Since man walked upon this earth he has
looked for ways to cook his food, warm his home and power his
transportation. Oil has been called black gold, but it is coal that
was the first life changing fossil fuel to supply the energy the
world needed.
It helped fuel The Industrial Revolution.
Why am I writing about coal now when
there are so many serious issues in the world today? After all, it
helped change the world and has provided a living for many families,
as difficult as it may be.
But coal is also one of the dirtiest
fuels with regard to CO2 emissions, a major greenhouse gas
contributing to climate change. As I was reading a back issue of
National Geographic, yes I'm way behind on those, I ran across an article regarding the world's
consumption of coal and capturing CO2 emissions from power plants.
What shocked me was the threshold the authors were giving for the
worst effects of climate change to be unavoidable.
“To limit global warming since the
19th century to 2°C (3.6°F) and thereby avoid its worst
effects, scientists estimate we must limit our cumulative emissions
of carbon as CO2 to a trillion metric tons. As of 2012, by burning
fossil fuels, making cement, cutting trees, and so on, we had emitted
545 billion tons. We're on a course to pass a trillion by 2040.”
It was that 2040 that hit me. That is
only 25 years away. This is a complicated situation involving
not just a single country, but many. While the United States has
lowered its consumption China's has increased. Even
within the United States there are objections to switching to
alternate, cleaner energy sources. This next clip is a good
illustration of the coal conundrum in the United States.
This is why I'm writing
about this now, as serious as are the many issues facing the world
today; the fighting in the Middle East, the global economy, migrants
being forced to leave their homes, the issue of climate change will
affect our ability to survive on this planet. It is that simple.
All else pales in comparison. 2040 is only 25 years away.
98 comments:
I have become increasingly convinced that our country simply cannot summon the collective will to address this problem. In spite of knowing what's going on, and what's at risk, we find ourselves paralyzed by political power of those who choose to bury their heads in the sand, to pretend it's not happening long enough to leave it for someone else to deal with.
Our children will damn us for this. It will come to be seen as a national failure probably on par with chattel slavery.
Eventually that paralysis will lift, but not before the effects of global warming are on top of us, and by then it'll be way too late. (And its not just our country either.)
We will have to learn, as a species, to deal with the consequences, ‘cause we're not heading it off.
Things not going so well in Ramadi today.
While ISIL was busy in Ramadi, we were busy elsewhere.
I have become increasingly convinced that our country simply cannot summon the collective will to address this problem.
I know. I understand that it is difficult for people to wrap their minds around the magnitude of what we are dealing with, especially Americans who believe that we can fix anything if we try hard enough. But sometimes there is a power greater than us at work, and this is it.
I look at people, the ones below 20, and wonder what kind of world will be left for them to live in.
We will have to learn, as a species, to deal with the consequences, ‘cause we're not heading it off.
I think you are right.
Dozens of soldiers fled the city overnight Thursday during the initial stages of the Islamic State attack, which involved heavy artillery and multiple car bombings, Dahl said.
They need to regoup and counter-attack with air support.
I have added a link to the sidebar that has the current figures of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has already reached what many people believe to be a critical level.
This site discusses the other planetary boundaries. According to their calculations we have reached critical level in three of the nine boundaries. They do not list climate change as critical, yet.
"I understand that it is difficult for people to wrap their minds
around the magnitude of what we are dealing with, especially
Americans who believe that we can fix anything if we try hard enough."
I believe I've told you before that I reside in a heavily Republican area. I find that it's not a problem of people ‘wrapping their minds’ around the magnitude of the issue This is a largely rural, agricultural area and the effects of weather variations are regularly brought home to the people themselves. They get what it means. What I find jaw-dropping is the number of people who simple refuse to believe it's happening at all.
It is politically unpalatable to them. It's an issue pushed by those damned liberals, therefore it must be wrong. They simply deny it's happening at all, and when they can't do that they claim it's just a normal weather variation and it will all average itself back out in the next few years.
