"Gentlemen,
we are being killed on the beaches. Let us go inland and be killed." General Norman Coda
This Monday is Memorial Day here in the United States. For many it
means a long weekend and the start of the summer vacation season.
But its real purpose is to remind us of the sacrifices made by the
men and women in our military. While war is controversial, there is
nothing controversial about the men and women who have given their
lives in service to their country.
On this Memorial Day I wanted to pay my respects to them. There have
been many battles in various wars, but the one that stands out as
being unique in its scope is for me the battle of Omaha Beach in
WWII. I ran across the following documentary about the battle and realized that,
while I was familiar with some of the difficulties and horrors
experienced by allied forces, I wasn't aware of all. If you have a spare hour or so it is worth watching, if only to try to understand what people have went through to defend our freedom and way of life.
Rest in peace.
111 comments:
First! :^)
Hi, Z. Glad to see you avoided the tornado and flooding in San Antone. :)
This fella speculates that being Catholic will hurt Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries more than being Mormon hurt Mitt Romney, and the reason is… …Pope Francis.
The conservative Republicans have always been out of step with the more mainstream Republicans such as Jeb Bush. It doesn't surprise me that they are out of step with this pope either. I guess we will see who gets out to vote in the primaries.
It will perhaps come as no surprise that I rather like what Pope Francis has to say. ;)
"…mainstream Republicans such as Jeb Bush…"
I don't know that I'd call Jeb Bush ‘mainstream’, even ‘mainstream Republican’. He is, or at least was, a serious conservative--much more conservative than his older brother, Dubya, who was that much more conservative than their father, George H.W. Eight/ten years ago Jeb was considered a hard-line conservative governor of Florida. He's not changed much, except to move moderately further to the right. That he's considered a squish by the activist wingnuts these days is just a result of the Republican Party electoral prospects having shifted that far towards the far right-wing. It's outpaced him in swinging to the right is all that's happened.
I think it'd be more accurate to call him an ‘establishment’ Republican; they think he's maybe their best prospect for electable, so a lot of them are goin’ with him (couple of others they can see as potentially ‘electable’ as well).
Journey to Jihad
A rather disturbing piece, especially for Europe.
They seem to have considered Jejoen to be a high value prisoner. I wonder if he was up to more than he had admitted to the journalist.
I like the bigger box.
I wonder if he was up to more than he had admitted to the journalist.
I can see where it might not be in his interest to tell the journalist everything, one way or another.
I can't take credit for the box. It must be a blogger thing...
The Ruins of Empire in the Middle East
Interesting read.
Gotta wonder how Kaplan defines ‘empire’. Most imperial powers from the beginning of recorded time have mined their imperial holdings for money. We seem to spend money on our allies.
We seem to spend money on our allies.
In the case of Europe after WWII it was in our interest to help rebuild those countries damaged by war. They became important trading partners.
Frontline is going to have a special on channel 2 on Obama and his response to ISIL. It does say it's a new program and I don't recall ever seeing anything on that before, so...if you're interested and happen to see this before 9:00 tonight...
Hmmm...I like this bigger box too. It's nice and roomy.
"Frontline is going to have a special on… "
I saw that and thought about mentioning it, but I had no real reason to assume it'd be worth watching. (I am gonna watch it, and then I'll know.)
It turned out to be a pretty fair synopsis of the evolution of the original Syrian, Arab Spring, uprising into the ISIS of today. I should have brought it to your attention and then I'd feel like I'd made a good recommendation.
The only problem I had was with some of those interviewed whose certainty in their original analysis is still unshaken, who still pretend that events proved them right. (They blithely ignore that Libya went the same way; we followed our European allies into Libya and got no better result in the end. Maybe a few less dead people up front, but long-term it ain't looking much better.)
I watched most of it. I actually missed the first 10 minutes. But I found what I did see to be fair as well.
It is hard to say what would have happened if we had intervened early on in Syria. I always advocated doing something, but you do make a good point about Libya. The biggest problem I see with non-intervention by the US is that it gives the impression that we are not a factor at all in the Middle East's future. The article I linked to about imperialism raised that point as well. And the problem with that is that it basically gives a green light to those who are bent on filling the power vacuum. It appears that right now it is ISIL, Iran and Saudi Arabia who are jockeying for position. All at the expense of any moderate factions that may have existed.
There is danger to just allowing the Middle East to continue in meltdown mode. It is a threat to Jordan, Lebanon & Turkey because of increased refugee flows. If ISIL ends up on top of the heap at the end of the day they will just foment their extremist brand of Islam in other regions. Israel may seem to be sitting on the sidelines, but that may not continue to be the case once the dust settles. They are not popular with any of the principals in this fight. I understand we have many issues on the front burner, but I am wondering if maybe we shouldn't accept ISIL's invitation, at least in a limited way. It would take some of the pressure off of the Iraqi forces that are trying to regroup and give them time to grow. It would give a bit of a break to the Kurdish forces that have been fighting a lonely battle. And it might distract ISIL enough to give some relief to the many civilians caught in the little towns ISIL has been devouring so avariciously.
Lee: "They seem to have considered Jejoen to be a high value prisoner. I wonder if he was up to more than he had admitted to the journalist."
Quite possibly he didn't spill everything.
In any case, I think the main problem is with returnees that are not on anyone's radar.
