tvashtarkatena

We're all dicks here now and then, myself being a poster child at times. It's the nature of the forum. As you've already surmised, none of us take that part seriously. Manana.

This is a good strategy, proxy cooperation. As long as we don't go it alone without the host countries cooperation (unrealistic). These nations have as great an interest in ridding themselves of assholes as we do. But bombing Mecca won't help it much. Plus, the threat of death doesn't deter a suicide bomber for obvious reasons. Agreed...now. I advocate a shift in American policies to a more responsible showcase of the American ideal of liberty, which doesn't equate to gluttony, as so many of us seem to believe now. America at it's best is damn near irresistable for most people I've met around the world. The 'traditional' way of life is the melting pot. The mom and pop soda fountain, christian family values, et al are just marketing buzz words. I would say our traditional strength can be found in the bill of rights, and in the future, hopefully, in a sustainable, responsible respect for the planet. That will do more to bring people back over to our side than all the unilateral actions we can think of. As for immigration, well, we need the labor. I wouldn't describe it as being overrun, although some population control, and thus control of immigration, is a good thing environmentally. See my previous comment about proxy. I guess I was referring to unilaterally policing the world. I do agree that with good diplomatic relations we can get host countries with our help to do much of the police work for us (and them). The insurgents have secured no valuable strategy in their fight in Iraq. The truth be told they are terrible fighters, and I would rather run the gauntlet of a thousand IED laden roads than sit under a Soviet style artillery barrage. We have tied the hands of our troops behind their balls, because we "feel bad that we went to war". We think it's "really sucky that some untrained National Guardsmen took some naked photographs, so maybe Nick Berg deserved what he got". C'mon man, grab your testicles and let's whip these little bitches who think they have a chance. I'm typing this with one hand right now... Americans know the insurgents can't fight worth crap. But they seem to be able to assasinate, sabotage, bring economies down, and stay on the scene pretty well. The problem with most of us over here now is that half of us never believed Iraq's problems were our own to begin with, and the other half now believe the same thing. Why is this civil war our problem? These are not 'terrorists' so much as tribes shoving their way in line for that oil. We've seen over here a trend upward in violence and a hault in nation building. What other conclusion should we come to. Plus, there's the $7 billion a month.... I'm an avid student of WWII and the Vietnam War. I do realize the importance of strength, or at times perceived strength, in fighting conventional wars. But in the age of instant, global information, or misinformation, the information war is just as important as the military one in fighting a movement which can jump like a wildfire to another region in a matter of days and which is being prosecuted by disjoint groups without clear central leadership. My ideas follow Churchill's more than Chamberlain's. Pick you battles carefully and fight them until the end. Churchill presided in a time when England was doing precisely that; backing away from wars of independence it could not win on the political front while focusing on a conventional, tyranical threat which it could. None of us hold a candle to that great man, but at least I drink the same martini.

On this I completey agree. Having oil men in power has not helped us to reign this problem in. But then again, we the citizens provide the demand for these companies to profit by. And, of course, we also voted (sort of) the oil men in. Pulling out of Iraq will not 'solve' our problems. It will eliminate a current problem that we cannot solve, so that we may focus on others. It's like a bad divorce; it won't make you happy, but at least it removes one pain in your side. The whole idea that we can monitor to entire world and 'take the battle to the enemy' is ridiculous. Whose to say there aren't huge terrorist cells budding in destabilized Africa right now, where we have virtually not presence? We simply don't have the resources nor capability of pulling this off; terrorist groups can always choose to crop up where we are not. The 'war on terror', in other words, is a load of shit. Internal security measures (airport, immigration, etc.) has done far more to protect America than anything we've done abroad. In fact, our actions abroad have only increased attacks on Americans manifold (in Iraq). And it's much too late for the little brown masses to quake in fear because of our powerful hand. The conclusion the world, and our enemies, is quite the opposite. We shot our wad and lost through insurgency. We've only helped them perfect their formula for victory against a stronger military power. Your kill em all strategies are similarly flawed. Kill them all...then what? How to reconcile with the 100 million that are left, and the rest of the world which now views us rightfully as self interested belligerents? Aside from being morally reprehensible (it mimmicks the indescriminate tactics of those we want to defeat), it would create more problems than it solves. Our key weapon in all of this is the attractiveness of American philosophy and culture, not our bombs. The primary intent of most of the insurgent activity in the world today is to gain some semblance of political autonomy against a perceived greater occupying power. We should go back to basic American principles and work towards this goal than simply killing a few people and making more enemies in the process. Don't forget the bin Laden and his ilk have many enemies among the Arabs themselves. Each one of those is an ally.