They actually believe that standard Republican line about there having been no global warming for the past 16--now 17--years. (Next year it'll be none for the past 18 years.)
Of course, I've also watched people in my own family gradually convince themselves that Obama is a Muslim.
"They actually believe that standard Republican line about
there having been no global warming…"
Well, some of them believe it; some of them just pretend to believe it.
They get what it means.
Yes, I think anyone who is in agriculture is aware that the changes in climate will affect them. I'm not sure if anyone really understands how much. And, of course, there is no telling, really, on a time frame for whatever may come.
What I find jaw-dropping is the number of people who simple refuse to believe it's happening at all.
Refusing to see won't stop anything. It will only make it more difficult for those people to adapt. We should already be looking into what to do for areas who will experience severe drought, such as the southwestern US.
I notice that Texas is getting lots of rain and areas have been flooding. A couple years ago they couldn't buy a drop of rain. Here too we are experiencing a similar yo-yo effect.
Of course, I've also watched people in my own family gradually convince themselves that Obama is a Muslim.
Weird how they obsess about that. I don't even want to get into my parents and their attitudes. What's really strange it that my Dad couldn't stand Bush, now he watches Fox News and can't stand Obama. How strange is that? Of course, he doesn't like anything, so in his case maybe not so odd.
American Pharaoh won the Preakness. Triple Crown, perhaps? It's been a long time.
"And, of course, there is no telling, really, on a time frame for
whatever may come."
Yeah, civilizations have collapsed before, often due to too rapid climate changes, or even just local resource depletion (the Ogalalla aquifer won't last forever folks). Then again, Malthusian predictions of doom have been averted by technological breakthroughs.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Yogi Berra
But, I'm not leaning toward the notion of a technological salvation. It's not nice to screw over Mother Nature; she'll screw ya back, damn near every time.
Maybe it's fated that humankind has its "dinosaur moment". We sure seem to be on the path towards it.
It won't be the end of life on Earth though. Many species now living lived here before the dinosaurs, and will live on after we're gone too.
Evolution will do its work and in a few hundred million years another man-ape might emerge that is more intelligent than us and tries harder to starve off its own extinction. Who knows?
The horseshoe crab is a vastly more successful creation than Homo Sapiens. It's been around in an unaltered shape for possibly over 500 million years, and at least 450 million years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm81EQ2hgVE
I bet that lil' fucker will swim on and on regardless of how much coal we burn.
[Lee]: Yeah, civilizations have collapsed before, often due to too rapid climate changes, or even just local resource depletion (the Ogalalla aquifer won't last forever folks).
[Marcus]: It won't be the end of life on Earth though. Many species now living lived here before the dinosaurs, and will live on after we're gone too.
This reminds me of a book I've had for forever and haven't actually read yet, "The World Without Us", by Alan Weisman. The title is pretty self explanatory. I may have to move it up on my list of must reads soon.
I watched a documentary on Channel 2 the other night about the current state of the oceans. The acid level is rising, causing damage to the coral reefs in many places, except one. Apparently there is one place where the acidity level has been high for years due to other factors, such as the release of CO2 from underground volcanic activity. There the coral reefs have adapted. Sure the diversity of life isn't like it is on other reefs, but there is life.
I'll have to check out the video a little later, Marcus, I'm off to bake something. :)
It's unlikely that homo sapiens will go extinct due to climate change. A massive population crash is much more likely. (Total thermo-nuclear war may be another matter entirely, but climate change is unlikely to kill all homo sapiens, no matter how rapid or extensive--we're simply too adaptable as a species. Unfortunately, our major food sources are not so adaptable. A mass die-off to bring the population back into balance with the reduced available food supply is the most likely scenario.)
"I watched a documentary on Channel 2…"
I saw that too; a NOVA special.
A mass die-off to bring the population back into balance with the reduced available food supply is the most likely scenario.
Yes, along with casualties due to various extreme weather conditions.
