Did anyone call WWII WWII during WWII? Or was it only called that in retrospect? If not, what did they call it?
Would it make sense to simply rename the Cold War WWIII and call this one WWIV, so we can get away from this stupid “War On Terror” name?
Fallacy of Chain Logic
Peace in Lebanon requires all belligerents to agree.
It requires Hezbollah ceasing fire which they say is contingent on:
1. Israel ceding Syrian-claimed Shebaa Farms near the Golan Heights
2. Israel leaving before Hezbollah agreeing
3. An exchange of the captured soldiers for prisoners
Israel ceasing fire which they say requires:
1. Rocket attacks have to stop and a strong international force come in before Israel leaving
2. Kidnapped soldiers must be returned before cease fire
For an international force to come in:
1. There must be an agreement before coming in
2. There must be a cease fire before coming in
3. There must be a willing country to do the deployment
There are other actors that have other things to do such as Syria, Iran, US, Russia and China among others.
These are logically inconsistent and quite unlikely even if the basic inconsistencies get resolved by some miracle. I get a gestalt from the reporting that peace is just a matter of putting more pressure on the parties and that it is a minor issue that divides them. The logical fallacy is that we have a number of unlikely events that must all happen for peace to be achieved and pundits are treating the chain as strong as the strongest link: that Israel and Hezbollah both agree that a prisoner exchange would be a good idea.
My prediction is that we will have no partnership, no peace and that Israel will re-occupy Lebanon north to the Litani River, there will be a new wall, and Hezbollah will be envigorated to continue killing Israeli soldiers at the rate of 50-100/year which was the pre-2000 level. Israel will accept this as a trade vital to keeping Northern Israel free of short range rockets and unacceptable levels of civilian deaths. Lebanon will be a war zone until Hezbollah is beaten by some other force in the rest of Lebanon.
What Do They Both Have In Common?
Both Iraq and Lebanon resulted from the UN being either unable, or unwilling, to enforce its own resolutions. But it’s easier to blame it on the Jews and the Amerikkkan imperialists.
The New Case For Mars
Dwayne Day has a review of a new documentary on the Mars movement starring (for better or worse), Bob Zubrin:
One of Zubrin
White Paper Review
Grant Bonin discusses the papers put out by the Space Frontier Foundation and the GAO on problems with NASA’s exploration plans in todays issue of The Space Review.
It’s worth the read, but being busy working on same plans, I would comment only on this bit:
Human-rating either the Atlas 5 or Delta 4 is likely to be an expensive proposition regardless of the fact that both boosters have already been developed (especially since no one really knows what it means to
“Mr. Rove’s Dream Come True”
Martin Peretz on Ned Lamont and the “netroots”:
Mr. Lamont’s views are…not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.” Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that “Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.” And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?
“Mr. Rove’s Dream Come True”
Martin Peretz on Ned Lamont and the “netroots”:
Mr. Lamont’s views are…not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.” Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that “Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.” And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?
“Mr. Rove’s Dream Come True”
Martin Peretz on Ned Lamont and the “netroots”:
Mr. Lamont’s views are…not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.” Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that “Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.” And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?
A Grim Prognosis
For a Monday morning. From “Grim“:
I suspect that we will one day speak of the war in Iraq the way we speak of the Spanish Civil War — that is, rarely by comparison to the greater war that followed it. Peace is not in the cards. Things are going to get worse. Our enemies are glad to employ terrorists, who will try to bring the war to our homes. The wise man will prepare his sword, and the arm that may wield it.
Have They At Least Staunched The Bleeding?
GM may survive, if you can believe this journalist’s take. Of course, he’s a Detroit journalist.
I should point out that I have a semi-emotional stake in the outcome.