We can of course agree that any successful human endeavor: foreign policy, war, science, exploration, is a combination of theory, planning, experience (experimentation), and 'other' (luck, weather, etc.). My point is that the success of a foriegn policity initiative that includes warfare is most often based on decisions and events that happen outside the battlefield, like whether or not to go to war at all and, if so, how. Of course, what happens on the battlefield is important, and overwhelming force cannot but help to determine that outcome, but even decisive military victory doesn't always produce, in the end, a success. Unfortunately for the soldier, it is the decisions made at the top, far, far from the battlefield, that have the most dramatic impact on the outcome of warfare. That, to me, is the true 'fog of war'. I just read Atkinson's 'A Soldier at Dawn' (history of the North African campaign). Excellent. The U.S. was defeated soundly, over and over again during the first months of that conflict. What is striking is that the politics of working with the English and French played just as important a role in those defeats (and later victories) as the lack of experience of our green troops at the time. In addition, the U.S. alliance with Stalin was critical, because it bled Germany's supplies away from Rommel's forces. So to, was the domestic political decision to mobilize industry for total war...not an easy thing to sell to a previously isolationist country. In other words, it took a combination of difficult political alliances and decisions, in addition to materiel and an increased battle hardening of our forces, to defeat a tough enemy in the field. This is kind of obvious, I know, but I just wanted to stress that what happens in those one hour White House meetings determines the outcomes of foreign policy initiatives involving warfare more than any other single factor, including the efficacy of our forces. If that fundamentals of the political plan isn't good from the beginning, no amount of on the ground talent is going to make it a success later on.

Have someone depress the clutch and listen/check for signs (spurting sound, etc) of a hydraulic leak in the clutch line. If you haven't encountered any previous clutch slipping during acceleration, it probably isn't the clutch itself.

Friedman's got a NYT piece today comparing Saudi with Iran, against the backdrop of what makes a good ally. Interesting. A strong Shiite coalition between Iran and Iraq is not necessarily against U.S. interests. It is probably the quickest formula to regional stability we've got. We also have an opportunity in Iran right now that I'm surprised more people are talking about. Iran's population is clearly becoming tired of the hard line approach. Their nutjob president is on the outs. Since we have a couple (three now?) carriers in the Gulf, this would be an excellent time for negotiations with their foreign minister, who is not nearly as hardline and probably recognizes that his boss's days are numbered. Or backdoor negotiations with other softer line, higher ranking Iranian officials. Whatever. It would be a good time to take advantage of a changing political climate in Iran rather than attack them and make the entire country hard line again.

I'm pretty sure he was there, too. They invited us over for beers, but we slipped out before the cue balls started flying.

Our Strategic Biodiesel Reserve:

I'm wading through a couple right now, but I'll put it on my library wait list. Our new neighborhood library rocks.

I love Superbowl Sunday. The city is like a set for some post holocaust movie where a virus has wiped out the population. It makes me want to jack a Hummer and go on a looting spree. The mountains are like they were a million years ago before we arrived to fuck things up. Although I'll admit, the man-made roads to the mountains are a convenience. Superbowl Sunday saved me years ago when I was able to buy my house with no competing offers during a real estate feeding frenzy. Have a great game, ya'll.

We're all nuts; we just hang from different trees.

First of all, our relationship with Vietnam actually began in 1946, when a pre-communist Ho Chi Min wrote Truman three (ignored) letters asking him for diplomatic support in gaining independence from the French. The deal was cinched when Eisenhower threatened to cut all foreign aid the French if they capitulated in the mid 50's. It was only a matter of time before an American president, in this case Kennedy, took over for the French as a political move to bolster a 'tough on communism' image for the democratic party. This little pearl of wisdom is particularly laughable considering the fact that we just won a rapid, decisive military victory in Iraq and are now experiencing an embarrassing political defeat. Wars are 80% political, 20% military. Even a cursory skimming of history proves this in spades. I've never seen such a tight contradictory loop, even on this forum. Congratulations. Can't blame the politicians, or the soldiers. Um...there's no one else in the room? All wars are won or lost based on political considerations. Most wars are lost before they are even fought; they are bad ideas by leaders who overestimate their position and underestimate the enemies. WWII: Militarily, Hitler could have, and probably would have, won WWII had he stuck to western europe. It was his political decision to go East and commit 80% of his forces in Russia that tanked him. And it was his political decision to be an asshole rather than benevolent conqueror that raised the ire of his enemies that eventually defeated him. Current Iraq debacle: lost from the start due to neoconservative optimism that ignored the historical and cultural realities of the region. Vietnam: no American interests there (hence no deep public support), a shitty, unpopular South Vietnamese government (hence shaky, local support) and a constraint on U.S. actions caused the by the political and material support of a nuclear-armed USSR. Political, political, political. We all read what we want in an article, whether it's there or not. In fact, the article neither stated nor implied anything of the sort; it mentioned the media but stated the opposite of your conclusion. "The media", so often blamed for our poor decisions by politicians and poor choices by voters, simply isn't capable of 'engineering' anything of this sort. In this case, you are incorrectly using it as a historical scapegoat. I agree with rednose whom suggested that you cannot calculate and win this war based upon pure academics which some here are attempting to do. Oh boy. This is the classic 'increase the body bag' approach, which results in defeat far more often than victory (ask Adolph Hitler). It represents a static, naive view of war that assumes that there are no ramifications, (ie, your allies pulling their support, your own populace pulling its support, and your enemies strengthening their resolve and gaining allies), to one's conduct during conflict. It's kneejerk spew that ignores the true nature of warfare as a means to a political end. We detractors of this current complete and utter clusterfuck in Iraq are not arguing 'pure academics', a common code word for alpha male's self-indulgence in anti-intellectualism (and by the way, it is pure 'academics' that brings us all those fascinating high tech weapons and modern command and control systems). No, we're arguing proven, sound principles of foriegn policy, and historical precedent. Take another bong hit and invent your own action comic universe if you will; but this is the one we're stuck with.

