer supply decent range cattle, oh, fuckit.
You are *such* a insightful commentator. Worked Ag, have you? What fucking qualifications do you have? Go argue with zogger, if you dare.
Putting out basic Ag101 figs (or the kind of shit produced by the ranchers associations).
I listened to that shit every day from the reps from Monsanto and many other firms - twenty + years ago. If you think you have something new to contribute to contribute to the discussion, you are way off base.
I am getting so sick of hearing the corporate bottom line getting espoused in conversations about the "food machine" (garf) that feeds our country, and many others, that I could puke.
Just keep on believing what you've been fed. Sooner or later, it won't feed you. Bwwwwuaaah.
Fucking moron.
SB
Zogger, is that Roy of the Cordwood house books?
:(
:( -Me,dumb- )
I'm sorry, I've been so busy just surviving for the last few year I'm not keeping up *weep*
And de centralised power is better for national security! A few more million points of production spread out over the USA makes it much less likely that if any large plants go out from attack/damage/political & economic shenanigans that it will have as bad an effect.
Fuckin'A right!
Not even mentioning the reliability and economic return from having distributed energy sources - I agree with Pournelle wrt to orbital solar/mw delivered, but that is what should power our industries - if there's anything that technology is giving us, the most valuable is the ability to produce our own power! (Bog forbid that it might take some *work* to do so!)
I better stop ranting now, been sampling some of the dark, but zogger, feel free to give our other brother in this thread my email)
SB
( halfway beyond the sidewalks and FUCK the prices of land around here - the caretaking position got taken