Larry Wall & Cults

[Steve Holden]

[on the 'crusade' faux pas]

GM> You may or may not be right about the dumbness of language,
GM> but thats not germane. What is important are the conclusions
GM> people in the middle east draw from it.

I think the retraction/clarification came out in less than a day if
not in hours. People who'd report this to further their agenda are also
the kind of people who shamelessly lie regardless of who says what
anyway, so I doubt he did any major damage. But of course it couldn't
have helped.

Erm, if we're talking about shameless lying then we needn't look any
further than George W "reporting for duty" Bush for an example. I remain
gobsmacked that the American voters still believe he is acting in their
interests, when he is clearly only motivated by the desire to make the
rich richer.

Ultimately, of course, it's the voters who are responsible for electing
a man who is quite incapable of holding two separate thoughts together,
and who doesn't have the intellectual ability to the necessary will to
perform a serious analysis of the geopolitical situation.

The fact that a retraction was made doesn't mean that the original
utterance wasn't what he meant, it merely means that the spinmeisters
(yet again) jumped into action in response to the latest outbreak of
"foot-in-mouth" disease. Much as it did when el presidente thoughtlessly
admitted that the "war on terrorism" was unwinnable.

[...]
GM> What if what if what if. The problem is we're stuck in a
GM> hugely expensive, poorly planned and strategically stupid
GM> situation. We weren't before we invaded.

I'll tell you what's worse: if the guys who got you into this
situation aren't duly punished at the polls, we may well see more of
it. Not that the replacement would be any better necessarily (indeed
he might be worse in many ways), but this kind of poor judgement needs
to have political consequences domestically. With the Soviets gone,
the only force that can keep the US gov't in check right now is the
reaction of the US voter. That or the unwillingness of the world to
bankroll these adventures with loans will restrain them in the short
term. (The US gets to borrow with US$ denominated paper, if that
weren't true and with the US$ getting weaker by about 20-50% against
major currencies in the past 3-4 years, the true cost of these
adventures would have been obvious by now. But then again, what
do I know?)

Far more than the average American voter, it seems to me.

[...]
GM> One problem with the situation was Dubya & Co succeeded in
GM> strongly hinting that disagreement was akin to treason.

So it seems.

GM> There was simply no policital room for debate after 9/11. [...]

Yeah that's probably why people didn't point and laugh at the officials
who implied the treason bit above. Now, I suppose it will be having the
armed forces stuck in hostile territory that'll be used for this
purpose.

cheers,

BM

It sure will. Just as Kerry's attempt, after being there, to point out
the unnecessary and irrational nature the war in Viet Nam is now being
treated as treasonous, when in fact it should be seen as the action of a
man with a clear connection between his conscience and his conscious.

regards
Steve

 

[Chuck Dillon]

I still fail to see why invading Iraq has anything to do with "war on
terror". If the goal is to fight terror (laudable), then why are we
not invading the countries that actually sponsor it? Afganistan was
the right step- but who the hell cares if Iraq "obeyed" the
resolutions? ...

I suggest you look a little deeper into the problem than simply which
states are undergoing what problematic behaviors now or recently. What
is the underlying cause of the terror and how can we address that?

No it's not oil. It is the pressure of social and political change in
the Islamic world that has tried for generations to isolate itself
from, what you and I would call progressive changes, happening
elsewhere in the world. The ever shrinking world is breaking down
their methods of isolation and bringing the fundamental conflicts
between traditional Islam and the modern world to a head. The changes
that occurred over generations in the west and far east are being
flooded on Islam in a fraction of the time. It's no surprise, to me at
least, that there are side effects. A similar thing would happen if we
were talking about applying comparable pressure on Catholicism or any
other religion. It's not specific to Islam.

The west has for a long time taken a hands off "let nature take its
course" approach. Islamic terrorism was an unfortunate side effect
that could be mostly ignored as long as it remained at an acceptable
level and mostly contained in the middle east. Israel has been in a
very disadvantages position as a result of this approach by the west.
9/11 blew that norm to hell.

Bin Laden (and others of his ilk) is, IMHO, similar to what Charlie
Manson was except that where Manson had a relatively small pool of
young disillusioned people susceptible to his powers of manipulation,
bin Laden has many millions. Where Manson had no resources bin Laden
has wealthy backers who want to hold on to their power.

So now the west must take a more active role in the situation. We need
to find a way to contain the problem to the middle east and try to
achieve the prior norm, with a level of acceptable terrorism. And we
need to impress on the Islamic leadership (i.e. clerics) as well as
governments that they must take responsibility for dealing with the
side effects of social change.

Going into Iraq was IMHO justified without consideration of 9/11 or the
war on terror. Setting up a more democratic and educated Afghanistan
and Iraq blows a big whole in Islam's isolation efforts and forces them
to deal with the reality of the 21st century. The process will be
bumpy but we can no longer be patient when the mainstream of Islam
allow violence on the scale of 9/11 or beyond to occur.