...a NOVA special.
That's the one. I was thinking about linking to it, but couldn't find it on YouTube.
It looks like Ramadi is being listed as fallen to ISIL. The Iraqi government is sending in more military forces along with an Iranian backed para-military militia.
Ramadi
"…couldn't find it on YouTube."
The title was ‘Lethal Seas’.
"…more military forces along with an Iranian backed para-military
militia."
Well… First the Iranian backed militia couldn't take it. And then the guys we backed with a bombing campaign took it but couldn't hold it. So now the Iranians get another shot at it.
Lee: "It's unlikely that homo sapiens will go extinct due to climate change. A massive population crash is much more likely. (Total thermo-nuclear war may be another matter entirely, but climate change is unlikely to kill all homo sapiens, no matter how rapid or extensive--we're simply too adaptable as a species. Unfortunately, our major food sources are not so adaptable. A mass die-off to bring the population back into balance with the reduced available food supply is the most likely scenario.)"
That seems like a possible scenario. Could be compounded by other forces also.
Let's say we keep on consuming fossil fuels so that we get out of control climate change in a few decades time. Meanwhile we might have reached and passed Peak Oil so we get serious problems with food production and distribution even where the climate is still OK. Meanwhile we might have also depleted our freshwater resources in many places.
Add the social strife, the mass migrations, the wars and the diseases that would inevitably follow and it'll be really bad.
But, like you say, not everyone will perish even in such a bleak scenario.
Now that I think ‘bout it… It was Tikrit where we took over responsibility from the Iranians, and then Iraqi Government forces took the city. ISIS was ramping up in Ramadi even as the Iraqi government forces were taking Tikrit. I wonder if Ramadi will follow the path of Tikrit, the Iranians and their allies can't take it, but IGF troops can (at least when backed up with American air power), or maybe the Iranians will push harder this time.
"…not everyone will perish even in such a bleak scenario."
Which means no other ‘man-ape’ will rise to top-of-the-heap status, nor horseshoe crabs neither. Homo sapiens brooks no competition.
Now that I think ‘bout it… It was Tikrit where we took over responsibility from the Iranians, and then Iraqi Government forces took the city.
Yes. But I think I read somewhere that the forces that abandoned their weapons in Ramadi were the same ones that were used to take Tikrit, with our air support. I could be wrong, hopefully that is the case, or it was just poor wording on the part of the reporter.
That seems like a possible scenario. Could be compounded by other forces also.
Never forget the bugs and the damage they can do. Right now Minnesota is dealing with an outbreak of Avian Flu which is devastating our egg production industry.
Meanwhile we might have also depleted our freshwater resources in many places.
There is the technology to convert sewage into freshwater. But that will necessitate spending money that some people may not have.
Add the social strife, the mass migrations, the wars and the diseases that would inevitably follow and it'll be really bad.
While we are seeing extreme weather events here that are costing us large chunks of change, it will be the poorer areas of the world that mass starvation will affect first. They simply do not have the monetary resources to import all the supplies they will need.
And, obviously, with the rising sea levels there are island nations that may very well soon disappear altogether, forcing those people to immigrate. The story about the fast disappearing ice shelf I linked to earlier doesn't bode well.
"I think I read somewhere that the forces that abandoned their
weapons in Ramadi were the same ones that were used to take
Tikrit, with our air support. I could be wrong, hopefully that is the
case, or it was just poor wording on the part of the reporter."
I believe it was intentionally poor wording on the part of the reporter, or the editor; I think he meant to imply exactly that, without saying it. I think you're recalling this language.
"Tikrit fell only after the militias withdrew, and the United States
launched air strikes against the Islamic State positions to back regular
Iraqi army ground forces.
"Those forces, however, were the very ones that fled Ramadi on
Sunday."
The referant is ‘regular Iraqi army ground forces’, which may or may not be the ones used in taking Tikrit.
