This Saturday is the Belmont Stakes,
the third race in the Triple Crown. American Pharoah will be
attempting to become the twelfth horse to win this series of races. The last horse to do so was Affirmed in
1978. There have been many good horses, but the horse that stands out in my mind is Secretariat. He still
holds the record for the running of the Belmont at 2:24. So to get
you all in the mood for this year's upcoming Belmont, and American
Pharoah's attempt to win the Triple Crown, I thought I would revisit
a little of Secretariat's life. Real heart is a magical thing.
Update:
American Pharoah went wire to wire to win the Belmont Stakes today, becoming the twelfth horse to win the Triple Crown. His time was 2:26, so Secretariat's time still stands. Congratulations to American Pharoah!
115 comments:
Wanna talk ‘bout a horse that ran on heart, that'd be Seabisquit, who did not win the triple crown (didn't get qualified), but who, in a match race, beat the horse that did.
Yes, I've watched the clip of the match race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral. Another horse with heart. I guess I chose Secretariat because he still holds the record at Belmont, and winning the Triple Crown in itself is not easy to do with the races so close together.
Here in Minnesota the most famous horse has got to be Dan Patch. That footage is rather grainy, but you can still see the amazing ability and beauty of that horse. :)
I know of Dan Patch.
So, you're a horsey people are ya? Remind me to tell ya one of these day the story about Two Bits. My old man bought her for $25 one day at a cattle auction just ‘cause he felt sorry for her (they ran her into the ring at the weekly cattle auction one Monday to get a bid on her from the slaughterhouse rep that hung out there; he bid $20 and my father took pity on the scraggly horse and bid $25; hence her name). You can imagine what she must have looked like. Turned out to be a hell of a horse; all heart.
They're already starting to dust him off.
We used to go down to Canberbury Downs racetrack a lot when it first opened up. While I've never ridden a horse, I've always found them to be beautiful animals, especially when they're running.
I've always hated to think about horses sent to the slaughterhouse. Some people think they are just dumb animals, but they can be highly intelligent. My mom liked to tell stories about the horses they used to have on the farm.
"They're already starting to dust him off."
I saw that this morning. Amazing.
"…but they can be highly intelligent."
At least roughly equal to dogs. They have different minds, different types of intelligence, so it's a constant battle between the two sides of the argument over which is more intelligent. I don't think it'll ever settle just ‘cause their intelligences are so different in their focus. And like dogs, they ran a long spectrum between dumb as a rock to spooky how much that other one understands. Two Bits was also one of the smart ones, as well as having heart. Half dead of starvation when she was run into the ring, she still knew she was being looked at; she was in the center of the ring and recognized that meant something, so she tried to puff up and look good. That's what got my dad to outbid the slaughterhouse rep. Half dead of starvation, open sores that had gone untreated, blind in one eye, but she still had her pride.
How long did she live after your Dad bought her?
It looks like that man in Boston the police killed was part of some plot to kill Pamela Geller, but was too impatient and had decided to go after some cops instead.
"How long did she live after your Dad bought her?"
I'm not exactly certain. She turned out to be my main cow pony for the 5-6 years I was still lived there. I know she was still working another 3-4 years after that before they retired her entirely--so 8-10 years I know of she was more than just alive, she was working. She lived another few years after that, just as a favorite old horse turned out to pasture, but I'm not sure exactly when she died, I'd moved out and moved on by then. She must have lived at least another twelve years, good years too; she turned out to be one hell of a cattle horse. Wasn't pretty, but she was tough as nails, nimble and quick on her feet, and smart to boot, and a pacer--she could eat up the ground for hours on end--put the pretty horses to shame.
it's nice to hear that she found a good home where she was appreciated, after having lived such a hard life to begin with. :)
ISIS Shuts off Water.
There's more to her story; remind me to tell it to ya one of these days.
Well, I'm always up for a horse story that has a happy ending :)
Apparently Pakistani justice, well, isn't.
There seems to be a State Department theory that goes something to the effect that there are decent people in Pakistan, and they have a chance to perhaps actually govern the place democratically one of these days if we just hang in there with ‘em, so we can't go bailing out on Pakistan no matter how despicable the Paki government happens to act at any particular point in time. This theory seems to survive no matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in control of the American adminstration.
I sometimes have my doubts about the wisdom of this persistent theory. Often have my doubts actually.
I think there are decent people everywhere, but they are decent because they don't behave in such a way as to force others to their will. So sometimes they get trampled by circumstances. Malala seems a decent sort. But she has been forced from her home, which is what may happen when decent sorts run into those who aren't. Doesn't bode well for places like Pakistan.
I ran across this video of Patrick Cockburn speaking on the rise of ISIL on Musings on Iraq blog. I haven't had a chance to listen to all of it, but what I have listened to so far is rather interesting.
It's apt to be a slow weekend (unless American Pharoh pulls one off), so here's a couple of not-too-long reads: First; on the new Saudi Militancy. Second; on exercising a little humility regarding developments in the Middle East.
lol! It's summer, with yards to mow(did yesterday) and gardens to plant(did that multiple days) & all the normal mundane tasks that need doing(*sigh*, never ending). I still have to finish your article from the prior section(I'll get to that, it's interesting). That's why I didn't have time to even finish the video I linked to. :(
But hopefully there's something of interest if Marcus stops in.