But I did read an article suggesting that while IS is claiming most of the spotlight these days our western terror-tourists that go and join IS might be the lesser problem. Apparently often IS will force them to burn their passports, declare allegiance and then execute them if they try to bail out.
The reasoning was that IS is not about training terrorists to go back to the west and blow shit up. That's Al Qaida tactics, and Al Nusra is the syrian outfit we should worry about in that regard.
IS is about their caliphate and the manpower is needed in the Syria-Iraq theatre. And when they (in their minds) are ready to come to Europe it will be as an invading army capable of conquering territory, not as individuals doing pinprick terrorist attacks.
Lee: "They blithely ignore that Libya went the same way; we followed our European allies into Libya and got no better result in the end."
That was a complete and utter catastrophy. You're right that it was the Europeans who launched into that. Can't blame ya'll for that one. The French to name the main culprits, were leading the effort.
Khadaffi thought that when he got out of the US's crosshairs by paying damages for the Lockerbie attack and dismantling all WMD aspirations he had been let back in from the cold. But then he miscalculated and thought this also extended to financial freedoms and the right for Libya to conduct business on its own terms, and then the older colonialist powers were ticked off and struck.
Now for one thing the terrorist threat in Europe is way greater since Libya is a close by training ground, and second the whole migrant-mess in the Mediterranian is largely because no one is capable of controlling Libya's borders. An awful mess for Europe, not to mention the bloody and much more awful mess Libya itself finds itself in.
Lynnette: "It is hard to say what would have happened if we had intervened early on in Syria."
By "intervened" I guess you mean "bombed the shit out of Assad and the syrian army and shot down any syrian vessle capable of lifting off the ground", right? Because I don't see any intervention you could realistically have done except by the USAF, apart from that arming of "moderate" rebels which turned into arming IS that you did actually get up to.
Don't worry too mmuch about it Lynette. It would have ended up just the same way. Only the bodycount would be higher still by now and you would have been seen as "owning" that war too. Sometimes ya just gots to sit one out.
@ Lynnette,
It would seem that the right-wingers have pissed off Michale Morell (ex-Deputy Director of the CIA) over their Benghazi allegations. He's taken the time to specifically rebut FoxNews over the latest round of hyperventilating. You may recall his earlier editorials on the matter. I linked one of them to here a post or two back.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The biggest problem I see with non-intervention by the US is that
it gives the impression that we are not a factor at all in the Middle
East's future."
Gives that impression to whom? There's the American partisans whose default position is always to grab for the hammer--they need to be disabused of that knee-jerk response. Then there's the Sunni Arab guys who want us to continue to do their dirty work and are working that military pride angle hard in an effort to try to keep the old Cold War interventionist spirit alive. (Cold War's over--Russia, for all of Putin's best efforts to convince his people that they're still players, Russia is not gonna pose a significant global threat to us. Bankrupting Russia). Is it gonna make ISIS think we're ‘not a factor’? Probably not, but if so, so what? They got their own problems. They got Shia Iran to deal with for one thing. Then they got the old-line Salafi/Wahabi types to deal with, the ones who just use that fanaticism to stay in power in the Gulf States, but never really wanted to waste their gold on global jihad. If ISIS handles both those, that then they got that waiting fight with their Ba'athi allies that's gonna break out soon as they feel reasonably comfortable in their new Sunnistan.
We need to keep an eye on ‘em for sure, but we don't need to hop in there just yet and become the focus of their propaganda campaigns. We got plenty of time yet.
"The article I linked to about imperialism raised that point as well."
I'll get to that later, along with Ambassador Ford from the Frontline show. For the time being…
"Iran and Saudi Arabia who are jockeying for position. All at the
expense of any moderate factions that may have existed."
Even without ISIS, Iran and Saudi Arabia were gonna be jockeying for position and trying to exploit fanaticism to their own advantage. ISIS just makes that mix a little more fluid is all.
"If ISIL ends up on top of the heap at the end of the day they will
just foment their extremist brand of Islam in other regions."
Saudi Arabia has been doing just that for years, and with a bigger bankroll. The main difference between the Saudi and ISIS here is that ISIS doesn't have the benefit of being the Saudi, so they gotta do something, ‘cause the position of just talkin’ a hard line has already been occupied by House of Saud.
(out of time; more later)
This was the most interesting passage of the Kaplan piece:
"After all, those dictators ruled according to the borders erected by the Europeans. And because those imperial borders did not often configure with ethnic or sectarian ones, those dictatorial regimes required secular identities in order to span communal divides. All this has been brutally swept away.
Alas, the so-called Arab Spring has not been about the birth of freedom but about the collapse of central authority, which says nothing about the readiness of these states, artificial and otherwise, for the rigors of democracy."
I believe he's completely right about that.
Which should beg the question: obviously no one can go back and re-do old colonial actions (or mistakes if you will). But is it then preferable to tear those "artificial authocracies" (that served us so well when they were thought needed) in pieces and hope for democracy? Or would it have been better to let them mature and maybe come apart at the seams or maybe find new common identities over time but doing so on their own?
Obviously the US foremost and Europe too chose the former. The result? Well, not a very good one so far IMO.
Lee: From that article you linked to:
"The verdict is simple: Russia cannot afford military expenditures at such scale in the long-run. “The modern Russian economy just does not generate enough resources to finance the current 2011-2020 rearmament program. This seriously reduces the ability to efficiently renew the Russian armed forces’ equipment,” a recent analysis by the Moscow-based defense think tank CAST notes."
