JayB

I am sure that my evil homonym has got your back on this one. Alas, I too will have to pass the baton. If only The Goat were still here to carry the torch....

Oh - and count me in for the meeting as well.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! No one can discredit some of the positions he believes in as effectively has he can! No banning!!!!!!!!! I would however be in favor of giving the guy his own PERMANENT ANTI-BOLTING TIRADE FORUM to serve as a vehicle to give his viewpoints on this topic even more exposure.

I wouldn't deny that there may be officials in this administration who have an interest in enriching themselves and their cronies by manipulating public policy in favor of their favorite industry, whatever that may be. I think that such individuals have been present in every single government established in this country since Jamestown, and will be present until this country no longer exists. Ditto for the rest of the world. I also suspect they are smart enough to know that these days odds of doing so successfully decrease in direct proportion to the exposure that their efforts get in the media. That's why the said individuals use things like riders in appropriations bills to get tax breaks, errect tarrif barriers against competition, waive costly regulations and other assorted, low profile methods to get what they want in Washington. These small measures increase operating profit at the public's expense far more reliably and immediately than following the form-sinister-ubersecret-cabal-and-decieve-congress-and-the-pentagon-into-doing-our-bidding method. Having an interest in manipulating public affairs for private advantage is nothing new. The previous statement is very close to Ambrose Bierce's definition of Politics in "The Devils Dictionary." However, having an interest in hijacking the government to serve one's private ends is one thing, being both capable and guilty of it in practice is quite another. Motive does not equal guilt, and while I agree that there's a motive here, no one - despite the presence of scores of groups in congress, the media, NGO's, etc that are literally desperate to discredit and unseat the administration by any means at their disposal - has yet to come forward with any legitimate evidence whatsoever to support the outlandish claim that there's a coterie of oilmen acting in collusion with the Pentagon, the President, and Congress to hijack the apparatus of the American government and seize Iraqi oilfields by force for their own personal benefit. Some Oil execs may fantasize about such things late at night, but the odds of them realizing their fantasy are low enough to put anyone that believes such a thing can occur without anyone getting ahold of incriminating evidence, or more importantly that the institutional safeguards built into the structure of the US Government are weak and feckless enough to permit such a brazen abuse of power (changing the wording on an energy bill yes, sending 150,000 troops and pursuading Congress tho spend hundreds of billions of dollars on behalf of your private crusade - uh - no), puts one in very strange company indeed. That's a theory that I would only expect to hear amongst Larouche supporters off in the ideological fever swamps. I could never quite picture you as a subsriber to "The New Federalist," but who knows.....

Why did the Democrats endorse the action with a nearly unanimous vote then? Did the figures in the administration from the oil business have any less interest in and potential to gain from the affair when the matter was brought to a vote? Why Blair? Why Pereya? Why the Vilnius group? Any plausible action would not only have to have factual evidence to support it, but also explain their motivations and behavior in a credible manner. This is but one of the many reasons why the Cabal theory is unconvincing.

yes, that is one explanation. You can explain the fact that when you depress the spacebar on your keyboard, little invisible flying elves that live inside your computer make it move across the screen. That is one explanation for the phenomena. Somone may even believe that, but that doesn't mean anyone else should in the absence of factual evidence to support such a claim. Argument by conjecture is not a winning strategy IMO. I have actually addressed that several times, e.g. "Then there's the still more ludicrous claim that some nefarious oil company cabal orchestrated the war behind the scenes - so farfetched that you've probably got Oliver Stone shaking his head in disbelief - despite the open vote in Congress in which both parties in both houses overwhelmingly authorized the President to act. The Oil Cabal theory would also have to account for the numerous UN resolutions passed in an effort to address the Iraqi situation, because everyone knows that China and Russia were on the payroll and all about providing diplomatic cover that the cabal could use as a pretext for ultimately seizing the oil. Ditto for 1440" I mean, it's not like there are any checks and balances built into the Constitution that could possibly curtail anyones efforts to use the public office of the Presidency for private advantage. That was a phenomenon wholly unknown in all of the centuries prior to the arrival of the Constitution, so the fellows drafting the document naturally failed to address such things and left us with a prostrate Congress that is a mere supplicant before anyone who wants to abuse the office to make a buck. Now I get it, that's why Congress, including most of the Democratic candidates, authorized the resolution that authorized the President to use force against Iraq. All in the oil company's pocket. That's also why Tony Blair argued so passionately for intervention. Everyone knows he's a right-wing hack put in place to serve as a mouthpiece for American oil interests. Ditto for Jose Pereya, and all of the heads of state in the Vilnius group. Besides, if the Democrats ever got wind of such a plan, they would never think to publicize it because they have no interest whatsoever in regaining the office of the presidency on the basis of hard, facutal evidence documenting the conspiracy. The fact that they are well on the way to nominating Dean as their front runner gives some credence to this notion, but still. And I mean, Nixon was able to execute a simple burglery in perfect secrecy, and Clinton was able to engage in private sex acts in the oval office without anyone ever knowing, so it's pretty likely that an administration could manipulate the entire edifice of the American government and the millitary to serve their every whim as part of secret plot to enrich themselves without any evidence of their plan coming to light. I mean, it's not like Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld have net worths in the tens of millions of dollars, and no one in the administration was making any money in the private sector, so it makes quite a bit of sense that they'd have to use the Oval Office to do so. Much less effort than investing their assets and letting compound interest take over. Stong theory, impeccable evidence, and some very strong arguments out there to support j_b's claim. I would the expect Black Hellicopter crowd to believe such things, but am very surprised that the two of you do. Oh well. At least we can agree that Exit 38 is the state's premier climbing destination, so that's something.