The Iraqi Army at Ramadi, by the way, also abandoning their Russian supplied equipment, of which they have some. They're not showing any inclination towards abandoning only American supplied equipment.
Here's a clip from Christiane Amanpour's interview with Ali Khedery on Ramadi.
Can't shake the notion that the guys Baghdad was sending to Ramadi didn't wanna be in Ramadi.
I'm thinking not too many people want to be in Ramadi right about now.
Lee: "Can't shake the notion that the guys Baghdad was sending to Ramadi didn't wanna be in Ramadi."
I think you're right. The way I see it Iraq is so polarised now that Baghdad can't recruit someone without those someones losing credibility in sunni areas. And if they are sent into a place without strong, or at least somewhat sufficient, local backing then they will turn and run as soon as they feel the tide might be turning.
IS seems to have taken Ramadi with quite few warriors. They apparently sent in some vheicle born suicide bombers and advanced after them, and the police and military mostly fled.
Ramadi (used to) is a 500K people city so that a few hundred IS members can take it means they are very poorly defended. Possibly also that many residents are more OK with IS than with whomever Baghdad sends there.
I read yesterday in a swedish paper (quoting from abroad also) that there is worry now that IS might actually get to the point where they can take a stab at Baghdad. No one was saying they thoght IS could overrun it, or take it, or hold it, but that they are in effect encircling it and means to try to take it.
The main worry wasn't that they could succeed, but the bloodbath such an attempt would generate. And that in the minds of IS such a bloodbath would be a good thing - driving any sunni towards their cause for lack of any option. And that's why it's believed they will indeed strive towards attacking Baghdad even if they can't win it now.
@ Lynnette,
Quietly and without fanfare, Florida Republicans have converted their primary from proportional distribution of delegates to winner-take-all. Big batch of delegates all at once. Rubio and Bush will both be still in the hunt at that point.
"And that's why it's believed they will indeed strive towards attacking
Baghdad even if they can't win it now."
Maybe; maybe not. It carries risks. A solid defense they can't crack risks their image. Any underperformance risks their image. Remember Kobanê.
An interesting article about ISIS and the current state of affairs.
And that's why it's believed they will indeed strive towards attacking Baghdad even if they can't win it now.
I think it's a given that they have people within the capital. But I think if they actually threatened Baghdad, then they might become high enough on people's radar that they won't just think of them as a regional threat any longer. It makes them a higher value target.
Big batch of delegates all at once.
Places a higher value on Florida.
"I think it's a given that they have people within the capital."
I'm thinking they'll most likely lay on a loose siege, try to isolate Baghdad, harry supplies on the roads, strikes at traffic--make ‘em run convoys to get supplies in, then start with the IEDs against the convoys. Suicide bombings inside the city, veggie market bombers again, sapper attacks like the Paki jihadi have used against India, stuff like that. First thing would be to try to make life miserable inside the city.
"Places a higher value on Florida."
Some people suspect that was the point.
First thing would be to try to make life miserable inside the city.
They seem to be good at that where ever they go.
[Lynnette]: Places a higher value on Florida.
[Lee]: Some people suspect that was the point.
lol!
Some people have such suspicious minds.
I've been waiting for it to occur to the journalists that the recent ‘setback’ in Ramadi probably means that Baghdad ain't gonna be making any moves on Mosul this summer, or any time soon after that. Dexter Filkins finally mentioned it.
We have a second one. However, Bloomberg thinks the Ramadi operation will go ahead as planned, sometime in the early. (I still don't think so.)
Pataki calling for US forces to fight ISIL
&
A Dutch mother takes her son to join ISIL.
Since the end of the First World War, both Iraq and Syria have been artificial states, drawn from the ruins of a fallen empire with little regard for sect, tribe, or ethnicity. At best, those artificial states could hope for a day when their people would set aside their more primal loyalties in favor of a broader sense of nationhood. Today, as both Iraq and Syria writhe in sectarian conflicts, the sense of nationhood that could bind those states together seems as elusive as it’s ever been.
