selkirk

http://www.kirotv.com/news/3777435/detail.html

What was Kerry's statistic last night? 90% of the cost and 90% of the casualties. Such and incredible and helpful alliance we have.

Greg, you realize that your calling Kerry a chickenshit even though he VOLUNTEERED for both his first, and count it, second tours of duty. That sounds like a chickenshit to me, mmmmhhhhhmmmmmm, that's why he went back of his own accord, there just weren't the right opportunites to be a coward back home.... oh wait a minute.. there's always the guard?

My mistake Greg, your right the Austro-Hungarians' probably weren't and immediate threat to us. As for Germany, when was the Lusitania sunk? And Japan, please, they tried to completely wipe out our pacific navy. But again the difference was all of those groups (Germany, Japan, Austro-Hungarian) were being immediately aggressive, they were all actively invading other nations. Waiting for a year or two and WWI and WWII would probably not have been worth joining, it would have been over with Europe and or a good chunk of Asia. With Saddam, waiting would have only allowed us to be better prepared, but it wouldn't have improved Saddam's positions significantly.

The major difference between the Civil War, WWI and WWII and the current Iraq conflict was the level of threat. With WWI, WWII, and the Civil war, we had an open agressor, that was posing and immediate (not potential) threat. At that point it seems like the wisest course of action was immediate. Waiting to go to war for better planning would only have resulted in additinal strikes against us, the military, or our allies. With Sadam, it was a pissing contest 6 months in advance. If we had waited for another year, it still would have been a pissing contest but we could have gone with a better plan, and a stronger alliance instead of unilateral action. Was he a threat, yes, but potentially. Saddam wasn't attacking us and in retrospect probably wasn't going to, at least not with the much touted WMD's.

Minor thread drift but.... Iv'e heard over and over again that Kerry doesn't provide enough specifics on his policies. That he states a broad goal without stating how he's going to accomplish that? My question is, what sort of specifics are you looking for? Budget amounts? Where he's going to find the money? troop numbers? It seems like he's given these things.... Second, how is Bush's campaign any different? He doesn't seem to be providing more specifics than Kerry about how things need to be changed, just that we need to keep on, keepin on, which seems to have it's own issues... Thoughts?

I notice you've been posting an awful lot today G-G-Kiss....... Forget your gloves?

The 3 smallest Huevos are aid pieces only, in a lead situation, they'd slow you down but not much. Sizes 4-13 are usable for leading though (equivalent to DMM 1-10)

1 vote for a set of Wallnuts! They . Can be a bit of a pain to clean but if your on lead that's someone elses problem anyway! I also think Gear express has them on sale right now for $60 so i'd grab a set fast! If you do decide to pick up Hexes the Wild Country Rockcentrics on Dyneema and sweet. Theres about three sizes I always seem to end up placing somewhere and much cheaper than cams (Yellow, Small Red and Silver). Just something about a solid hex that inspires confidence. Run about $70 (Less than 2 cams) for a set and light as can be. As for Cams, these get pricy and personal so I agree with Minx. Put it off, play with lots of others (camalots, metolius, DMM, Rock Empire etc., Omega-Pacific Link Cams) But at least try both the single and dual stem types on real rock, preferably on lead before you make a decision about them. Tri-Cams are nice and again, smallest two sizes (pink and red) often get used. I would say pick stuff up slowly, no rush, play with lots of gear first (in the wild, not in the store) so your sure what you really need/want.

Managed to get out by my word was I in bad headspace! Scraped up Saber and flailed away on Midway over at casltle rock. 2 moves up and I dropped a q-draw, so back down to get that, 5 moves up, I realize i'm sanz helmet, so back down to get that. After that I was space case, and nearly bagged it at the top of Jello Tower. Can we make an official change in the rating to 5.5 my ass? Still don't know what was up but hoping it's fixed by next weekend!

Unless your levitating naked it's aid suckaz!

Go cheap. Trango Lite weights (36 gms and i got a bunch on draws earlier this year at $4.50) or the Mammut's at Pro-mountain sports (same design but $5.25) They've worked great all year for draws and what not. Agree about racking though, definitely want something with a reasonably stiff gate for nuts (ovals etc) but i've used BD oval wiregates and a few of the Trangos for racking, tri-cams, hexes and cams on they all work fine. I don't know why but I also don't seem to have nearly as much problem with the catching the nose notch on the wiregates as on the ovals. my 2 bits.