Well, we're still talking about 4-5% of GDP, virtually the same as you spend on your military. It could grow for Russia percentage wise if its economy contracts, especially due to reduced oil prices (but oil's been going UP the last months so that might not happen)
And it all depends too. If Putin can (and he probably can) make the russians feel they are under siege and need to arm up they will most likely be prepared to suffer economic hardships to do so.
I wouldn't bet on Russia not building the weapons or the military they think they need based on market economical reasoning. Just look at their history. If they do feel cornered I believe they are willing to sacrifice in a way most western states could not do.
I'm not saying this because I like to see Russia arming up, or because I wish for them to do so, but bacause I am convinced you cannot look at Russia and guess what they will do if you have western standards as the "normal".
I'm pretty sure Russia could go to 10-20% of GDP military spendings and more in the short run, if its leaders can convincingly tell them its needed.
"Well, we're still talking about 4-5% of GDP, virtually the same as
you spend on your military."
Russian GDP is running roughly $2 trillion for 2015 (USD). Ours is running around $18 trillion. 4-5% of $18 trillion is $720-$900 billion. 4-5% of $2 trillion is… …what?
Russia is not going to pose a serious global military threat to us; not at 4-5%. When they go to 10% for any kind of run, even for a fairly short one, you be sure and let me know. I'll reexamine their intentions to pose a potential as a military rival. For now they may pose a threat to your freedom, but not to mine.
[Marcus]: By "intervened" I guess you mean "bombed the shit out of Assad and the syrian army and shot down any syrian vessle capable of lifting off the ground", right?
No, I meant trying to create a safe zone for those refugees who were fleeing the fighting. It would have at least showed we were willing to put our military where our mouths were. It also would have left in question what we may have done going forward.
Because I don't see any intervention you could realistically have done except by the USAF, apart from that arming of "moderate" rebels which turned into arming IS that you did actually get up to.
The only way we have armed ISIL is through their capture of weaponry from the Iraqis.
Only the bodycount would be higher still by now and you would have been seen as "owning" that war too. Sometimes ya just gots to sit one out.
Well, we are certainly seeing the bodycount rise as we sit this one out.
[Lynnette]: The biggest problem I see with non-intervention by the US is that
it gives the impression that we are not a factor at all in the Middle
East's future.
[Lee]: Gives that impression to whom?
Those in the Middle East who would seek to fill a vacuum created by our absence.
We need to keep an eye on ‘em for sure, but we don't need to hop in there just yet and become the focus of their propaganda campaigns. We got plenty of time yet.
I'm not sure that I agree with that plenty of time yet thought. The longer we wait the harder and bloodier it will be to dislodge them. As for the Iranians, I'm not sure how good they really are. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? They slugged it out for a long time, killing thousands. I'm not saying that ISIL is invincible, I'm saying I'm not sure how good any of the armies of the Middle East really are. Conscripts don't always have the motivation to fight.
Now I'm out of time.
"No, I meant trying to create a safe zone for those refugees who
were fleeing the fighting."
I think the military estimate was 70,000 American men and women to create a ‘safe zone’ in Syria, and that was assuming Assad (read Iran) didn't mount a serious challenge to it, and that was before the rise of ISIS, and they'd certainly have mounted a serious challenge to it. They want all Muslims to see them fighting Americans in the Middle East again.
Marcus is right; we'd own Syria by now if the boys in the Pentagon had their way (or the neo-cons).
"The only way we have armed ISIL is through their capture of
weaponry from the Iraqis."
Actually, at least some of the FSA guys we armed bolted and either joined al-Nusra or ISIS or just sold them the stuff and went home. Also, they lost some weaponry in battle too.
"The longer we wait the harder and bloodier it will be to dislodge
them."
You seem to think they're gonna have peace and quiet to entrench themselves in the meantime. We got the ISIS fanatics, the Wahabi hypocrites, and the Shia ayatollahs all at each others' throats in there. Eventually one of them will win. I see no reason for us to expend blood and treasure on fighting the losers. Save our energy for fighting the winner.
Lee: "Russia is not going to pose a serious global military threat to us; not at 4-5%. When they go to 10% for any kind of run, even for a fairly short one, you be sure and let me know."
I've been saying that all along. I've never claimed Russia could pose a military threat to you except in the nuclear war scenario where MAD still applies. Not at 5%, not at 10%.
Some indications the Obama administration may (stress ‘may’) be letting up on its commitment to maintaining a unitary Iraq. As one might guess, I'd say it's about damn time, although I'm not onboard with their newest thing under consideration, providing air cover for the Shia militias.
Question:
This scentence:
"In any case, I think the main problem is with returnees that are not on anyone's radar."
Is it correct?
Or should it be
anyones
or
anyones'
Is there a definitive correct version and if not how would you write it?
Lee:
"Some indications the Obama administration may (stress ‘may’) be letting up on its commitment to maintaining a unitary Iraq. As one might guess, I'd say it's about damn time, although I'm not onboard with their newest thing under consideration, providing air cover for the Shia militias."
I see no good options for ya'll. Since the war that is now playing out is one where you (the US) can't pick sides and pick a friend at the same time.
Fight IS in Iraq and you're on the side of Iran. Fight IS in Syria and you're on the side of Assad (not too bad IMO but you won't go there). Fight against Iranian militias and you fight Baghdad on behalf of IS. Fight against Assad and you fight for IS because they will fill the void rather than any "moderate" rebels.