Actually, I was arguing against the notion that all every deployment or use of US forces is driven by solely by economic motives. Yeah, Afhganistan, the Balkans, Somalia - all about getting our hands on the abundance of vital resources that they control. Plausible claim. My bad. I just hope that one day we recoup the scores of billions that we have invested in getting our hands on that North Korean crude that The Dear Leader has been trying to keep from us for all of these decades. Yes, the abundance of oil in the Middle East is what endowed the Middle East with its strategic significance, but to assert that the invasion of Iraq was precipitated solely by the desire to physically monopolize a resource that we can aquire in adequate quantities at a much lower cost on the open market, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the regime in power goes beyond silly and into the realm of willful delusion in order to preserve the Manichean "Rest of the World Good, America Bad" status quo in ones own head. The first of the specific claims that the Left flank has been making is that the US invaded Iraq to control the oil, with the assumption being that there would be a net economic benefit that we derived from the action that would exceed the cost. As I showed above, that is an impossibilty, and no one has put forth any figures or arguments that come anywhere close to addressing, much less disproving this claim. Then there's the small matter having to do with the 1991 war. We had the 500,000 troops on the ground and a favorable geopolitical environment to operate in, but we left the country in Saddam's hands because....we were just there to seize his oil. Makes sense. Makes more sense that a coalition force of Europeans and Arabs would send there troops over to lend a hand in that particular effort since everyone knew that seizing the oil was our sole policy objective. Moreover, if all the US wanted was access to the oil and had no concern whatsoever about what Hussein would do with the proceeds, it would have been far simpler and far more logical to strike up a deal with him, buy all of the oil he could pump, and let others deal with the consequences. Surely if Hussein were to rearm, none of his neighbors in the region would become the least bit concerned about there own safety, and begin arming themselves to the hilt in response. There is cetainly no history of armed conflict in the region, so that would be a silly thing to worry about. Never happen. Saddam rearms after years of systematic humiliation, and he'll take up kintting and crosswords to occupy himself and will never use them against anyone, and if he does its not like anyone would acutally die. Likely outcome. Then there's the still more ludicrous claim that some nefarious oil company cabal orchestrated the war behind the scenes - so farfetched that you've probably got Oliver Stone shaking his head in disbelief - despite the open vote in Congress in which both parties in both houses overwhelmingly authorized the President to act. The Oil Cabal theory would also have to account for the numerous UN resolutions passed in an effort to address the Iraqi situation, because everyone knows that China and Russia were on the payroll and all about providing diplomatic cover that the cabal could use as a pretext for ultimately seizing the oil. Ditto for 1440. Who is the silly one here again?

What course of action (or inaction) would you all have endorsed? Seems like you've got three options; abandoning the efforts at containment altogether, continuing the embargo, or removing Hussein by force. There are costs and benefits associated with each option, but none is risk or cost free. If I recall correctly, when confronted with the necessety of making concrete choices, it seemed as though the preferred option on the Left was to continue the embargo in some form, even though the left had spent the previous decade rightfully decrying the humanitarian costs of the embargo. But simply ending the embargo and walking away while covering our eyes (the only option left if you want to end the embargo and have ruled out the use of force to remove Hussein) and ears to the potential consequences and chanting "La La La La La" doesn't seem to be an especially well informed or nuanced approach to the problem either.

