Rodchester

"A small spike on the tip would prevent this." And puncture your shell as you plod along walking across the glacier as it hangs off you pack and or harness....That would suck. But it sounds like it might limit the skating problem.

What would you do to improve the design? Curious....

"I felt that God was telling me to say something [to the passengers]." I don't care what religion or what god, I don't want my pilot hearing voices!!!

I have done some tests myself with a buddy to see how strong flukes are compared to an ice axe in a trench, a picket pounded downward, and a picket in a trench. In the right conditions, a fluke is about as strong as the come. We took long slides on steep snow (50 ft of rope out sitting slides with no brake) and we were stopped solid by the fluke. (It jerked a bit, but no more than you’d think and no more than with the pickets). We did the same with the fluke buried first (well placed) and with it basically dropped into the snow (not deep at all, barely in, but at the correct angle). It was really interesting watching the fluke drop deeper into the snow. Either way it held amazingly. We tried using three guys to pull, and couldn't budge it. In proper conditions I carry one (of course based on the route requirements).

Thanks RM.

Anyone been up in the Ingals / Stuart area via Ingals Pass by Teanaway River road? With the warm weather, how far can one drive into the trailhead? Anyone with info?

Another thing to look for is color fading. UV rays damage nylon. Lots of time in the sunlight can break down the material. If its getting old, getting frayed, and has faded colors, junk it.

JoshK: Did you ski all the way down to the bridge? Beta please.... Thanks...

Take it easy Jim.

"FRANCE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS" Not the intel community

"Have you seen their assessments? How much do intel agencies feed info to one another?" Only open source material, obviously. However, the Chem weapons position is public information from many agencies relased through thier governments and at times directly. As far as intel agencies working together and feeding each other...it REALLY varies. Sometimes they appear to be tied at the hip but are just watching each other with very little cooperation. Sometimes they share a good bit. More often than not they share a little and hide a lot.

Oh..got ya. I misunderstood what you were saying. My comments have more to do with the Intel community and thier assessments and less with the administration's.

Jim: Are you saying there were no other defectors besides Kamel? And that no other defectors and inside sources disagreed with Kamel? In order for the WHOLE thing to be a lie, nearly every intelligence agency (France, Germany, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Britain, etc.) were going along with the lie? There is nothing gray about their assessments. They ultimately all agreed that he had stockpiles of Chemical weapons. Are you saying they ALL lied? Even the UN inspectors agreed that they had not accounted for the weapons and it was GENERALLY agreed that he was hiding them somewhere. Were you in the book depository in 1963 in Dallas? Kidding. Just trying to clarify what you’re saying.

I'm not saying they didn't get Kamel's story, only that when you intrepret intel you have to look at everything that you have. One guy's story against many others and the historical trend, com. intel, Sat. intel, and other things with the idea you err on the side of caution, and I don't see how the intel agencies coming down on the side of Saddam's own stated postion that he had WMD is pitiful. Intel doesn't work that way... With the gift of hindsight we can critize the agencies and learn from the mistakes made.

But Jim, Kamel's story was one of hundreds of defectors. Most of them stated the opposite. The Intel community (it appears) got it wrong. (this doesn't mean that the Bushies didn't twist it as well). Anecdotal information like Kamel's story is interesting, but it in no way is a basis to ignore the rest of the intel. Sure it is intel and it was likely considered. It now appears that they should have listened more closely to Kamel and a few others that made statements along the lines of the weapons being destroyed. Keep inmind, desroying these things is no simple feat. At least that is true of Chemical weapons and some Bio (i.e. Anthrax). They would leave a signiture if simply dumped in the desert. But what I don't get, is why didn't Saddam just tell and show the UN weapons inspectors that they had been destroyed? (assuming that they were actually destroyed). This is puzzling to me. Maybe Saddam was bluffing the UN and others into thinking that he still had the weapons and that he would use them if invaded? If so, he convinced a lot of people and intel agencies around the world.

Two at a time, sure, then I'm really in the middle!

Hmmm probably Brittney...can I do Rudi Baktiar (SP?)instead. Mmmm Rudi.