Were I an american I'd say let's not fight at all. What's the point?
A bold and "unthinkable" option would be to mend fences with Iran and side with them. Support Shia Baghdad, support Assad and kill any IS bastard that pops his head up, assist in the shia-crescent that is under way anyway. The Saudis would be upset, but really - what could they do? Drive their Ferrarris really really fast and hope to scare you off?
"A bold and ‘unthinkable’ option would be to mend fences with Iran
and side with them."
Not exactly an available option when the Ayatollah is still officiating at ‘Death to America’ rallies in downtown Tehran and the French and Germans are still committed to not letting him have nukes.
"…anyone's radar."
That's correct, on account of it being an ‘indefinite’ pronoun (unlike his, hers, ours, its, which are ‘definite’ pronouns)
"I see no good options for ya'll."
I'm thinking that kickin’ back and waiting for a winner is a good option. Let the bastards keep each other busy and kill each other off. Keep an eye on things to make sure ISIS doesn't decide it's time to mimic al-Qaeda and try to hit at The West instead of trying to defend its own territory (not bloody likely until they're driven out of their territory to begin with). Meantime, arm up the Kurds and call ‘em ‘our guys in the Middle East’, also try to negotiate the Iranians out of getting nukes, but don't count on that actually working (they will cheat).
Lee:
"I'm thinking that kickin’ back and waiting for a winner is a good option. Let the bastards keep each other busy and kill each other off. Keep an eye on things to make sure ISIS doesn't decide it's time to mimic al-Qaeda and try to hit at The West instead of trying to defend its own territory (not bloody likely until they're driven out of their territory to begin with). Meantime, arm up the Kurds and call ‘em ‘our guys in the Middle East’, also try to negotiate the Iranians out of getting nukes, but don't count on that actually working (they will cheat)."
Funny. I agree with all of that. Except I'm not convinced the iranians will cheat (I'm not sure they wouldn't but I'm not sure they would - decent UN supervision would be my best answer to that issue).
[Lee]: "I'm thinking that kickin’ back and waiting for a winner is a good option...
[Marcus]: Funny. I agree with all of that.
Then I will have to play devil's advocate, otherwise we won't have a good debate. :)
Of course it sounds like a good idea for the US to sit back, save some American lives and treasure, and let people who appear to be intent on killing each other do their thing.
Eventually someone will come out on top. But who exactly will that someone be? In the past when the US has been out of the picture we have had a theocracy rise up in Iran and a haven for terrorists in Afghanistan. We have seen a country(Vietnam) coalesce into a communist totalitarian regime after our withdrawal. We have overseen a split of a single country(Korea) into two, North & South, consigning the people of the North to what appears to be a life of near starvation under a cult like leader. All of this was at the expense of thousands of innocent people within those countries.
And we have had issues with all of the above. What kind of problems will we have in the future with an ISIL controlled Middle East? Or an Iranian controlled Middle East? My apologies to the House of Saud, but I don't think they would come out on top.
The fighting in the Middle East has already cost thousands of lives, not just in death, but also in the elimination of the possibility of any future many of those people might have had. I am not advocating a US re-invasion of Iraq or an invasion of Syria. I am merely advocating that we try to find a way to stabilize some territory so that people there will have a place to go if they need to flee. But it would have to be done in such a way as to not inflame sectarian tensions even more. It would be a safe zone for all. But to do that we would need to have boots on the ground, American boots. Because obviously right now no one over there trusts anyone.
The Kurds of Kobani did a heroic job of defending their town, with the help of coalition airstrikes. But at what cost? It has been left a pile of rubble. A stronger ground force may have been able to defend the town without resorting to total destruction via the air. Sure we can train the Kurds, but Baghdad has already said that we need to send any arms through the central government in Baghdad, to try to avoid them falling into ISIL hands. Yes, yes, I know, it was hard not to laugh at that myself. I'm thinking sending arms through Baghdad is not the wisest course.
Some indications the Obama administration may (stress ‘may’) be letting up on its commitment to maintaining a unitary Iraq. As one might guess, I'd say it's about damn time, although I'm not onboard with their newest thing under consideration, providing air cover for the Shia militias.
There are problems with partitioning Iraq. If it is not done in such a way as to split natural resources fairly the fighting will just continue. It also doesn't really solve the ISIL problem. That is an ideological problem. Unless you can get enough of the moderates within the population to go up against them. To do that you will need a strong force to back them up. There's only one strong enough that comes to mind...
Also, there are still strong nationalist feelings within each country. You may not see them because of the overriding sectarian issues that are playing out on the news, but they are there. Sure the southern part of Iraq can join Iran...well, but what about the feelings left over from the Iran/Iraq war? Or as illustrated in the article Lee linked to, what about the Sunni population that has land in the southern part of Iraq? Will they get a buy out? Will they accept it to move to a less desirable piece of land in Sunnistan?
Nope, there's really no good solution, and we will get dragged in one way or the other. It might as well be on our terms.
"In the past when the US has been out of the picture we have had
a theocracy rise up in Iran and a haven for terrorists in Afghanistan."
We were not ‘out of the picture’ in Iran when the theocracy arose. We were strong supporters of the Shaw (an anti-communist fella doncha know), and very much in the picture there.
Afghanistan we did look away from, but I'm suggesting we keep our eyes on these guys for any significant changes, but, absent significant changes…
Neither did we ‘oversee’ the partition of Korea. That happened during WWII--we were never in Korea until we went in under the UN authorizations after the North invaded the South.