As for the go it alone issue. Given the above "theory" if you prefer
and what happened on 9/11. It seems natural that we (the USA) would
have a more acute interest in replacing the "let nature take its
course" strategy with a more active one than other western nations that
were not directly attacked. Those other nations might call for us to
be patient and accept the cost. Basically what we and the rest of the
western world have asked Israel to do for some 50 years. It's not
surprising that the decision to take a more active strategy toward the
middle east was less than unanimous. It also would not be surprising
for only one or two nations to take the lead and therefor the brunt of
the near term acute risk of reprisals while other nations give passive
support.

That's how I see it at least.

-- ced

 

[Walter Bushell]

Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator. Ever since 2.0, MS has
been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.

And they got beat to Unixhood (or UnixDoom) by Apple.

 

[Walter Bushell]

No that's not the reason. The reason is ONLY because of the lack of
virtual memory management (with separation of addressing spaces for
processes) in MacOS. That's the one error in design in MacOS I
identified in version 1.0 that they've dragged all along for 20
years. (And I bet that if they did not make it, AAPL would be $50-$80
now, and they'd have at least 40%-50% of market share). Instead,
they've wasted resources, CEOs and CTOs for 10 years before the NeXT
take over.

NeXT took over Apple. Yes, that is the way it was except for the fiscal
realities.

 

[Walter Bushell]

my uncle moved houses ... i helped on maybe a dozen or so ... needed
special permits ... and wide load escorts ... and carefully planned
routes ... frequently for relatively controlled distances.

if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss a lot
of the problems that you would run into moving by train. we had one
route where i was on the peak of the house and had to grab wires over
the side .... lift the wires up to clear the peak and walk the wires
back as the house moved under.

I had an uncle in the business, his job was to check the route, they
didn't want him to retire. (O baby, when it comes time to move, nothing
beats the feeling of finding out by experience that the route is
untenable and no one wanted to put their career on the line, I suppose.)

But he finally convinced them, that he couldn't do the job forever.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Going into Iraq was IMHO justified without consideration of 9/11
or the war on terror. Setting up a more democratic and educated
Afghanistan and Iraq blows a big whole in Islam's isolation
efforts and forces them to deal with the reality of the 21st
century. The process will be bumpy but we can no longer be
patient when the mainstream of Islam allow violence on the scale
of 9/11 or beyond to occur.

I disagree. Afghanistan, yes. Chasing Bin Laden, yes. They were
the direct cause of 9/11 (which was not a unique occurance, except
in degree). Iraq, no. That was the descendent of "avenge
disrespect to Daddy" syndrome, and has been shown to have no
connection with either 9/11 nor with WMDs.

The whole business has effectively ended the punishment phase of
9/11 and justified it in the minds of many Moslems. For a short
while there was an opportunity to do an exemplary job in
Afghanistan and show the Islamic world the possibilities. That
has been thrown away by our Glorious Inept Leaders.

 

[Walter Bushell]

Vietnam was certainly a catastrophe, but the blame goes to Johnson,
not Kennedy. There were only a few thousand U.S. troops in training
and advisory roles in Vietnam by Kennedy's assassination. Johnson
decided to escalate the war and have U.S. forces fight directly.

Even the best presidents can't have nothing but successes. The Bay of
Pigs was a failure, but at least Kennedy didn't compound the mistake
by sending in U.S. troops where Cuban expats failed.

-- Patrick

His mistake, was IIRC, promising air cover and then not delivering. Hey,
that's a mistake that has been made by real military leaders.

 

[Walter Bushell]

A soveign Iraq has the right to demand the USA leave. Do you think Iraq
wants to become a target of Al Qaeda the way Saudi Arabia has been simply
for the honor of having USA soldiers in their country?

<snip>

We have to expect a sovereign Iraq will be US hostile at best. And a
state with a state Mosque at best.

 

[Morten Reistad]

I disagree. Afghanistan, yes. Chasing Bin Laden, yes. They were
the direct cause of 9/11 (which was not a unique occurance, except
in degree). Iraq, no. That was the descendent of "avenge
disrespect to Daddy" syndrome, and has been shown to have no
connection with either 9/11 nor with WMDs.

The adversary is easy to describe, if not to find. He (and almost
certainly he is male) is strongly idelogical and religous; and
can be very patient. The ideology far transcends the national part.

This fits Afghanistan like a glove. It fits Sudan and the (now
expelled) Yemenis. It fits a lot of Pakistan; and almost all of Iran.

Saddam however was a "dictator classic". His system looked
more like a South American strongman like Stroessner than
Al-Quada. So does the Assad family in Syria, and Ghadaffi's; and
Burma. Even North Korea may have slid into this camp.