Nimitz Class: CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt Displacement: 96,358 tons Length: 1,040 feet Beam: 134 feet Speed: 30 knots Power plant: Two nuclear reactors, four steam turbines, four shafts, 280,00 shaft horsepower. Aircraft: 90 Armament: Sea Sparrow missiles Four Phalanx anti-missile guns

Phalanx: "Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Phalanx is a fast reaction, rapid fire 20mm gun system. It provides R.A.N. Surface Units with a terminal defence against anti-ship missiles. It is designed to engage anti-ship cruise missiles and fixed wing aircraft at close range. Phalanx automatically engages functions normally performed by independent systems such as search, detection, threat evaluation, aquisition, track, firing, target destruction, kill assessment and cease fire. Weight - 13,600 pounds Gun Type M-61A1 Gatling Rate of Fire - 4,500 Rounds per minute Magazine Capacity - 1550 Rounds Calibre - 20mm Ammunition - Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS), Depleted uranium sub-calibre. Penetrator converted to Tungsten in 1988. Sensors - Self contained search and track radar. " "Features: Phalanx provides ships of the U.S. Navy with a "last-chance" defense against anti-ship missiles and littoral warfare threats that have penetrated other fleet defenses. Phalanx automatically detects, tracks and engages anti-air warfare threats such as anti-ship missiles and aircraft, while the Block 1B's man-in-the-loop system counters the emerging littoral warfare threat. This new threat includes small,high-speed surface craft, small terrorist aircraft, helicopters and surface mines. Phalanx accomplishes these engagements via an advanced search and track radar system integrated with a stabilized, forward looking infra-red (FLIR) detector. This integrated FLIR provides Phalanx with an unique multi-spectral detect and track capability for littoral warfare threats and dramatically improves the existing anti-air warfare capability. Block 1B also incorporates new Optimized Gun Barrels which provide improved barrel life, improved round dispersion and increased engagement ranges."

Aren't most destoyers equiped with something called a "Phalanx?" From what I recall its a system composed of some sort of computer controlled mega-round machine gun type deal for knocking down inbound airborne stuff at close range. Could be for planes but I seem to remember it being dedicated to missile defense...

Cool. Thanks

Enough with the Beck bashing already. The guy's got a lot experience and I appreciate the information he shares about gear on this board.

The point was actually that we don't need to physically control resources to aquire all that we need, all we need is the money to pay for it and the market will take care of the rest. The only exception is when someone has a true monopoly on supply, which has never been, and never will be true in the case of oil. Besides, your claim has been that the US's motivation for invading Iraq was to secure the oil supply (not necessary) or for monetary gain (impossible to achieve in practice). The notion that oil companies are capable of orchestrating this whole venture, or would deem the risk of even contempating an attempt to try something that would utterly destroy their companies when they were already making considerable profits without taking any such risks is even more laughable. Yeah - the motion authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq didn't pass by an overwhelming majority in both parties, and in both houses of Congress. There was actually a secret Cabal of oil execs that orchestrated the whole thing behind closed doors. Sound reasoning, and lots of evidence to support that one. Throw in references to Area 51, UFO's, etc. and you'll be on your way to a article worthy of inclusion in the Weekly World News right next to the story about the Werewolf Pimp terrorizing hookers in Havana. The best part about this theory is the bumbling inneptitude of this cabal, which failed to seize the Iraqi oil when we had a half a million troops over there in '91 and an environment in which world opinion would have been soundly behind driving straight into Baghdad and toppling the regime. Makes sense.