Personally, I think Iran can take ISIS without much problem if they choose to do so. I think both Iran and Saudi Arabia are holding back, hoping the other one chickens out and steps up to take on the ISIS burden. If neither does, ISIS will get their ‘Sunnistan’ and then they gotta deal with the ex-Ba'athi and Sunni tribesmen who think they're using ISIS just to gain independence from Shia domination. (About then is when we should figure on taking sides.)
I say we quit trying to prop up Baghdad, and let Iraq fall into its component parts. (We then have the green light to arm the Kurds; right now Baghdad bitches when we arm the Kurds, but not when Tehran arms the Kurds.)
Yes, this means a lot of dead Arabs. Nothing we can really do about that except move back in and stay! ‘Cause as soon as we move back out, they're gonna be at it again. Soon as we leave they'll be at it; ‘cause they want this fight. We can tamp down on the ethnic violence as long as we stay there and keep stomping on it, but staying as an occupying power where we're not wanted has got its own problems. Need I point those out to you?
"It might as well be on our terms."
Damn right. I say we set up in Kurdistan as soon as possible after the partition.
And, by the way, it's the stay part of that equation that's the problem for us. That's what Ambassador Robert Steven Ford (From the Frontline show earlier in the week) left out. Also what Robert Kagan didn't address in his article.
Ford was real good at picking places where we could have gotten in. But a blind squirrel hit that target throwing acorns; any place they land is a winner. Ford had no plan for how do we get back out.
Neither did Kagan.
Any fool can get us into that mess. But what's next? How do find a way to win something worth the cost of that candle, and how the hell do we get back out?
$50 per barrel oil for the next several years? This guy says so.
Here lately we haven't much discussed the Congressional efforts to pass an Authorization to Use Force (modern equivalent of a declaration of war) against ISIS.
Turns out they've not been discussing it in Congress either. It's dead in the water, ain't happenin’. They don't want to touch it.
We were not ‘out of the picture’ in Iran when the theocracy arose. We were strong supporters of the Shaw (an anti-communist fella doncha know), and very much in the picture there.
Yes, we were allied with the Shah of Iran. But we walked away when he was overthrown and the hostages in our Embassy were taken. It was the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who then helped usher in the theocracy in Iran, which exists to this day.
Neither did we ‘oversee’ the partition of Korea. That happened during WWII-...
We came to an agreement with the Soviet Union to a temporary trusteeship at the end of WWII. It didn't quite work out as hoped.
Personally, I think Iran can take ISIS without much problem if they choose to do so.
Hmmm...possibly. But it would take Iranian boots on the ground in Iraq.
Any fool can get us into that mess. But what's next? How do find a way to win something worth the cost of that candle, and how the hell do we get back out?
That is a good question.
But I'm out of time now. My chariot is turning into a pumpkin...
And, I'm gonna havta backtrack on what I wrote about the partition of Korea. That's an ‘oops’.
But, the flight of the Shaw and the return of the Ayatollah came about in February of 1979. They didn't grab our embassy personnel until November of that same year.
Did you know that the game chess originates in ancient Persia and that "check mate" comes from "shah mat" which in persian means "the king is dead"?
"$50 per barrel oil for the next several years? This guy says so."
I doubt it. For one thing I believe the production curve lags behind the rig curve and that the shale production will pretty soon decline pretty seriously due to the recent decrease in rigs. I could be wrong, but that's what I believe will happen.
"Did you know that…"
Yes.
Nice. Did you also know that the persian word shah, the russian word czar and the german word kaiser all come from Ceasar as in Julius Ceasar? A pretty good testament to the greatness of one man when the word for king is named after him alone across a whole continent.
"Did you also know that…"
Yeah, except for shah, which is wrong.
Wrong? Do elaborate oh wise one.
Wrong as in the title of ‘Shah’ is not derived from from the name Caesar (which became a formal title of office for the Roman Emperor in the years closely following Julius' death).
Wrong as in the title of ‘Shah’ is not derived from from the name Caesar (which became a formal title of office for the Roman Emperor in the years closely following Julius' death).
My best bet i that the dude who wrote shah as shaw even though it it his own language reads very different has no real idea, had no real idea, never knew the facts I mentioned, and is now Googling frantically to appear knowledgable.
Lee - the dude who knows all about everything when others have told him the facts but he tries to find a small item so he appears to know more when in reality he didn't know squat.
So, like the late Petes, you are now celebrating typos and misspellings, and imagining hasty googles. Not a good sign.
Lee: "Wrong as in the title of ‘Shah’ is not derived from from the name Caesar (which became a formal title of office for the Roman Emperor in the years closely following Julius' death)."
It did though, and it was. There was no "shah" before Ceaesar and after him there were. Because the rulers named themselves after him. Much like, as you say, in the roman empire where the name Ceasar turned into an office that the subsequent emperors adopted. Like Augustus, a ggreat emperor in his own right, he was still their Ceasar.
Lee: first find a king in Persia calling himself the shah before Ceasar (there is none but you can go google). The very word shah derives from Ceasar so you'll not find any shah before the time of Julius Ceasar. But you can try. Go ahead and try. Then prove it.
Are you done?
$50 per barrel oil for the next several years? This guy says so.
