I did read his book, that's why I made the comment that I did. I found it in a second hand store for 25 cents, and I found it darn interesting. I digress: If you remember the reason why all the troops ended up in a position to liberate Kuwait was because they were deployed to RSA for operation dessert shield.
That coalition like the current coalition was organized and driven by the US.
Schwartzkopf himself stated that they would never have intervened just to protect Kuwait. It was all about the RSA. They only went into Kuwait after the Iraqis massed up along the RSA border, in what looked like an invasion attempt.
As to going all the way, well from a soldier's point of view it makes perfect sense. Not that it was actually a good idea then or 10 years later.
Kuwait as Iraq's 13 province? Who cares? Is the protection of Kuwait really such a big deal? In any case as Schwarzkopf states in his biography the first Iraq war was much more about protecting Saudi Arabia than liberating Kuwait.
Condelezza Rice?? Has it been demonstrated that she is in fact a human being?
Random factoid:
As a boy Gen. Schwarzkopf lived for a time in Iran with his dad.
In other, also related news, the Royal Accounting Society has made in known that they are bemoaning the lack of great accounting books in the same list...
Seems like people prefer mush...
He supported the Iraq war in 2003 and now blames Howard for it of course, but he (just like the majority of people) thought it was necessary at the time. I think you lived in a different Australia to me, because I seem to remember massive protests at the time. The more disappointing but probably true conclusion is that Rudd is just another politician.
I'll put it another way, because you seem to be missing the point. If a significant oil deposit were found in Brazil do you think the world would be interested in buying some? Yes.
From an external point of view an oil deposit in Brazil could be an underground deposit, or it could be using technology to break down wood chips and vegetable matter. When the shit hits the fan oil is oil, and people who need it will buy it.
Brazil is a country that has many people living in poverty. Oil is a resource that is in great demand. It makes sense for Brazilians to set up small and large scale distilling operations from any vegetable matter that they can find. It makes sense that they would take this vegetation as cheaply as possible, and you don't get much cheaper wood than the Amazon jungle. It makes sense that they would then sell this product to the rest of the world.
Thing is if that was profitable, how do you think paper companies would go about procuring wood pulp? If "someone" in the Amazon can do it cheaper, it would already be done in the paper industry. A quick search on google shows that the Brazilian paper industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. So yes, the precedent has already been set by the paper industry.
Why again must everyone assume all new technologies will immediately start burning rainforests? I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply exploring some of the more obvious outcomes of this technology.
They could make oil from cat litter and you'd be telling me it's animal abuse. Well, cat litter aside, I hope I've been able to explain why this new technology could lead to accelerated deforestation in Brazil (and any country with relatively poor people and extensive forests, eg. Indonesia, Vietnam, PNG etc. etc.).
The USA won't be importing wood chips from the Amazon, but hey if some industrious folk down there had fuel to sell then I'd bet there's going to be a market for it in the USA.
Agricultural surplus in the USA is based on a large amount of oil being used in agriculture to maximise yields.
You want to make oil out of the surplus produce that we have due to the fact that we're using oil to produce it! TINSTAAFL
The easy way out is to use the natural resources that already exist, and you know humans and easy ways seem to go hand in hand.
BTW, No need to bring back wood chips from the Amazon, make the oil over there and ship it. That's something we do. Ship oil. You knew that right?
I consider Wikipedia valuable because its formation is from multiple sources, which include viewpoints and thought processes;
Good point, it's still a pretty new idea, that anyone can participate...
roject on ZFS but there weren't enough verifiable/trustworthy/etc. sources at the time (whitepapers and man pages on sun.com were not valid reference material because sun.com is on the Internet.) That's the problem with peer review, someone has to actually take the time to review, and that's what makes peer reviewed papers like a gold standard. You know they have gone through this process. Yes, it's anal and slow, but it should be reliable.
Librarians and the average non-tech instructor consider resources on the Internet invalid or at least unverifiable. Sure, wikipedia is just that - a good place to start. But don't forget Google resources such as Scholar, which gives you online access to bazillions (a lot) of peer reviewed journals. Well if you're somehow subscribed anyway...
knowing 'facts' and 'factoids' as in rote memorisation is no longer needed thank to Google. Understanding as in analysis and synthesis is more needed than ever before thanks to Google. And yes, you still need to be able to remember what you have studied.
If we don't know what the actual facts are, because we didn't memorize them, then how can we know that the "facts" we use are actually accurate? I agree with you, and would just like to point out the difference between memorise and remember. Yes, if you want to analyse and synthesise you are still going to have to remember.
To memorise implies a process of assimilation of information without necessarily needing to understand said information.
