• Top U.S. and NATO commander says that without more troops, the war in Afghanistan may fail.
• New York Gov. David Paterson says he'll run for reelection despite Obama's show of no confidence.
• FCC expected to vote to impose "Net neutrality" regulations.
• Least surprising news today: Federal Katrina funds steered toward political pet projects.
• Congress to hold hearings this week on extending key provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
New York Gov. David Paterson says he'll run for reelection
despite Obama's show of no confidence.
I'm guessing he didn't see Obama's request coming.
"We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical
wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral
damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can
defeat ourselves,"
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage.
How would strategic defeat result from civilian casualties?
Here in America, civilian casualties by the police have not
resulted in a strategic defeat for them.
The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily;
All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll win,
just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.
Top U.S. and NATO commander says that without more troops,
the war in Afghanistan may fail.
They need to send some Chicago politicians over there to clean up
that crooked government.
All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll win, just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.
That must be how the Gauls avoided conquest by the Romans.
We play the game
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We play the game
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
FTFY
FCC expected to vote to impose "Net neutrality"
regulations.
about the need for transparency from carriers on how they run their
networks to ensure that they aren't singling out technologies that
might compete with their own services.
I am a Comcast customer. About 6 months ago Comcast
instituted an
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
Comcast offers an internet phone service which directly competes
with Vonage. I wonder how many people have been flagged by
Comcast's AUP policy because they were using Vonage?
In many areas Comcast is operating on 35 year old coax lines with
limited bandwidth. Comcast would much rather use the bandwidth for
PPV movies and events than on high speed internet.
Anyway, Comcast is screwed. Verizon (Bell Atlantic) is running
triple optical fiber (TV, HSI and land line phone) (FiOS) directly
to homes. Each connection is direct with no trunk lines. And
they're providing better services and lower prices.
All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll
win, just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.
Warty, you unpatriotic islamofacist! How dare you compare
terrorists to our noble Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers
wanted the freedom to govern their land according to what the knew
was right, free of foreign oppression. Obviously there is no
similarity.
Troy, I love the album, and it makes some good observations, but Waters got the war as entertainment part wrong. The first Iraq war, and the wall to wall CNN coverage, was short enough to not wear out the public interest. These longer wars have brought out a fatigue that has the public not wanting to see or hear anything about them.
The Founding Fathers wanted the freedom to govern their land according to what the knew was right, free of foreign oppression. Obviously there is no similarity.
The Taliban fight for the freedom to make women into sex slaves
just like what happened to Jaycee Lee Dugard.
That must be how the Gauls avoided conquest by the
Romans.
They didn't keep an army afield, now did they?
New York Gov. David Paterson says he'll run for reelection
despite Obama's show of no confidence.
Gov. Paterson is clearly a racist.
I'm getting a kick out of the thought of Obama holding a triumph, at the conclusion of which he ritually strangles the Taliban commander.
Top U.S. and NATO commander says that without more troops, the war in Afghanistan may fail.
Afghanistan - too big to fail?
Let it fail, says I. Sunk costs are sunk.
All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll
win, just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.
While there's something to this, its not an iron-clad rule. The
world is full of guerrilla movements that have not won, and
guerillas that have been defeated.
This, however, strikes me as wrong-headed:
We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins
that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral
damage.
Strategic victory over guerrillas typically is achieved by armies
that are willing to cause civilian casualties and collateral
damage. The recent defeat of the Tamil Tigers, the utter failure of
the resistance throughout Europe in WWII are just two examples that
come to mind.
No link to the suspected terrorist arrested over the
weekend?
The raid in Queens made Reason, with the note that no arrests were
made (at the time of the initial raids).
How will Obama-bots heads not explode when the PATRIOT Act is extended?
While there's something to this, its not an iron-clad rule.
The world is full of guerrilla movements that have not won, and
guerillas that have been defeated.
Take that Shining Path!
How will Obama-bots heads not explode when the PATRIOT Act
is extended?
Obama would never misuse those powers. And he just caught three
terrorists.