Pakistan, Algeria and Lebanon have had lethal fights between the
"dictator classics" and the islamic revolutionaries. None look
very appealing; but at least the "dc" does not send bombs to
the west as long as we keep shipping the caviar.

On another note we have three countries spiralling into
internal destruction so fast they may implode alltogether. They
are Sudan, North Korea and Turkmenistan.

As the US Army seems to have enourmous problems in Iraq, rapidly
becoming another Vietnam in scale, up to ten other spots may
require a rapid reaction force.

We europeans have better saddle up; the US is going to be so
bogged down they will be stuck.

The whole business has effectively ended the punishment phase of
9/11 and justified it in the minds of many Moslems. For a short
while there was an opportunity to do an exemplary job in
Afghanistan and show the Islamic world the possibilities. That
has been thrown away by our Glorious Inept Leaders.

I don't lament that so much. It is impossible to satisfy people
that have decided otherwise, and Afghanistan was going to be a tough
one anyhow.

But I am a lot more worried that the western alliance is unable to
project power even against a militarily beaten people like Iraq.

-- mrr

 

[Walter Bushell]

They can have a nice chat with the 40-some-odd percent of the people
who think Saddam was working with al-Qaida...

-- Patrick

Does this come before or after the debate between the born again
evangelicals and the Hari Krisnas?

 

[Patrick Scheible]

http://intelligence.house.gov/
http://intelligence.senate.gov/

They have committees, they don't have independent
intelligence-gathering ability.

-- Patrick

 

[Alan Balmer]

They have committees, they don't have independent
intelligence-gathering ability.

Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all those field
trips. That's why he gets reports from the various intelligence
agencies, who also report to the Congressional intelligence
committees.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all
those field trips. That's why he gets reports from the various
intelligence agencies, who also report to the Congressional
intelligence committees.

Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
a few days ago?

 

[Alan Balmer]

Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
a few days ago?

Have you read the report?

By "ignore them", I presume you mean that his reaction to them wasn't
the same as yours would have been.

 

[SM Ryan]

# >They have committees, they don't have independent
# >intelligence-gathering ability.
# >
# Neither does President Bush - he doesn't have time for all those field
# trips. That's why he gets reports from the various intelligence
# agencies, who also report to the Congressional intelligence
# committees.

You're right. He is the Excuses president.

In case you missed reading the Constitution in school, briefly, the CIA,
the DoD and its intelligence staffs, the State Department and its intelligence
staffs, the FBI, DoJ, BATF, etc etc etc etc are all part of the executive
branch. The only elected officer of the executive branch, from whom all other
executive officers draw their authority, is the President.

In short, ding dong, the President _does_ have independent intelligence
gatherring ability. It's called the executive branch, and it's at his
beck and call for all legal orders. It's that commander in chief bit.

 

[Chuck Dillon]

... snip ...



Then why does he ignore them, as evidenced by his non-response to
the July report on the future of Iraq, which was kept secret until
a few days ago?

You have no basis from which to judge how or whether there was a
response. Just because you're not in the loop doesn't mean there is no
loop.

-- ced

 

[Chuck Dillon]

In short, ding dong, the President _does_ have independent intelligence
gatherring ability. It's called the executive branch, and it's at his
beck and call for all legal orders. It's that commander in chief bit.

You missed the part of the constitution that speaks of checks and
balances. By definition the 3 branches are co-dependent.
Administration and oversight of our intelligence systems/agencies have
been pretty sophisticated for a long time. Are you suggesting that
somehow this administration has completely restructured it in just 3.5
years and somehow undermined the oversight authority of the congress?
If, so you have a very high opinion of the abilities of this
administration. I assume you think Tony Blair accomplished the same
thing in the U.K...

-- ced

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer wrote:
.... snip ...

You have no basis from which to judge how or whether there was a
response. Just because you're not in the loop doesn't mean there
is no loop.

On the contrary, I have a basis. GWB has continued to bray about
"staying the course" since the report was available to him.

 

[Charlie Gibbs]

You missed the part of the constitution that speaks of checks and
balances. By definition the 3 branches are co-dependent.

GWB's conduct during the recent gay marriage flap was enough to
convince me of just how much of a pain in the ass he considers an
independent judiciary to be. Considering that a couple of Supreme
Court judges are delaying their retirement just to try to fend him
off a little longer, I'd say that some of the judiciary agree.

 

[Chuck Dillon]

... snip ...



On the contrary, I have a basis. GWB has continued to bray about
"staying the course" since the report was available to him.

Which of course is a basis of nothing.

It appears you consider reports from intelligence reliable enough for
the administration to take action with a sense of urgency. So you must
support actions taken last year based on similar intelligence right?
You also seem to support delegating control to whomever writes a
sufficiently gloomy report.

-- ced