It's been done, it's called the United States of America. Or at least that is the goal. It is this type of conflict we are seeing in Syria and Iraq that was part of the impetus for its creation. Why should we be surprised that the underlying problems in these countries are still there? Saddam tried to paper over them with force, but put stress on the fracture and the fissure just opens wider.
If it is predominately Kurdish forces that will retake Mosul we may see some movement yet.
"If it is predominately Kurdish forces that will retake Mosul…"
I see little reason for the Kurds to pay the price to take Mosul, just to give it to Baghdad. And I don't see any movement in Baghdad towards letting the Kurds keep it if they take it.
I suppose it depends on how much the Kurds want to hurt ISIL. Taking Mosul away from them would hurt. What happens after that is anybody's guess. If Baghdad can't even retake Ramadi, then they wouldn't be able to maintain control over Mosul either. Or if they do retake Ramadi it may end up looking like Kobani, total devastation. There is no easy way around this mess.
"Taking Mosul away from them would hurt. What happens after
that is anybody's guess."
I believe the Kurds have already consolidated their grip over eastern Mosul. They appear to be in fairly firm control of everything on the east bank of the Tigris River, and content to let things stay that way for now; but, nobody's blown the bridges yet.
Interesting video in this article of China's military buildup in the South China Sea. Apparently they have been busy 24/7 building their own islands to build military installations on.
I watched a NOVA special tonight on hacking & cyber warfare, including a segment on stuxnet. That was a pretty elaborate and clever program someone created. Everyone says us with Israeli help, but I think the Israeli's alone get my vote. I don't think we're that good or that anyone here would have the cojones to approve that kind of operation.
An analysis of the aftermath of ISIL's takeover in Ramadi.
"I watched a NOVA special tonight on hacking & cyber warfare,
including a segment on stuxnet."
That's a rerun from last season. I saw it then, nabbed it on the recorder this time, but haven't gone back and looked at it again yet.
Inside Palmyra (just taken by ISIS).
The Kurds fought ISIL to a standstill in Kobani, and our guys sneak in and kill an ISIL higher up in the middle of Syria and capture his wife and a trove of documents. Yet the Iraqi and Syrian army run. It just goes to show that if you have people fighting who are loyal you can defeat ISIL. Without that you are up a creek without a paddle.
Lynnette: "I suppose it depends on how much the Kurds want to hurt ISIL. Taking Mosul away from them would hurt."
I don't think their primary concern is hurting IS. They are alone (apart from pretty solid US support, which must be reassuring) in a dangerous and largely hostile neigborhood. That they would take the lead in combating IS I think is not to be expected, or for that matter demanded. The kurds will fight for the area they see as theirs, and to my knowledge Mosul has never been said to be included in that area. I believe they have their sights on Kirkuk much more than on Mosul.
Of course they would like IS to be hurting, but they will likely look to their own agenda first.
Lynnette: "Interesting video in this article of China's military buildup in the South China Sea. Apparently they have been busy 24/7 building their own islands to build military installations on."
In that article I read this:
"China's alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the region."
If you actually look on a world map, doesn't that scentence strike you as a bit odd?
It's not that China is building up its military, it's not that the area is contested, it's not about the fear other nations in the immediate area have of China gulping up their territory. But it's about fears that the US cannot be dominant in a region far, far away from the US itself.
That's not to say I condone China building those installations. But I wonder if it's not the US's insistence on dominating the region that has them feeling the need to build them to begin with.
What would you do if China insisted on being the "dominant force" in the Carribean? Arm up there is my bet. Which is what China now is doing in responce to your dominance.
"I believe they have their sights on Kirkuk much more than on Mosul."
They alreay have Kirkuk, and they don't intend to give it up. They consider Mosul traditionally to be a "border town"; they'd like to have it (on account of oil in the neighborhood), but it's not central to them. Although some of them don't even want it ‘cause they don't want the Arabs and Turkomen who inhabit there. They tried to get the British (who occupied the area) to include Mosul in a Kurdish state at the end of World War I, but they never even got the Kurdish state they wanted.