You might've brought your collection of offwidth camming devices for illustrative show and tell...

At least she didn't follow up dinner by showing their birthing videos. Or did they?

Agreed, the common term doesn't quite nail it. How about "Sustainable Energy Policy"? That covers just about all bases.

Chavez and Bush have a secret conference call once a week to compare notes. They've got opposite legislature problems, though.

Man, yo signchu'd look bettuh wit a bit o joik sauce and pinto beans on it...

My buddy and I had a gentlemen's bet on who could climb 100,000 vertical feet first that year (car to summit net, no inbetween bumps, no 'hikes' allowed). They day we each crossed the line (he crossed first) we split a bottle of champagne. That was kind of fun. Having goals like routes you'd like to do, areas you'd like to explore, or skills you'd like to improve or people you'd like to climb with provides less of an accounting oriented method than 'days out', which I've never tracked personally. In the end, whatever helps you accomplish what you want to accomplish in a given year is what works.

Nauh, see? Dis wat Ah'm talkin' bout. De bitches, dey don' 'preciate you callin em a ho, butt when you don' call em nothin, dey bitchin bout dat ev'n mo. Dey jis bitches, das all. Ain' no xplainin it.

The former, not the latter, but I also believe that energy independence must include the management of our most critical longer term risk, and thus should stabilize carbon emissions to a level that won't destroy our present human friendly climate. In other words, reduction of GHG emissions should be the primary driver in our energy policy, and decoupling from unstable and hostile oil and gas producing regimes should be secondary. I also do not believe such a policy, if properly executed, would hurt our economy. Quite the opposite: the opportunities for the development and deployment of new technologies, the predictability of using sustainable resources within our control, a reduced reliance on a foreign policy that relies on an expensive military, increased efficiencies, reduced traffic, and the maintenance of an economically friendly climate (meteorologically speaking) should all make for a much healthier economy in the long run. Some concrete policy suggestions: CAFE standards, tax subsidies for home energy efficiency, particularly passive solar and efficient appliances and high mpg vehicles, synchronization of traffic lights and increased use of traffic circles, regulation and incentives for reduced emissions of power plants (CO2 tax and tradeable credits, etc), requirements for farings on trucking (significant, actually), subsidized research on cellulose based ethanol and biodeisel production, and requirements and incentives for green commercial and public buildings, wind turbines...to name a few.

I think public breast feeders are doing it solely to appeal to my prurient interest in suckling, and I, for one, want to see this outrage stopped.