The guy I know who is in the fracking business had mentioned that people in that arena believed the Saudis were trying to drive them out of the market. I don't think the Saudis really understand the huge change resulting from the new technology that has been developed. You won't get players with deep pockets to give up on that market that easily. There is just too much money to be made. Eventually, anyway. Yes, the ones who will be hurt are those who count on revenue from oil; Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela,...ISIL.
Meanwhile, the US consumer will catch a break for once. :)
But, the flight of the Shaw and the return of the Ayatollah came about in February of 1979. They didn't grab our embassy personnel until November of that same year.
I think there were actually some people in Iran who wanted to overthrow the Shah but weren't necessarily enamored of a theocracy. Unfortunately, in the end, allying with the Islamists in the form of the Ayatollah and his followers didn't get them what they wanted. It took a bit for the Islamists to consolidate power.
Lynnette, the oil price bottomed out at $50 a few months back and since then it's risen to $60. The trend is rising. The number of new oil rigs in the US are plummeting (which were only going to dent the trend anway). And we're talking about a finite resource.
I'm not saying it's inconceivable that oil will be priced cheap in the short run. But in the longer run I am convinced it will rise. And we're talkning years here, not decades.
"It took a bit for the Islamists to consolidate power."
Consolidating power usually does.
And I'm gonna guess Marcus is done with the Caesar rants for the time being, so…
‘Shah’ is derived from shahanshah which dates to the Biblical ages, Daniel in the lions' den in Babylon, those times--long before there ever was a Caesar.
Wiki:
Shah
shahanshah (king of kings)
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
(I got more if ya need more.)
Lynnette:
"I think there were actually some people in Iran who wanted to overthrow the Shah but weren't necessarily enamored of a theocracy"
There was indeed a large part of the opposition to the Shah that were communists. But they were overtaken by the Islamists, killed off or subjugated or forced into excile.
Lee: "(I got more if ya need more.)"
No, I stand corrected.
I got the other parts right though.
Apparently Washington is not only thinking of providing air support to Shia Militia's on the march, but is also considering arming directly the Sunni tribes in Anbar...well, at least those that will fight ISIL.
"…also considering arming directly the Sunni tribes in Anbar…"
I think it's a little early for that. I suspect they need to enjoy more ISIS's company before they'll be solid agin ‘em.
But in the longer run I am convinced it will rise. And we're talkning years here, not decades.
I'm thinking those in our oil industry are betting the same thing. They may retrench, but they won't throw in the towel. The Saudis may run into more serious problems before the oil companies do.
"No, I stand corrected."
Whadda ya know, and nary a google in sight.
I suspect they need to enjoy more ISIS's company before they'll be solid agin ‘em.
I suspect that some kind of concrete evidence that they will have some say in their own governance in the future, either via Baghdad or some separate entity of their own, might go a long way to getting them to kick out the extremists. Perhaps a nice, cozy safe haven ala Kurdistan? That's assuming we could find anyone of moderate disposition after ISIL has eliminated them all.
Lee: "Whadda ya know, and nary a google in sight."
No I just did like ordinary people do and looked it up. I though I was right but it turned out I was wrong. So I immediately admitted to that. Sometimes I get things wrong - no big deal.
You might try that sometime.
Thing is learned something new. I learned that though "czar" and "kaiser" deives from Julius Ceasar "shah" has been along for much longer.
It took Lee and his condcending belligeance for me to learn this, but I did learn something new. One more piece of information into my mental data-bank.
And I can admit this without feeling it to be a loss. I don't lose when Lee tells me something I didn't alredady know. In fact I win because I now know more.
"You might try that sometime."
You might not notice. ↑↑ Fri May 29, 12:26:00 a.m. ↑↑
We can always learn from other people, no matter who they are. I am quite okay with admitting I do not know everything. It's far more relaxing...;)
Now I'm off to clean for a bit...
This is a seriously bad idea just on account of it being so ugly in its intentions.
I knew that's what you had linked to even before I clicked on the link, Lee. I agree, the whole idea is ridiculous. Wasn't AZ also known for its anti-immigrant stance as well? I suppose this kind of hate shouldn't come as too much of a shock. It's gotta be giving the FBI a headache, though, to have this kind of stupidity to deal with on top of terrorist concerns.
I guess Phoenix is now gonna give Garland, Tx a run for the title on public jihadi hunts.
A domestic version of a "thunder run" perhaps? But I don't think that promoting hate is a good way to go about it. Nor is putting civilians in harms way. Yes, free speech is important, but you can make a point without this kind of display.
What was interesting about that "protest" was what wasn't there. They were estimating around 250 demonstrators and counter demonstrators, so around a total of 500 people. It sounds like most people gave it a pass.
Just as well that it fizzled out.
Why Baltimore Blew Up, and why Ferguson blew up, why angry and frustrated black populations lash out seemingly mindlessly at times. It's not this way everywhere, but where it is, it usually ends in riots and arsons.
And there will be more.
Wow, that was long. But it was worth the time to read it.
First:
"If the problem is a broken window, they should fix the window," professor Steve Zeidman told Reuters. "But somehow we don't fix the window, we just arrest people who start hanging out by the broken window."
To fix this problem this is where we need to start, IMO. While Broken Windows probably was a well intentioned program to start, it morphed into something else entirely. Perhaps that was because of closet, or not so closet, racism, or pure discrimination against the lower income population. I don't know. But it shouldn't continue as is because it just encourages resentment and hatred for the police. Electing people who will be willing to make changes is a start. Making changes to Broken Windows is a must, as is just prosecution of those officers involved in wrong doing. It will be interesting to see the results of the case brought against the officers in Baltimore.