It's certainly not central to them, but they'd probably be willing to clear ISIS out if they got to keep it.
I don't see why they'd bother to lead that charge just to hand it over to Baghdad. They might support a Baghdad operation just to be on the anti-ISIS side, but getting them to carry the heavy load is gonna require that they get something out of it.
Right now they hold eastern Mosul (where most of the Kurds live), and seem willing to call the river a boundary for now.
"it's not that the area is contested, it's not about the fear other
nations in the immediate area have of China gulping up their territory."
That's wrong. Try again.
Lynnette:
"Everyone says us with Israeli help, but I think the Israeli's alone get my vote. I don't think we're that good or that anyone here would have the cojones to approve that kind of operation."
Well, the cojones question I can't oppose outright, but I do feel the US would indeed have the cojones to attack Iran with cyber warfare.
But the "being that good" question, there I have to disagree. There is no, none, none whatsoever, doubt in my mind that the US is superior to any country, including Israel, in the cyber warfare arena.
I wouldn't even place Israel in the top 3. I believe both China and Russia are more capable. But that's guesswork. In any case I feel certain the US is #1.
As to who did Stuxnet, well that might have been the US or Israel or both. But that one operation says little about the total cyber war capability of either, or any other, nation.
Lee:
"They alreay have Kirkuk, and they don't intend to give it up. [...]
Right now they hold eastern Mosul (where most of the Kurds live), and seem willing to call the river a boundary for now."
No disagreements there. You mainly elaborated on what I wrote (me mainly elaborating on what you wrote earlier) to inform Lynnette.
Lee: "That's wrong. Try again."
No it's most certainly NOT. Because what I wrote about wasn't the situation in the South China Sea as a whole, but the scentence in the CNN article reading as thus:
"China's alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the region."
"…what I wrote about wasn't the situation in the South China Sea as
a whole…"
Ooookay…
"…that some fear is intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the
region…"
The notion that the U.S. ‘dominates’ that region is a fringe neo-con fantasy, apparently shared by some Swedes.
Apparently shared by the CNN also....
Which was what this swede wrote about.
But a belligerent yank had to make a big deal about it and deliberatly (we assume he's intelligent enough not to have made all the fuss because he misunderstood) make fuss just because.
"Apparently shared by the CNN also...."
Or, maybe they thought they were just acknowledging the existence of the neo-con fringe fantasy.
Don't expect anything more from me this evening. I'm gona spend my tome watching the last episodes of Carlivále that I bought on DVD and thus paid for - rather than downloading and sealing for free as some do.
So far I give that series about a grade of 6-7. Good, but not that good. Not like "The Wire" or "Deadwoood" or "Rome" or even "House of cards". But OK.
"Or, maybe they thought they were just acknowledging the existence of the neo-con fringe fantasy."
Well, Lee, as far as I can tell their fantasies and their believers have sat in ya'lls white house for quite a big part of the last 20 years. And I am not convinced their ilk will not return.
And apart from the white house there are other institutions where they may still roam, aren't there?
"Well, Lee, as far as I can tell their fantasies and their believers
have sat in ya'lls white house for quite a big part of the last 20 years."
Appears Dick Cheney looms large in your field of view. (Or maybe you still feel the chill from the shadow of Ronald Reagan.)
"And apart from the white house there are other institutions where
they may still roam, aren't there?"
There's always gonna be fringe elements lurking somewhere (and conspiracy theorists to fear them).
Reagan was before my time. Not before I was born but before I took an interest in politics, domestic or foreign.
But Bush 2 was a neocon, or at least he was handled by neocons. Wasn't just Cheney. Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.
I'm sure you could name many more than I could.
The baby Bush years had the Neocons in power. His father had, as far as I can tell more soundminded traditional conservatives, more sane people, even though ideologically driven more in tune with real politics, advising him.