Specifics. Still waiting for economic rationale for intervening in Somalia, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. Throw in Vietnam, Korea, and both World Wars for fun. Be sure to omit any reference to the geopolitical circumstances which precipitated WWII and sustained the Cold War as per your thesis. This should be good. Some parts will require math though.... If you add up the cost of Iraq in dollars, plus the real-interest* we will pay to finance it, and factor in the economic losses which will result from higher interest rates, and the diversion of capital away from productive investments and into taxes to cover the bill, the cost of the intervention (a more realistic way to look at the costs) becomes even more staggering, and the notion that we are there for purely economic reasons looks still more absurd (hint: If you spend more than you make on an investment, you then have a *loss* not a *profit*), yet this will have little or no affect on the Blood for Oil crew because such things (the fact that the US could sell every ouce of oil in Iraq and still lose an enormous amount of money)have very little to do with the motivations for this belief. The only way a producer can exert complete control over the price of a commodity is by means of a durable monopoly. There never has been, nor will there ever be such a situation with respect to oil, and market forces ultimately obliterated the attempt to create one in the 1970s. The fact of the matter is that Middle Eastern regimes have to sell their oil or implode, and given their high birth rates, bloated state sectors, and persistent failure to diversify or modernize their economies, this will remain true indefinitey. Even if some figure succeeded in creating an Islamic Megastate and cut off all oil supplies to the world, this would be true, as the said state would eventually have to sell oil to someone if they wanted to oh, say - eat - and while the economic damage would be massive, they would suffer at least as much, and most likely quite a bit more than the oil consumers if they tried such a move. Finally, the unprecedented demand resulting from such a restriction in supply would eventually both restore oil to the market and lead to permanent shifts away from oil in energy production in the manner that I outlined above, both of which would be detrimental to the people in the masochistic Megastate for the remaider of its existence, if it hadn't already crumbled by then. As an aside, I think its especially ironic when Lefties pretend that they have elevated themselves above the pedestrian economic concerns which preoccupy the rest of mankind, or espouse ideals and/or champion causes inimicable to the orderly operation of the global economy, in that any suffering brought about by events which have an adverse affect on the economy always have and always will have a massively disproportionate impact on the folks that the Left claims to be most interested in helping, e.g. the poor and downtrodden around the world. Yeah, a collosal (yet transient) petroleum embargo recession that utterly suppressed demand for the few things that the folks in the third world can actually produce and sell to buy food, medicine, machinery, etc and ultimately precipitated starvation, plague, and catastrophic social unrest in the world's poorest nations would be just the thing to teach Uncle Sam a lesson. *You may need to look this up

Just bought some WB-400 pants from beyondfleece.com after reading many positive reviews of the fabric (and the company) elsewhere. Will post a review or something once I've had a chance to use them...

Pinochet was the dictator in Chile. Not Argentina. Pinochet and his regime were terrible, but neither come anywhere close to regimes that the left enthusiastically supported for the duration of the past century, and will gleefully support in the future if there is ever a nation masochistic enough to attempt a Marxist revival.

See above.

If your thesis that there is a one-dimensional economic explanation behind every American use of force was correct it would have to explain every use or deployment of that said force. We currently have significant numbers of troops permanently stationed in Europe, Korea, and Japan on a permanent basis. Are we spending billions "propping up" these nations to secure favorable prices on a commodity? If so, please identify it. Better yet, put forth figures in which you demonstrate that the tax-revenues generated by these expenditures actually exceed the outlay required to secure them - which would be the only reason to undertake such ventures if the objective was to make money - then do the same for Iraq. I'll even give you a hand. Take the total potential taxes generated by profits on the sale of Iraqi oil, then divide to the total projected cost of invading, occupying, and rebuilding Iraq, plus interest.The figure you'll get will be a rough estimate of the number of years it would take for the intervention to break even. Add that figure to the current date, and you'll have a rough idea of when the US will turn a profit on this one. This will probably be easy for you, since you naturally took all of these factors into account prior to reaching your conclusions. Once you have finished, continue and explain the intervention and continuing expenditures in Afghanistan using the nuanced command of geopolitical strategy and economics that you've displayed above. Having done so, you'll naturally be able to explain every millitary engagement since Vietnam using the same compelling logic. Start with some of the more recent ones, like Kosovo and Somalia and work your way back. Toodles,