If a guerilla army remains in the field, it has the support of the local populace. As long as that remains true, and it isn't drawn into a battle of annihilation, it will win eventually. The Tamils organized into a regular army that controlled defined territory, and were subsequently defeated. So did the Gauls against Caesar. I can't think of any cases where a guerilla movement was able to keep forces in the field and didn't ultimately win. It's kind of by definition: if you keep an army in the field, you will win eventually. If you are entirely defeated, you lost.
While there's something to this, its not an iron-clad rule.
The world is full of guerrilla movements that have not won, and
guerillas that have been defeated.
Maybe the rule is something like: forces kept in field + popular
support + low enemy public support = guerrilla win.
If a guerilla army remains in the field, it has the support of the local populace. As long as that remains true, and it isn't drawn into a battle of annihilation, it will win eventually. The Tamils organized into a regular army that controlled defined territory, and were subsequently defeated. So did the Gauls against Caesar. I can't think of any cases where a guerilla movement was able to keep forces in the field and didn't ultimately win. It's kind of by definition: if you keep an army in the field, you will win eventually. If you are entirely defeated, you lost.
Of course, keeping an army in the field is easier said than
done.
Of course, keeping an army in the field is easier said than
done.
Of course. That's why Washington was brilliant.
Net neutrality is such a terrible policy on so many
levels.
+1. Operators have spent billions on their networks, and the
government is now going to control what they're used for.
"We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range"
"We zap and maim
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range"
These statements are not contradictory or mutually exclusive at
all. No fix needed. I'm glad to see someone else likes Roger
Waters.
That must be how the Gauls avoided conquest by the
Romans.
And here I thought it was druidic potions and some funny looking
short guy with a moustache.
The Dems talked a ton of shit for the last six years about how Afghanistan was the real war on terror and the war in Iraq distracted the US from it. Well, now is the time to put up or shut up. If it is the "real war" and Iraq just a distraction, Obama should be pulling troops our of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan.
Fuck the FCC, yo.
How is the very existence of a "Federal Communications Commission"
not a blatant violation of the First Amendment?
I'm guessing he didn't see Obama's request coming.
Deeply cruel, but funny.
Net neutrality actually involves two issues...
First, government requiring all network owners to provide equal
access for all content regardless of its bandwith and the
performance for other users.
The real intent on the left is a fear that network owners will
block all content determintal to the network owner.
They have no issue because, unlike the public airwaves, there can
be no claim of public ownership of internet networks.
Edmunds.com reports that "September's light-vehicle sales rate
will fall to 8.8 million units . . . the lowest rate in nearly 28
years, tying the worst demand on record. After the
cash-for-clunkers program boosted August sales to their first
year-over-year increase since October 2007, demand has plunged. In
at least the last 33 years, the U.S. seasonally adjusted annual
rate has only dropped as low as 8.8 million units once - in
December 1981 - with records stretching back to January
1976."
Edmunds.com
These longer wars have brought out a fatigue that has the
public not wanting to see or hear anything about them.
James:
I supposed I would disagree, but only a little. The war, as it was
prosecuted the first three weeks in Iraq, was damn good
entertainment. Of course the low level combat of just a few
ordinary lives being blown to shreds by IEDs on a small scale
patrol doesn't have nearly the entertainment drawing power.
James Ard:
Sorry, I fucked that post up. My point, that I didn't make too
clearly, was the idea of using all those Predator drones to fly
about killing people instead of using boots on the ground. In that
sense, I think the "we zap and maim, with the bravery of being out
of range," is correct.
The Dems talked a ton of shit for the last six years about
how Afghanistan was the real war on terror and the war in Iraq
distracted the US from it. Well, now is the time to put up or shut
up.
Amen.
Troy,
By implication you bring up an interesting point. And that is that
there is a problem with only fighting wars as long as we don't take
any casualties. No question, it is better to just kick the living
shit out of the enemy. The last thing anyone wants to be in is a
fair fight. But, what if that is not possible? Foreign lives are
lives to. If a war is not worth an American life, why is it worth
an Iraqi life or an Afghan life? My point is that either a war is
worth fighting and killing people over or it is not. If it is, then
our taking some casualties should not make it not worth fighting.