Something Similar happened to our neighbours one winter. We didn't realized anything was wrong (as they were on vacation) till we saw ice weeping out of the bathroom wall one day. baadd news

Has anyone successfully bootyed my nut on SEWS? Still a beer up for grabs and it definitely qualifies as alpine garbage!

Has anyone tried the new Trango Flex cams in the small sizes? The ones with the directly opposed cam heads instead of offset (pretty much the same settup as the Splitter Gear Cams last year). How do they compare to the TCU's, Zero Cams, Microcamalots etc? And also, does anybody in Seattle have them in stock? Thanks

On a safe bolted area it's probably a one day transition from gym to following at a crag. And maybe another day to lead easy bolted routes. It's the transitions that involve an increase in experience to attain the required judgement that are the difficult ones. i.e. trad, alpine, mountaineering, anything backcountry. Seems like the best solution is that as a community whenever we introduce someone new to the support make sure that we teach them everything they need to know both safety wise and ethically/ impact wise.

I may be a liberal but pulling out isn't an option. Giant power vacuum, more hardcore extremesists and then we probably would have a government that's actively training terrorists as opposed to one that the politician's claimed did. It would also be an utter waste of the lives expended so far on both sides. There is a 3rd option though.... And as much as people probably don't like it, bringing in the UN to boost the troop count until the country is stabilized and the government is strong enough to stand on it's own and is supported by enough of the current insurgents and malcontents to be considered legitimate. (likely several years) This would also add legitimacy to the process and hopefully soften the impression that the US is invading. Especially if we can pull in troops from other Muslim/Arab countries, even if it's only a token force. Were already knee deep in the quagmire, now we have to figure out how to extract ourselves without making the situation infinitely worse.

I'm incredibly impressed right now. This is a political discussion that hasn't devolved into either "Bush is moron / Kerry is a pussy" or "Bush is military poser / Kerry is a moonbat"

Post deleted by selkirk

Granted Cavey, but that resorts to Pzack's #2. We'd have to effectively kill almost everyone. Is this really the outcome we want? We might as well have dropped and atomic bomb in that case. Would have been faster, cheaper, more effective, and risked fewer American lives. But I don't think our goal should be total erradication of the Iraqi people. But to somehow install a stable peacefull government that's friendly towards us (hasn't that been the goal all along?) Killing everyone and establishing good will with the Iraqi people and their subsequent government seem like mutually exclusive options. In addition if we follow alternative #2 and become incredibly repressive and brutal... what is that going to to inspire the rest of the islamic world to do? It seems that would lead to increased terrorist (or guerrilla) strikes against the US and US forces abroad on an ever escalating scale. Which begins to sound like a slippery slope. The more people we kill, imprison, or brutalize, the more people are going to be out to get us.....eventually it would cease to be a guerilla or terrorist conflict and devolve into open warfare. So it seems like we need to pursue #1, convince them (almost all of them) that their lives will be better (culturally, religiously, and socio-economically) due to our efforts there.

I'm not very familiar with the Falkand Islands conflict... but it looks like we have some examples as to conflicts where the occupying force managed to win and establish a reasonably peaceful government, or at least quell the violence. Anyone care to weigh in on why the occupying force was successful in some conflicts and unsuccessful in others? Would love to hear your thought GD. You've probably got a better perspective then the rest of us.

So what did you do RUMR?

Has the nature of the current conflict in Iraq changed? It seems the tradtional army vs army war was over very quickly, and while were calling it terrorism it seems the conflict has morphed into a guerilla war where the local populace is attacking and trying to push out an invading power. So How many guerilla wars, where the local populace (either some or all) iniate an ongoing struggle against an enemy it see's as an invading or occupying oppressor has ever been won by the invading group? American Revolution.... British Lost Afghanistan... Russians lost Veitnam... the French lost, then we lost Ireland... Stalemate/compromise no clear victory and the conflict still isn't completely over Israel... Israeli holds the upper hand, but leaning towards stalemate/compromise again....IMHO no clear victory and an ongoing conflict Any other historical guerrilla conflicts against an invading or occupying power? (Would need to seperate these from guerilla conflicts against a local power (to local groups duking it out) as seems to be more common in Central Africa/South and Central America. These areas seem to have been in continual conflict for years with no clear resolution so this seems more akin a civil war, as opposed to a guerrilla group vs an occupying group.) Ok