"One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability" Note the use of the word "could." This is putting an observation out there. It doesn't take a position at all. I think it is fairly obviously, sorry if you didn't get it, that this was a discussion about Iraq and the chances for democracy eventually taking hold and promoting stability. Are you saying that the US is supporting a dictator in Iraq? I wasn't referring to another countries. I thought that was obvious. "You have now both stated that the Iraq mess is due to bad intel" When and where did I say that it is amess due to bad intel? Misrepresentation? All that I said was the intel was wrong. Actually I recall that that was even only an imlication. How do you get that this caused Iraq to be a mess? Iraq is a mess for many reasons, which I have not previously, nor do I now comment on. "it was wrong to think that Bush's intent was not to further democracy in Iraq" Misrepresentations? All that I said was that democracy was a "stated intent" of the Bushies and that I will give them a chance to fail or suceed. Twist away...are you a Bush advisor?

Jim: For the most part my positions in this thread relate to the democracy issue, for the most part. On the intel being incorrect versus lies. There are two seperate issues. 1) Lies. Whatever you want to call them, there is little doubt that the Bushies twisted the living shit out of some intel. Your example of the yellow cake is one that it appears to have been twisted. Keep in mind though, the Italians came to the Bushies after the US envoy arrived at his conclusions and challenged the earlier conclusions. I think the Brits may have done the same? Is this a good enough basis? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not privy to all of the info. I am VERY disturbed by the release of the name of the agent. 2) Being wrong. Every Western Intelligence agency and that of Jordan opening admits that they believed that Sadam had a stockpile of Chemical weapons. Most believed that he had some form of a Bio warfare program, though many disagreed on the type and the existence of actual biomaterials in stock. Few believed that he had an active Nuke program, but many feared that it was a dormant program that could be reconstituted quickly. Almost every, if not every, Intel agency believed these things and reported them to their governments. Most at the UN agreed on some level that Chemical weapons existed. Some individual weapons experts and inspectors doubted the extent of the chemical weapons. However, the agencies agreed they existed. Now we are fairly certain that they did not. Did Saddm dupe the west? Was Saddam duped by his own scientists? We don’t know how exactly, but the intel was wrong.

MattP: You'll get little if any disagreement from me on your father's view/assessment. As I have stated previously, it was a bad policy, or more accurately stated: stability CAN be a good policy but the methodology of supporting dictators in order to achieve the policy is bad (because it doesn't work AND its goes against democratic ideals). Most of my comments here have focused on the attacks against me because I have stated that I’ll take the Bushies at face value on the democracy issue until the either get it right and carry through with it, or fail. Did we act to quickly? We can’t answer that question now, its simply to quick to arrive at such a judgment. Lets have a beer sometime in Ballard MattP. I wouldn't mind discussing some legal business issues with you as well.

Ah, get used to this line of reasoning because you're going to hear it as a steady drumbeat until November." No doubt about that...but you'll hear two distinct drum beats. 1) The intel was imperfect - we did the best we could under uncertain circumstances, then throw in a reference to 911 and a country at war, wave flag, fade out. 2) The administration made the decision long ago as to what they were going to do and tried (and failed) to get the intel to justify it. Read: Lies, lies, lies. Each side will put forth its version resulting in a very partisan bi-polar view. Each will be skewed and neither completely accurate. I'm just one of those guys that generally falls in the middle, listening to each side with a large grain of salt. To some, that grain of salt means I'm not on their team and such I must be on the other team. But I still like to watch and I like beer too.

Well keep in mind this is an opnion from a Bush cheerleader I think in hindsight it is easy to say that supporting the Shah and installing him in power was an error. In hindsight. We are paying the price for the error to this day and will continue to pay for, what I will guess to be, another 25 years. But that is Hindsight. Was there really another option? At the time most said there wasn't. Did they rellay explore other options? I'm not versed in the decision enough to comment. Did we benefit, sure, for a time we received some stability in the region and Iran served as a check to Soviet influence in the region. Thae nature of intel is that you go with probabilities and some gut-feel as well as historical patterns. Its not a perfect science. Its not exact. Its often said that intel is what we believe to be true and evidence is what we can prove. ERF: Are you actually comparing Uzbekistan, Azerbajan, and the like to Iraq? You have to be kidding. When did we invade Columbia? Oh, I guess this is going to segway into the war on drugs... I'm just some naive Bush Cheerleader...

not on mine either? Alpinfox...tell us what they say! Cut and paste brother.

"It's funny also to think that once democracy takes roots (if it does) in the Middle East then we may be faced with potential economic competitors just as Germany and Japan posed the same dilemma." Now that's not such a bad dilemma though....