GW Bush oversaw the most successful war in US history after WW2.
GHW Bush oversaw, and left, the most destructive and badly fought.
Same family. Different ideologies. Neocon being the latter. Conservatism being the former.
Very simplified, but still...
Actually Dubya wasn't even a committed neo-con. He was in over his head is what he was. His idea of a big foreign policy move during his first election campaign was to improve relations with Mexico, and (famously over here) to implement a ‘more humble foreign policy’. When 9/11 came along he sorta froze up, and then he went with what Cheney (and Rumsfeld) talked him into. I think merely because they got to him first. By the 2006 elections he'd already had enough of that advice and went so far as to can Rumsfeld (Cheney had largely lost his influence starting in 2004 or there'bouts), but Dubya wasn't one to admit mistakes either, so he strung it out long enough to leave the mess to Obama, so he didn't have to admit to anything. (In fact, even after he was out of office, he got himself ridiculed for that when an interviewer asked him what was his biggest mistake of his entire 8 years, and he very conspicously couldn't bring himself to admit to ever making any mistakes.)
And you've got it exactly backwards. GHW Bush was Bush Senior, ex-CIA chief by the way. GW Bush is Bushie Boy.
Final note: Dubya and Cheney parted company on fairly frosty terms, which time has not improved. Dubya blamed Cheney for talking him into that mess, and Cheney thought that Dubya had betrayed the faith, considered him an apostate of sorts, and displays the cold contempt for Bushie Boy that true-believers often hold for apostates.
Lee: "And you've got it exactly backwards. GHW Bush was Bush Senior, ex-CIA chief by the way. GW Bush is Bushie Boy."
I actually knew that. I just wrote it down wrong.
"Final note: Dubya and Cheney parted company on fairly frosty terms, which time has not improved. Dubya blamed Cheney for talking him into that mess, and Cheney thought that Dubya had betrayed the faith, considered him an apostate of sorts, and displays the cold contempt for Bushie Boy that true-believers often hold for apostates."
Interesting. I didn't know that. But I have no reason to question it.
Just time for a quick comment...
I don't think their primary concern is hurting IS.
It should be. ISIL is a threat to everyone in that region, including the Kurds and their goal of a separate state.
That they would take the lead in combating IS I think is not to be expected, or for that matter demanded.
Yet, for all intents and purposes that's what they have done. They have been fighting ISIL for some time in Syria. And for the most part, apart from out bombing runs, alone.
ISIL is claiming responsibility for the mosque bombing in Saudi Arabia.
Gotta run...
Just a small aside, our healthcare system really sucks sometimes.
"Yet, for all intents and purposes that's what they have done. They
have been fighting ISIL for some time in Syria."
They've been fighting to keep ISIS out of Kurdish territories in both Syria and Iraq (and done some charity work for the Yazidi, who're also a Kurdish people). They've not been doing much charity work for Arabs.
They've not been doing much charity work for Arabs.
I can understand that. But it wouldn't really be charity work if it is beneficial to themselves as well. And as long as ISIL has a body its tentacles will be a more dangerous threat.
There is no, none, none whatsoever, doubt in my mind that the US is superior to any country, including Israel, in the cyber warfare arena.
Thank you, Marcus. I hope you are right. :) I believe I have a book in my pile on the subject. I still haven't finished "We Are Anonymous" yet. I want to do that before I start another non-fiction. Yes, I know, it's been a while, but I am afraid I am easily distracted by the enticement of works of fiction, and get lured away by their shiny covers. :)
Don't expect anything more from me this evening. I'm gona spend my tome watching the last episodes of Carlivále that I bought on DVD and thus paid for...
Ahhh, the last time I got seriously drawn into a TV series was Downton Abbey. I got roundly upbraided for that by Petes, if I recall. But it was such a different type of show from the usual police and detective shows and had such a subtle type of humor I couldn't resist it.