If it is not, even a US casualty free war shouldn't be fought.
The best article I've seen on net neutrality is here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775
No question, it is better to just kick the living shit out
of the enemy.
That remind of when I was in basic training. Our Drill Sergeants
quoted that line from the movie Patton. The idea isn't to die for
your country, the idea is to make the other poor son of bitch die
for his country.
My point is that either a war is worth fighting and killing
people over or it is not. If it is, then our taking some casualties
should not make it not worth fighting.
I agree. I suppose the argument, then, is what makes a war
"worthy"? I should be able to complete this sentence: Afghani and
American lives are being lost in Afghanistan to_________________.
Well it isn't self defense. There is no way the Taliban is a risk
to our borders. It isn't to stopping slavery or genocide. All we
seem to be doing is making more enemies by torturing teenage
soldiers.
Often, I see Obama supporters (or Bush Bashers) bring up that
Bush brought us PATRIOT, so it was necessary to replace him.
Well, if PATRIOT is THAT bad (and I won't argue that it isn't) what
good is the replacement if he doesn't press the case to eliminate
PATRIOT?
Is Obama pressing that case? If not, shouldn't his supporters shut
up about Bush's sins? If PATRIOT was right, then quit criticizing
Bush about it. If PATRIOT was wrong, then Obama compounds the error
by not doing everything he can to scuttle it, and so shows himself
to be no better than the reviled predecessor.
I should be able to complete this sentence: Afghani and
American lives are being lost in Afghanistan
to_________________.
I'd love to hear anybody in the administration complete that
statement right now and follow it up with some justification.
"There is no way the Taliban is a risk to our borders."
Not our borders. Skyscrapers and subways OTOH...
I can't think of any cases where a guerilla movement was
able to keep forces in the field and didn't ultimately
win.
Well, in WWII there were guerrilla armies "in the field" that did
not win anything. They just stuck around until the Allied armies
rolled through.
Really, though, it becomes a matter of definition and, perhaps,
tautology. A guerrilla army can stay in the field forever, but if
it never takes and holds ground, perhaps by taking over the
government a la Castro, it hasn't won anything.
It also matters what counts as an "army". The Sendero Luminoso is
still around, albeit much reduced, for example. Is it still an army
in the field? Is its victory therefor preordained,
eventually?
Also, query whether the IRA, which always had an "army" "in the
field" ultimately won.
troy | September 21, 2009, 12:20pm | #
I agree. I suppose the argument, then, is what makes a war "worthy"? I should be able to complete this sentence: Afghani and American lives are being lost in Afghanistan to_________________. Well it isn't self defense. There is no way the Taliban is a risk to our borders. It isn't to stopping slavery or genocide. All we seem to be doing is making more enemies by torturing teenage soldiers.
How we end a war matters very much on the international arena. If
we leave Afghanistan "defeated", then the next government or
terrorist group thinking of fighting America will be a bit more
confident about attacking us. If we leave Afghanistan "victorious",
then future enemies will be more reluctant to challenge us
militarily. Defining "defeated" and "victorious" is complicated.
Technically, the Nazis still have "forces in the field". Many Nazi
groups in Europe and the US push for their goals. This year we even
suffered
one US casualty from a Nazi. Despite these underground groups,
we still consider WWII long won. So, at what point to we start
thinking of the Taliban like we think of the Nazis? They are both
ex-dictatorships that America and our allies toppled. At what point
to we hand over pursuit of the Taliban to regular police forces,
declare victory, and bring our military home?
• FCC expected to vote to impose "Net neutrality" regulations.
It's ain't broke, so dammit we need to fix it! Without this Evil
Intertoob Mogols will take your children's lunch money!
It also matters what counts as an "army". The Sendero Luminoso is still around, albeit much reduced, for example. Is it still an army in the field? Is its victory therefor preordained, eventually?
There was a Japanese soldier who was hiding out on an island near
the Phillipines until the '60's.
Does this mean the Japanese did not lose the war until then?
# PantsFan | September 21, 2009, 1:15pm | #
# Why hasn't reason posted on the death of
# Neocon #1?
Is that intended to echo "Bizarro #1"? If so, I like it.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245