Slashdot Mirror
I did read his book, that's why I made the comment that I did. I found it in a second hand store for 25 cents, and I found it darn interesting. I digress: If you remember the reason why all the troops ended up in a position to liberate Kuwait was because they were deployed to RSA for operation dessert shield.
That coalition like the current coalition was organized and driven by the US.
Schwartzkopf himself stated that they would never have intervened just to protect Kuwait. It was all about the RSA. They only went into Kuwait after the Iraqis massed up along the RSA border, in what looked like an invasion attempt.
As to going all the way, well from a soldier's point of view it makes perfect sense. Not that it was actually a good idea then or 10 years later.
rebind esc to the caps lock key, ingenious! Makes a lot more sense. wq! ...oh yeah :$
what happens when we run out of carbon?
we'll have an over supply of erasers!
I think the word you're looking for is hypocrisy!
Obama and Oprah!
Kuwait as Iraq's 13 province? Who cares? Is the protection of Kuwait really such a big deal? In any case as Schwarzkopf states in his biography the first Iraq war was much more about protecting Saudi Arabia than liberating Kuwait.
Condelezza Rice?? Has it been demonstrated that she is in fact a human being?
Random factoid:
As a boy Gen. Schwarzkopf lived for a time in Iran with his dad.
and if it wasn't "exactly vacant" land before, it certainly will be after. Just like Maralinga...
In other, also related news, the Royal Accounting Society has made in known that they are bemoaning the lack of great accounting books in the same list...
Seems like people prefer mush...
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a speeding truck full of DAT tapes.
or something like that...
K-mart sucks Ray, K-mart sucks...
You'll need the cheap meds after your fill of cheap women.
Oh no, those things are terrible. The coffee always comes out warm, what you need is one of those expresso machines that sit on top of your stove top.
From an external point of view an oil deposit in Brazil could be an underground deposit, or it could be using technology to break down wood chips and vegetable matter. When the shit hits the fan oil is oil, and people who need it will buy it.
Brazil is a country that has many people living in poverty. Oil is a resource that is in great demand. It makes sense for Brazilians to set up small and large scale distilling operations from any vegetable matter that they can find. It makes sense that they would take this vegetation as cheaply as possible, and you don't get much cheaper wood than the Amazon jungle. It makes sense that they would then sell this product to the rest of the world. Thing is if that was profitable, how do you think paper companies would go about procuring wood pulp? If "someone" in the Amazon can do it cheaper, it would already be done in the paper industry. A quick search on google shows that the Brazilian paper industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. So yes, the precedent has already been set by the paper industry. Why again must everyone assume all new technologies will immediately start burning rainforests? I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply exploring some of the more obvious outcomes of this technology. They could make oil from cat litter and you'd be telling me it's animal abuse. Well, cat litter aside, I hope I've been able to explain why this new technology could lead to accelerated deforestation in Brazil (and any country with relatively poor people and extensive forests, eg. Indonesia, Vietnam, PNG etc. etc.).
The USA won't be importing wood chips from the Amazon, but hey if some industrious folk down there had fuel to sell then I'd bet there's going to be a market for it in the USA.
You won't cut the trees down, but someone will.
Interesting... How much energy / water does farming misanthus giganteus require on a scale that involves 450M acres of land?
Agricultural surplus in the USA is based on a large amount of oil being used in agriculture to maximise yields. You want to make oil out of the surplus produce that we have due to the fact that we're using oil to produce it! TINSTAAFL The easy way out is to use the natural resources that already exist, and you know humans and easy ways seem to go hand in hand. BTW, No need to bring back wood chips from the Amazon, make the oil over there and ship it. That's something we do. Ship oil. You knew that right?
Great! Let's chip the Amazon!
there are only liberals in politics these days. yeah, liberals and neo liberals. ;-)
I consider Wikipedia valuable because its formation is from multiple sources, which include viewpoints and thought processes;
Good point, it's still a pretty new idea, that anyone can participate... roject on ZFS but there weren't enough verifiable/trustworthy/etc. sources at the time (whitepapers and man pages on sun.com were not valid reference material because sun.com is on the Internet.) That's the problem with peer review, someone has to actually take the time to review, and that's what makes peer reviewed papers like a gold standard. You know they have gone through this process. Yes, it's anal and slow, but it should be reliable.knowing 'facts' and 'factoids' as in rote memorisation is no longer needed thank to Google. Understanding as in analysis and synthesis is more needed than ever before thanks to Google. And yes, you still need to be able to remember what you have studied.
To memorise implies a process of assimilation of information without necessarily needing to understand said information.
Just because you aren't forced to memorise facts doesn't mean you won't remember them.
It's only spelt 'memorize' in your language ;-).