Some interesting comments on the topic over there: "Speed is safety, but that mantra is meaningless if you don't actually have speed." 'No. Experience is safety, and speed comes naturally as a result. WTF - so many people think they will somehow master complicated alpine terrain faster, with no experience what-so-ever to draw upon, if they bring that lighter rope, a few less cams and no freak'n cloths. It takes a lot of years to learn to move fast over mixed terrain, and the guys who can, can do it with bricks in their pack and moron for a partner." "I think you have the "Fast and light" ethic confused with the "Wannabe-fast, stupid and generally unsuccessful" ethic. "Fast and light" means, basically, no bivy sack on a V or harder route. The majority of people spouting "Fast and light" are usually going into the mountains for III and IV rock routes, so saying "Fast and light" sounds really silly anyway. Sure, some people pack more crap than others, but going dumb and naked isn't what "Fast and light" is about either.You ALWAYS have with you what it will take to bear a season's storm and an uncomfortable night. There are no exceptions, IMO. If you can't handle that, then you are dangerous and fully incapable of the objective." I agree with the poster's sentiments, as it seems to me that there are more and more folks around who equate going "Fast & Light" with the simple act of skimping on gear, before they have aquired enough experience to make informed judgements about what level of equipment is appropriate for someone with their current levels of skill, experience, and fitness. It's always a guessing game, but it seems to me that the current infatuation with the F&L ethic has lead to a lot of folks overestimating themselves and underestimating the mountains, and the inevitable result will be more rescues and more fatalities. I have learned over time (and several minor epics) that I am not an especially fast climber, so I always bring enough gear with me to suffer through a miserable night and live. Sometimes this is nothing more than a hefty-sack and a lighter, but if I'm on a big volcano in the winter it's more like the full monty. I'd be interested to hear what other people's philosophy is on this one, and what sort of gear you dropped or added as your experience level increased.

j_b said: Any nation on the face of the Earth can "control" all of the oil it needs by...buying it. Ireland's millitary capabilities are probably not sufficient to procure very much oil by force, but somehow they manage to get all of the petroleum products they need, delivered right to their door, by....paying for them. All of this from that entity known as the "market." I know they don't bring copies of rudimentary economics texts to the Marx/Engels circle jerks but really... No nation has a monopoly on the supply, and while OPEC could withhold supply for a limited time and inflict some economic damage on the rest of the world, this action would ultimately suppress demand to the point where the nations withholding supply would see a serious dent in their revenues, which none of them could afford to sustain for very long, seeing as they are barely making enough to keep their bloated state sectors afloat at current revenue levels. Meanwhile skyrocketing prices bring additional fields online, non-embargo states sell all of the oil that they can pump to bring additional supply online, petroleum companies undertake massive efforts to uncover new supplies, and consumers find ways to economize by enhancing energy efficiency. It's already happened once during and after the embargo in the 70s, and would happen again, most likely at an accelerated pace. In the simplistic analysis championship, the "Blood for Oil" crew wins hands down.

BTW - Anyone out there have any experience with Schoeller WB 400? Trying to decide between that and the Dryskin Extreme for the new winter pants to replace the Guide Pants with. I have heard that the WB 400 is a bit less breathable and a bit more wind resistant than the Dryskin Extreme, but wonder if the fabric will be breathable enough for high output activities. I found a chart which shows WB-400 with even worse breathability than Goretex, which I thought was impossible unless you are wearing a hefty-sack. The fabric has recieved some good reviews elsewhere, so if anyone has any experience - good or bad - with the fabric go ahead and chime in.... Relative Breathability of Textiles Used in the Outdoor Biz

Still wishing you were my size so I could buy those things off you cheap. Mine are just about toast after 3 years of heavy use. If you own a softshell and are dissatisfied with their performance and want to wash your hands of them, and you have a 32" waist and a 32" inseam, send me a PM and I will help you dispose of them in a most efficacious manner. Anyone who is really more comfortable skinning their way up a long slope, or lugging a pack in on a long snowy approach in hard-shell pants should be checked for hypothyroidism or some other metabolic disorder IMO. Ditto for cognitive disorders in folks who have concluded that hardshell clothing is more versatile than softshell clothing.

Good. Now that we have established that factors like insurance company practices, regulatory climate, and irresponsible business practices have nothing to do with litigation we can move on to talk about how to fix the system. Let me guess: tort reform? I'd be interested in learning how insurance companies and businesses have fostered the development of the hyper-litigious society that we currently live in if you have the time to explain that a bit, but do you really think that tort reform should be entirely out of the question? I'd also be interested in looking at some stats comparing the percent of GDP expended on legal expenses in the US versus the rest of the industrialized world, percent of all health care expenditures spent on insurance, number of attorneys per capita in the US versus other first world nations, etc. etc. Who knows, maybe these figures will not support the commonly held belief that the US is especially litigious relative to the rest of the world.

Good question. Do you think the answer is that nobody wants to take responsibility for theirself or that trial lawyers have a stangle hold on the democratic party, or might it be something else? Unhealthy symbiosis between the two IMO....