Second:
The economic malaise in the less prosperous areas needs to be addressed. But until you get some resolution to the police/civilian population relations problems it will be difficult to attract needed business to revitalize an area.
Economics is behind a lot of it.
What we're seeing described in that article is something we'll be seeing more of as American society increasingly stratifies economically, as the ‘income inequality’ becomes more and more entrenched and the level of ‘wealth inequality’ gets even higher. The haves are no longer investing as much in public schools, public infrastructure, nor even public policing--they're going into gated communities increasingly protected by private police. Increasingly, the public police are coming to see their job as keeping the "have nots" from getting at the "haves".
Police methods applied to the two different communities are very different.
As economic mobility, i.e. the opportunities to raise one's economic status, becomes more difficult (and we're already lagging Europe in social mobility on that measure), we're just gonna see more and more of this.
Contain and Amplify by Thomas Friedman
What we're seeing described in that article is something we'll be seeing more of as American society increasingly stratifies economically, as the ‘income inequality’ becomes more and more entrenched and the level of ‘wealth inequality’ gets even higher.
If we see more manufacturing jobs return to our shores it would help by creating jobs that provide a middle class living. It would also help if our politicians actually found the will to adjust the tax code to pay for more infrastructure repair, social programs, and support networks for those in the lower income tiers. There was an article in my paper today that said one in five Minnesotans are in some form of public health program (Medicaid or Minnesota Care). That will require funding from somewhere. I assume that eventually they will have to raise taxes.
"If we see more manufacturing jobs return to our shores it would
help by creating jobs that provide a middle class living."
Manufacturing is returning because it is becoming increasingly automated and robots work for the same wages here as in China or Bangladesh. And, we've got a cheaper natural gas for power generation than in China or Bangladesh. They get industrial rates.
"I assume that eventually they will have to raise taxes."
Or cut programs. I should say, cut them further, ‘cause, so far, when the decision has come to cut program funding or raise taxes, it's been cutting programs that gets the nod.
Friedman is coming around.
The Patriot Act has expired. The Republicans in Congress have been presumed to have been blocking Obama's agenda for years now, but since they've been in charge of both chambers they are now also blocking the Republican agenda.
It's beginning to look like we may have been giving them too much credit for having ‘thwarted’ Obama. An alternate explanation… They simply can't govern; they cannot run a functional government is all that's goin’ on there.
I should have figured on this one coming through eventually…
A recent experiment in quatum physics theory has now confirmed that reality is an illusion.
"[A]s one Kurdish friend put it to me, ‘Barzani can tell the mother
and father of a dead peshmerga their son died for Kurdistan and the
family will send three more sons. But all four sons will go home if you
tell them they have to fight and die for Iraq in an Arab city like Mosul.
Let the Arabs worry about [ISIL], we’re protecting our land, not saving
Iraq.’
"So when presidential candidates such as Sen. Rand Paul argue that
the U.S. should further support the Kurds because they’re the only
one’s fighting the Islamic State, he’s at least partially correct, but
everyone needs to face up to reality: The Kurds have pushed about
as far out of Kurdistan as they’re willing to go—for now—to establish
defensive lines. All the military support in the world won’t convince
them that they should send their sons to die for a state, Iraq, that
virtually every Kurd hates deep inside their heart."
Politico
If we're gonna expect the Kurds to clear Mosul; they're gonna havta get a promise that they can keep Mosul.
US Supreme Court rules for Muslim woman denied job
Manufacturing is returning because it is becoming increasingly automated and robots work for the same wages here as in China or Bangladesh.
While it is true that manufacturing has become more automated and fewer workers are needed, it is still necessary to have workers to run the machines and computers. Something is better than nothing.
I should say, cut them further, ‘cause, so far, when the decision has come to cut program funding or raise taxes, it's been cutting programs that gets the nod.
What is that phrase? Penny wise pound foolish. That is why we need to choose our elected officials better.
They simply can't govern; they cannot run a functional government is all that's goin’ on there. regarding Republicans
See my comment above regarding choosing our elected officials more carefully.
... Let the Arabs worry about [ISIL], we’re protecting our land, not saving
Iraq.’
Unfortunately, I am getting the impression that many Arabs feel the same way. But I suppose it is up to them whether or not Iraq stays one country. It appears that this fight is shaping up to be purely sectarian in nature with Iran pitted against Saudi Arabia. I have noticed the two recent attacks on mosques in KSA. Both Shiite.
"Something is better than nothing."
Probably so, although I have my doubts about the long-term wisdom of giving manufacturers preferential power rates. But, it remains true that there's enough local government competition for the factories that they're able to extract such concessions.
"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
I wonder if this means that we exist only as a reflection of other people's views? Or are we measured by how we change our environment?
"I wonder if this means that we exist only as a reflection of other people's views?"
I suspect you're now deeper into philosophy and religion than physics.
My view is that quantum mechanics is probably overdue to join the list of discredited physics theories that include the four elements, phlogiston, caloric, and luminiferous aether,
Worst American President in all history? This guy can't quite seem to choose between Dubya and Woodrow Wilson. America's greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, followed closely by George Washington, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt running third. (Criteria did not include political philosophy, but rather actual accomplishments, so, of course, Presidents holding office in non-crisis times didn't stand much of a chance of ranking.)