Trip: Lilloet - Date: 1/30/2007 Trip Report: Jens emailed me Friday afternoon for a 1:00 a.m. blast off to Lillooet. I'd been pestering him about my sorely needing some water ice instruction. Needless to say, I got what I asked for. We arrived pre dawn hungry for the Logger's Breakfast at the Reynolds, only to discover that their restaurant was closed for vacation. No other joint was open, either, so we hit the mini mart for a delicious repast of corn dog, chimichonga, homemade bran muffin (not bad), and Old Dutch Chicken flavored potato chips. The inside of the corn dog had a strange, copper ore like green tinge to it, but I ate it anyway without ill effect. Just after dawn we started up the short approach to the Rambles Middle. At the base of the first pitch Jens snapped a pair of DMM terminator mono points to his custom carbon fiber/leather boots and began practice swings with a pair of Quarks. I, in turn, produced a first and second generation X tool and snapped on a pair of Grivel's first generation snap on crampons to a Pleistocene era pair of Assolo plastics that had seen much, much better days. Airforce woolies and Dachsteins would have completed the picture. With temps in the low 20s and perfectly clear skies, the ice was in good shape. My ancient tools produced exceptionally solid placements. Being able to remove them would have been even better. Up top we stashed my tomohawks and shared Jen's Quarks. I began shopping for them in my head after the first placement. We climbed everything there except the rightmost route, which made a better champagne fountain than climb, before descending. At the base we encountered a party of six from Western Washington U.; the only other climbers we were to meet the entire weekend. That afternoon we checked into the newly remodeled Reynolds, and snagged a room at the end of the hall with a two window view of the surrounding mountains and the two acre dead grass yard next door dappled with dog shit and beer cans. That night we ate at Dina's (the Greek place); pretty damn good. After dinner we hit The Vics for beer. I don't know what a 'Vics' is, but I'm guessing from the clientel that it might be Canuck for 'shitfaced First Nation local'. Jens and I were hitting balls on their free pool table, which, as warped as it was, was really a miniature, miniature golf course, when a hunting party of young bucks barged in and began scrawling all over the next up blackboard. I played their leader, KC, who was already so drunk I had to remind him that he was stripes until the very last shot. Fortunately, he won, so we avoided that magical turning point in such an evening when your hosts begin employing their pool cues from the skinny end. It was back to the Reynolds for more beers and local conversation with some of the town's newly minted partyers. The next morning was a bit rough, more so because our breakfast at Good Times set the world's record for preparation time. From there we made a crack of noon start for Marble Canyon, a 40 minute drive along the spectacular Fraser Canyon. We were slowed by what I thought at first to be sheep, and they were; bighorn sheep. A golden eagle passed low overhead. Wonderful. After driving past the ice drinkermen, we tramped five minutes across a frozen lake to the lower tier of Marble Canyon. With temps in the high teens, the steeper ice was more brittle and prone to dinner plating. The Western folks were there and graciously let us use their top ropes. After a couple of laps we set up one of our own and everyone shared. I found that my horizontal front points didn't do as well in the harder, more vertical ice. Adequate, but a couple of blown foot placements left me hanging on my arms Sylvester Stallone style. I began shopping for a pair of mono points in my head (which I snagged the next day cheap, as luck would have it). I didn't take much to pump us out in our sorry state, but we climbed until dark anyway and headed home, fully satisfied after a great weekend.

If your wife has any extra disposable income and would like to help another budding marriage along out of the goodness of her heart, I'm in need of a new pair of Quarks next Christmas.

We have no kids, so the 50/50 ratio is workable for my wife and I. She likes to backpack and sea kayak but not climb. That's completely fine with me, because I enjoy just being out, especially with her. I'm also glad I have the chance to climb with certain extraterrestrial mutants and enjoy those relationships without mixing it all up. I also like a few solo trips a year. Best of all worlds, really. Everyone needs a vacation from time to time from even the best relationship, a principle which I'm sure my wife heartily endorses.

I don't disagree with countering Saddam's euro plan as being one of several political catalysts for the invasion, coupled with the desire for a substantial, permanent U.S. military ground presence in the Middle East in the age of declining oil reserves, but it's only part of the equation, if we take the writings of the architects of this war at face value. A showcase of the new American hegemony through overwhelming military power to head off any future challenges to our new found top dog status is primarily what was desired as an outcome in Iraq. Iraq was perceived to be the low hanging fruit in this regard. In my mind, the missing political pieces in the invasion of Iraq were a) an overestimation of the national unity and underestimation of the sectarian unity of Iraq b) the multiple bullshit reasons for the invasion foisted on the American people; a sure recipe for the populace justifiably revoking it's support of the war early on c) an understimation of Iran's intractability (and refusal to engages with Iran during that brief honeymoon period following 911) which seems to be adding to our woes in Iraq, d) the lack of a successful U.S. information campaign to counter the success of that of the insurgents and e) a lack of understanding of the fluidity of successful insurgent tactics, such as suicide bombing, to jump borders and spread instability. This is only a partial list. Rather than pursuing a 'robust' approach to secure another 20 years or so of oil (and it's predictable defensive reaction throughout the world), the U.S. would have done much better to transfer a huge chunk of its bloated, Cold War oriented military budget, which, after all, is not required to 'combat terrorism', into an effective energy independence campaign beginning with the 70's oil shocks. Instead, we let CAFE standards and many other successful energy independence strategies die on the vine after the oil shocks of the 70s. By now we could be thumbing our noses at the bowl full of assholes that is the modern Middle East. But here we are, in nuclear proliferation, sectarian civil war, and climate change heaven. We should leave Iraq as soon as possible, and shift the massive amounts of money we are wasting there to achieving energy independence through free market tax incentives and research. If we can built a drone that can drop a bomb on a car, we can build a car that can go 100 miles on a gallon of biodiesel. If this sounds like a new form of American isolationism, so be it.