"But it wouldn't really be charity work…"
Nevertheless.
Kind of an old article on the takeover of Ramadi by ISIL. But still interesting. The two videos(back to back) are also worth a listen.
Zeyad has a new ISIS map up. He seems to show Mosul surrounded by ISIS, but that's not quite accurate according to what else I've been reading. (Of course, he's taking his map from Iraqi government (Shia) military sources, and they may not want to give the Kurds any credit there.)
And, it seems that Ireland is set to legalize gay marriages today. Conservative Catholicism appears to have taken something of a hit on the Emerald Isle.
And, in a final piece for the day… It appears that the Saudi have not listened to the American voices that say air-power alone ain't gonna do the job and that the necessary boots on the ground have to belong to Arabs.
They seem to think that since they have an air-force bombing must be what is called for. (After all we are bombing people and not putting boots on the ground. They don't seem to heed the part where we keep calling for Arabs to step up and fight this fight. The bombing is supposed to be in support of the Arab boots on the ground.)
So, they're not doing so well in Yemen.
And, it seems that Ireland is set to legalize gay marriages today.
They have. Could have knocked me over with a feather! I thought about emailing Petes, but then had second thoughts as he was so adamantly opposed to gay marriage. I didn't think he would be too happy about this turn of events.
It looks like the Saudis are trying to get someone, anyone, to supply the ground forces to venture into Yemen. They are fighting a halfhearted war. What is that phrase..."possession is nine-tenths of the law"? Boots on the ground are what wins wars. Air power can tip the balance, but ground troops are still needed to hold territory.
Now I'm off to take a nap...it's a rainy day here and all I've done is run around...
"It looks like the Saudis are trying to get someone, anyone, to
supply the ground forces to venture into Yemen."
Gotta wonder why they don't just hire somebody, Blackwater, or whomever's in the mercenary business these days.
Huh! I just noticed this. Guess Marcus was right. Al-Douri has more lives than a cat.
Lynnette: "Guess Marcus was right. Al-Douri has more lives than a cat."
Well, he had been "killed" so many times before and it turned out not to be true so I thought it was reasonable to be sceptical.
For that matter I wouldn't take this latest news as ironclad proof that he does indeed live, it could be an imposter.
But it seems likely they did kill someone, thought it was Al-Douri and it wasn't. My best guess.
What I am more interested in is the relationship between IS and those "Baathist Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order (JRTN)"-fellows. Their respective strengths and weaknesses and how much collaboration there is between them.
I read what Al-Douri reportedly said om the matter, but I believe that should be treated as what he wants to report, not so much as truth.
Are the Baathists using IS to further their goals, or are IS using some Baathists for their expertise? Who is really running the show? And to what degree are they one and the same rather than allies of convenience? And to what degree are they enemies? That would be interesting to know more about.
A lot of those people who keep bitchin’ ‘bout how Obama supposedly doesn't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS are simply pretending there's no strategy because they don't like what it is. A few of those folks will be recognizable in this article.
Who is really running the show?
Exactly. I would be interested to know that as well. Because it is critical to tactical planning I would think.
Ran out of time, I'll have to read Lee's article tomorrow...night all.
"Who is really running the show?"
My guess is that you'd get wildly divergent answers from the participants inside the show if you just asked around a little bit. I don't reckon they'd agree on who's really running the show. They've not been comfortable enough yet to explore this among themselves, and probably won't be for the foreseeable future.
“We recognize this is a longterm prospect,” said Gen. Joseph Votel, the overall leader of U.S. Special Operations Command, in remarks to The Daily Beast during a special operations forum in Tampa. “We’re patient.”
They planned the invasion of Normandy for two years. Osama bin Laden was eventually taken out. Patience is a virtue.
I believe it was special ops forces that took out the ISIL guy in Syria. They will have their time.
I don't reckon they'd agree on who's really running the show.
Perhaps a weakness we could take advantage of?
Post a Comment