I don't think much of those polls. To fairly compare a person's job performance you need to have all criteria the same, and that just can't be true in the case of Presidents and their time in office. They all have different problems and issues to deal with. Some may play to a person's strong suit and some may not. I predict that in time Dubya will not be considered a bad President despite the Iraq war and its aftermath. The fissures for the turmoil in the Middle East were created long ago with many people contributing to their expansion.
On a lighter note, I haven't done any jokes of the day for a while, so here are a couple I ran across recently in a back issue of Readers Digest (yes, I'm behind on those as well).
Under Humor in Uniform:
A military base commander called to complain that the weather-forecasting software our company created for them kept reporting unexplainable wind shifts.
"Do you know where the sensor is located?" my coworker asked.
"Of course," he responded. "It's where we park the helicopters."
Hmmm...
And then this:
Air Force Truism: The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
I forget my phone this morning. I feel naked...weird. Funny how you get used to something.
*sigh*
"forget" should be "forgot"
"I predict that in time Dubya will not be considered a bad President
despite the Iraq war and its aftermath."
How ‘bout ‘incompetent’ in office? That's the assessment I think he's headed for. The total failure to plan for the aftermath of taking Saddam out, the Patriot Act, the strategic error that was his embrace of the neo-con ‘Democracy Project’, the failure to supervise Wall Street (I'm not talking about the failure to anticipate the collapse, but rather the failure to enforce then existing banking regulations and oversight functions).
I'd give Lyndon Johnson pretty bad overall reviews too although his politicking to get the Civil Rights Bills of 1964 and 1965 passed will save him from coming in down in Ronald Reagan territory.
Police in Boston Shoot Terror Suspect
The total failure to plan for the aftermath of taking Saddam out,...
Actually I think they did plan all sorts of things, they just didn't necessarily follow through, or act on some people's recommendations. What I don't think they planned for were the reactions of various people to what was occurring in Iraq on the ground, not least of which were our allies. Many of those plans quickly fell by the wayside because of outside pressure and Iraqi actions within Iraq.
...the Patriot Act,...
A knee-jerk result of 9/11 that may have occurred with any person in the job. It also had to have had the approval of Congress.
...the strategic error that was his embrace of the neo-con ‘Democracy Project’,...
This definitely was an error on the administration's part. For democracy to work it needs people who want it, not people who don't even know what it is. Looking at what is occurring with ISIL, and how they came to be able to progress as they have, it is clear that democracy is not a desired form of government by many in Iraq who are willing to go to extreme measures to force their will on other people. What has worked for the United States has worked for the United States because of the will of the people. Many of those in Iraq who have supported democracy and a different way other than what the Ba'ath or the religious extremists want has been eliminated through targeted assassinations. In the areas that ISIL controls what you will have left are those who are too afraid to stand up to ISIL because of fear of death (can't really blame them). And as for those opposing ISIL on the ground what you have are people who will use the same extreme methods to fight, such as Assad with his indiscriminate barrel bombs and Baghdad with their alliance with Iranian backed militias.
...the failure to supervise Wall Street (I'm not talking about the failure to anticipate the collapse, but rather the failure to enforce then existing banking regulations and oversight functions).
Yes, an error. How are we doing with that now, btw? And have we tightened those regulations enough to see that this doesn't happen again? If not, then the current administration is no better.
"...has been eliminated through targeted assassinations."
That should read: have, not has
"Actually I think they did plan all sorts of things…"
The State Department had a plan, so they put the Department of Defense in charge instead.
"A knee-jerk result of 9/11 that may have occurred with any person
in the job."
Perhaps. I was opposed to it then. It's been cleaned up some since, but I have little use for the bulk data collection program.
"And have we tightened those regulations enough to see that this
doesn't happen again?"
Hell no. Nor have we tightened up enforcement of the regulations, which is worse.
"Police in Boston Shoot Terror Suspect"
It appears the police think it was a "good shoot", and are prepared to show their evidence for that.
I haven't been by the winefalcon's blog recently; he's gotten too complicated to follow easily. But, if he's still having money problems he could probably find paying work with these folks.
(Warning to Lynnette and Marcus, it's kinda long, and Marcus won't want to hear this stuff anyway.)
I'm part way through that article. I must admit I did find this rather amusing:
One alter ego was a fortuneteller named Cantadora. The spirit world offered Cantadora insight into relationships, weight loss, feng shui — and, occasionally, geopolitics. Energies she discerned in the universe invariably showed that its arc bent toward Russia. She foretold glory for Vladimir Putin, defeat for Barack Obama and Petro Poroshenko. The point was to weave propaganda seamlessly into what appeared to be the nonpolitical musings of an everyday person.
I'm not sure that I would consider that character an "everyday person". Who said the Russians didn't have an imagination? lol!
I know, the internet isn't always the best place to find, well, real people. And finding factual documentation on real subjects one may find interesting isn't always easy. Probably why I try to stick to news organizations or well known publications. I use YouTube a lot, but it too has some really weird stuff on it.
I must admit to trying to figure out who over at Zeyad's was either a troll or a spy. :) Bruno was always a good bet for me, but he seems to have turned out to be a real person.
Strangely enough real people may actually look like trolls if they want to maintain at least a thin veneer of anonymity. Which with all the strange things going on in the world isn't an unreasonable thing.
Post a Comment