Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Check your math...I get 63 years.

Posted by sjvan at December 7, 2004 06:04 AM

Doh!!

Well, I was within an order of magnitude...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2004 06:07 AM

And here we are, three years and four months after we were attacked. For comparison's sake, in three years, four months from Pearl Harbor, FDR was dead (+/- a week). Are we as far along in this war? Sadly, not.

Posted by Andrew at December 7, 2004 06:32 AM

Andrew, remember that FDR did not start out WW2 with continuing tax cuts. . .

Besides, winning the "War on Terror" really, really slowly fits Rove's strategery much better.

;-)

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 07:14 AM

And they say it's generals that are always refighting the last war....

But let's take these comparisons at their face value:

By three years and four months after Pearl Harbor, the US had invaded several territories that had had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor (e.g., Morocco, Sicily, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland).

More to the point, the US had flattened entire cities, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. One wonders what the likes of Andrew and Bill White would say if, for example, the US had actually done what Noam Chomsky and various NGOs had worried that the US would do in Afghanistan, i.e., triggered massive famine and widespread civilian casualties.

As for Iraq, one wonders whether the going would be easier or harder if the US had simply annihilated cities (e.g., Fallujah). Certainly, w/ the arsenal at its disposal, this would be easier than the thousand bomber raids of the day.

Of course, at the same time, the US had cut deals w/ bloodthirsty tyrants and propped them up (unless one would care to characterize Stalin differently?). And laid the foundation for the subsequent Cold War. I suppose it might've been easier to be pristine in one's dealings, but then, the Soviets were tying down a number of German troops.

Finally, one wonders: Will there be much pissing and moaning if we were to nuke al-Qaeda? I mean, if it turned out they were training in, say, Sudan or receiving support from Syria, will there be much in the way of qualms about simply vaporizing Khartoum or Damascus?

Judging from how much the Left has sought to rewrite the end of the Second World War and the role of nuclear weapons, I suspect we all know the answer to that question....

Posted by Dean at December 7, 2004 07:23 AM

remember that FDR did not start out WW2 with continuing tax cuts

It might have been a good idea if he had. One of the things that was keeping the country mired in the Depression was the punishing tax rate increases in 1936, and again in 1940, just before the war.

And we haven't really had that much in the way of tax cuts--just tax rate cuts...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2004 07:23 AM

If global Islam is the problem, cuting off their funding (oil revenues) is job #1. Buying Saudi oil is like sending LendLease to Hitler.

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 07:32 AM

If global Islam is the problem, cuting off their funding (oil revenues) is job #1.

A job much easier said than done, though prospects for it improve as more oil starts to pump from Iraq. To think that there is a quick technological fix to replacing petroleum is a pipe dream.

Buying Saudi oil is like sending LendLease to Hitler.

As long as they sit on the fields, someone is going to buy their oil. Oil is fungible--it doesn't matter whether or not we buy it. The only solution is to make it so that they are no longer in a position to receive the revenues from it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2004 07:45 AM

Maybe we should just annex the Middle East, take the oil supply for ourselves. What would the Left say then? Accuse us of being imperialist and going to war for oil?
No really, we mean it this time. Wooolf!

Posted by John Irving at December 7, 2004 07:58 AM

If we are off oil, we can close the Persian Gulf (militarily) without cutting our own throats.

Go hydrogen via fission. US CO2 levels fall substantially. Ratify Kyoto. Why not? We aren't making CO2 any more.

Then (in 15-20 years) get the enviro-weenies and EU-nics to lobby for forcing China to comply with Kyoto.

Voila! 50 years from now, US global domination. ;-)

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 08:03 AM

Annex the Middle East? Without a draft? ;-)

Besides Japan started WW2 in the Pacific because they felt their access to raw materials was threatened. We cannot annex the Middle East without war with China at the same time.

Frankly, Irnaian nukes are good for China for this very reason.

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 08:08 AM

Actually, the late 60's and early 70's with the Soviets were pretty bad though fortunately not many died of it. I don't have it put together, but there appears to be a strategy shift by the USSR around 1966 that led to a vast buildup in the 70's in military power including nuclear weapons. The US was continually behind the curve in their intelligence estimates for a period of 5-10 years. And let us not forget Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 or the oil crises of the 70's. We were caught sleeping a few times since 1941.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 7, 2004 09:48 AM

Bill, actually Emperor Irving's plan for domination of the Middle East would take a percentage of the oil profits gained and pay them as a bounty to our military. No draft required.

As a theoretical possibility, what would happen if the Iraqi's adopted the US Constitution as the model for their own, practically word for word? How would you react, how do you think the world react?

Posted by John Irving at December 7, 2004 10:32 AM

Bill, actually Emperor Irving's plan for domination of the Middle East would take a percentage of the oil profits gained and pay them as a bounty to our military. No draft required.

Paul Wolfowitz tried selling this chestnut already. ;-)

First, I believe sabotage of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines is far, far below what it could be because Sistani and the Shia majority believe they will soon be running Iraq and once we leave, they want the oil revenues. If Sistani's Shia come to believe we are not leaving I fear the current insurgency will seem like paper cuts compared to what will happen.

We have already been bribing the tribes to guard the pipelines and they collude to rip us off. Its Casablanca and we keep trying to play Gary Cooper.

Next, China is a real problem for us if we annex the entire Persian Gulf. That puts our thumb on their petroluem jugular. Same basic cause prompted the Pearl Harbor attack.

Strangling China's energy access is not a bad idea in theory =IF= we are ready for a major WW3 with Islam plus China versus the USA. As an aside, if a US vs China war goes nuclear in a fight over access to Persian Gulf oil, I predict Israel vanishes under a cloud of Chinese H bombs.

As a theoretical possibility, what would happen if the Iraqi's adopted the US Constitution as the model for their own, practically word for word?

Depends on whether Sistani's clerics are allowed de facto control. Islam needs to be moderated, but going too far too fast makes things worse not better.

How would you react,

Good idea, altough I feel it is several bridges too far. Our entire Iraq adventure reminds me too much of the Athenian invasion of Syracuse from Thucydides. We blithely overestimate our own power and influence (hubris).

Had we removed Saddam and then given the keys to Iraq to Sistani 18 months ago (bin Laden hates the Shia more that the West) we could have won a major victory, IMHO.

how do you think the world react?

Depends on whether the world deems it sincere or subterfuge.

If Bill Clinton did it, the world would hail the new Iraq as a victory for democracy.

Bush? American imperial aggression. ;-/

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 11:06 AM

Bill...what...where.....how do you...never mind!!

You are IMHO, could you use that more, please just for me, you are a typical over educated numbskull. You compare modern problems with ancient and classical wars. And you say we fight for the same, and I hate this word, IMPERIALISTIC reasons.

We have no empire Bill, if we did all of Japans and Germanies combined wealth would belong to the U.S. They do not. We would not compete with these countries for market share in eletronics and automobiles. We would tell them NOT to make cheap goods or we would control their output and income level. We do not.

If we were imperialistic, we would not have had Germany on the "other side" of the Iraq invasion question at the U.N. Why? Because empires wield power and over powered peoples and countries do as their are told.

Remember Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland. That was Imperialiam. Remember The Congo, India, The Dutch East Indies. That was Imperialiam. If the U.S,. was imperialistic we would have won in Viet Nam and the entire country, north and south would be in our empire. They are not.

I do see the similarities sometimes as you see them, we will ultimately loose in Iraq, just like Hannibal lost by crossing the Alps. It's just to far to go to fight. Or so you and your ilk keep saying.

How the hell far is anything when a C5A can carry 130+ tons of cargo, troops, vehicles etc. It flies at 500+ miles per hour and refuels in air.
We have several, plus other smaller planes, and ships, our allies have other planes and ships.

The fighting so far away just for oil arguement is all smoke and mirrors. Have you bought gas in the last six months? If its all about MORE oil, why is the price UP??? Prices don't go UP when supply goes UP. If the object was to keep oil prices high, we would have bombed the oil fields and production centers ourselves. Mr Bush would have given the order just as soon as Mr Cheney and Haliburton said do it. We did not.

Last, we will win and as soon as feasibly possible. Anyone who thinks we are fighting just enough to keep fighting is delusional. Why, oh why would ANY adminiistration, REP or DEM, do that??

Well let me retract some of that. The current administartion would not drag this out longer than nescessary, the prior administartion was ok with sitting by and letting embassy employees and Sailors and Marines get killed, with no answer form the White House. Why would they do it? Because they just don't care about the people killed. Their whole "for the people" rehtoric is just that. Clinton and his group cared about one thing, themselves, and they showed it daily.

What has the current White House done for themselves, Bill?

I await your answer, I'm sure it will be classical and over my head.

Posted by Steve at December 7, 2004 12:14 PM

Wow! How could I be so wrong! :-) Thanks, Steve, for setting me straight.

No need to study history, just follow whatever George Bush says his Heavenly Father told him to do. Gosh, its so easy. . .

Thanks, dude.

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 12:50 PM

"Go hydrogen via fission."

An interesting idea. Does this mean that we can scream "No blood for oil!" at Greenists when Greenpeace uses piracy to block fission reactors?

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at December 7, 2004 03:31 PM

An interesting idea. Does this mean that we can scream "No blood for oil!" at Greenists when Greenpeace uses piracy to block fission reactors?

Exactly! If fission plus conservation means we kick the oil habit entirely.

Go hydrogen economy. Cut CO2 discharge way back and then whine about China not being in compliance with Kyoto guidelines and let China worry about the whacked out nut-jobs in charge of the Persian Gulf oil fields.

Europe will love us then. France is 100% nuclear for domestic electricity, correct?

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 04:15 PM

I've been using the nuclear option in my cocktail hour debates? No blood for oil? Okay, let me build a couple of 1100MW fission plants on the Sacramento River or shut the f*** up about it.

Posted by Andrew at December 7, 2004 05:13 PM

I've been using the nuclear option in my cocktail hour debates? No blood for oil? Okay, let me build a couple of 1100MW fission plants on the Sacramento River or shut the f*** up about it.

Don't be cavalier about design safety and you have no argument from me. Perhaps we can find a better site but that is merely a quibble. =IF= deploying new nuclear plants was linked to telling Prince Bandar to take his oil reserves and put them up his *bleep* I would support it.

Combine that with a "conservation is patriotic" meme (like WW2 "loose lips sink ships") and we can stop sending billions and billions to those pesky Islamic states.

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2004 06:58 PM

Post a comment