Huh! Managed to finish the Cockburn video last night. What was rather disquieting was his last thought, and that was his belief that this war between ISIL and it's opponents will go on for years.
Watching Fareed Zakaria this morning. He had a couple of guests speaking on ISIL.
The first was Stanley McCrystal, who fought AQ in Iraq in the past. His take on ISIL is that while targeted strikes to take out ISIL commanders will help, it is the rebuilding of government and economic strength that will ultimately defeat them. I think that is the conclusion that many people have already come to.
The second guest was the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in conflict, Zainab Bangura. She was discussing the conduct of ISIL towards women in the territories that they have captured. Basically they are bought and sold like property in such a way as to be as dehumanizing as possible. Her take is that ISIL is breaking down whatever culture and social fabric existed in their areas of control and forcing the populace to act as they choose. Their efforts to impregnate girls is to created a new generation made in their image. She views them as extremely dangerous to the region. She describes the case of one girl who refused to perform a sexual act and was burned alive.
I started the Saudi article last night, but short it is not. So I will finish it later. Gotta run...
"…this war between ISIL and it's opponents will go on for years."
ISIS/ISIL is merely today's manifestation of a xenophobic Sunni fundamentalism that's been building up since the early 1900's. (The Muslim Brotherhood was first proclaimed publicly in Egypt in 1928; The House of Saud made their deal with the Wahabi in the 1800's, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wasn't actually established until 1932.) If ISIS collapses it'll simply morph into something else with a new name, but the same old philosophy. For now, ISIS is concentrating it's murderous tendencies on other Muslims. I consider that an improvement over al-Qaeda's focus on the infidels in ‘The West’. (Al-Qaeda went after ‘The West’ because trying to bring down its first enemy, the local Arab governments, was proving disasterous to its own membership, while hitting at the ‘far enemy’ meant that the local governments would tolerate al-Qaeda's presence and recruitment efforts.) But, al-Qaeda's focus on the ‘far enemy’ was only a tactical switch to buy them some time anyway, and Saudi Wahabism is just ISIS without the balls to actually go for it. (Pakistani fundies can't take their eyes off of India long enough to plan any further than wiping out the Hindi, finally.)
So long as Arab Sunni Islam preaches their domination of the Earth, both religiously and politically, this is gonna be a long war. One does not wipe out an entire religion with millions of adherents quickly, not short of what would be considered an unacceptable genocide in The West.
One does not wipe out an entire religion with millions of adherents quickly, not short of what would be considered an unacceptable genocide in The West.
But it is not the religion that is the issue here. As you say, the Sunni branch of Islam constitutes a large portion of the world's Muslims. But they do not all follow the extremist beliefs of ISIL's religious element. Even within Iraq there are those Sunnis who do not believe in ISIL's brand of government. From what I have heard a large portion of ISIL's fighters are recruits from other countries, including the West. Leaders within ISIL have been adept at playing the Sunni/Shia schism, but we cannot assume that religion is their sole purpose for what they do.
Saudi Arabia has seen attacks within is borders. Yes, they have been attacks against Shia mosques, but that does not necessarily mean that the rulers of KSA are safe because they are Sunni. If ISIL is as intent on creating its caliphate as they seem they will not stop at the border with any country just because it is a majority Sunni Muslim country. There is no leadership what would welcome ISIL with open arms, because it then would mean the dissolution of their country.
The difficulty lies in the choices given to people. If they feel that their only choice is something worse than ISIL they will not go against them. That is where the Sunni/Shia schism, resulting in unjust governance, plays into ISIL hands.
IS Foreign Jihadists
"But it is not the religion that is the issue here."
I believe ISIS would beg to differ with you on that. But, I see where you think you're going with this.
If I were talking about taking out all those who call themselves Sunni Muslims we'd be talking about adherents in the hundreds of millions--near a billion probably. Not merely millions.
And they will be fighting amongst themselves over who gets to call themselves Caliph. That's just gonna happen. And it's not gonna be limited to just ISIS vs Wahabi vs al-Qaeda. There'll be others want in on that fight, and they'll also be fighting with those who don't want any of them calling themselves Caliph.
Lee: "One does not wipe out an entire religion with millions of adherents quickly, not short of what would be considered an unacceptable genocide in The West."
Lynnette: "But it is not the religion that is the issue here. As you say, the Sunni branch of Islam constitutes a large portion of the world's Muslims. But they do not all follow the extremist beliefs of ISIL's religious element."
There's over a billion sunni muslims, and I don't think Lee was talking about all of them. Unfortunately there may well be IS/ISIL/Qaeda/Wahhabi/Salafi-extremists numbering in the millions. It depends on what groups we count among them. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for instance. Not really on par with IS and they have no Shia to battle there so their sectarianism is probably tuned down. But how would they rule given the chance?
Lynnette: "Even within Iraq there are those Sunnis who do not believe in ISIL's brand of government."
One would hope a majority of them. I still believe sunni participation in the fight against IS is the only realistic possibility, unless genocide is an option which I guess it might be for the shia militias.
Lynnette: "Saudi Arabia has seen attacks within is borders. Yes, they have been attacks against Shia mosques, but that does not necessarily mean that the rulers of KSA are safe because they are Sunni."
No they most certainly are not safe because they are Sunni. But they are probably safe because of their vast security-apparatus. For the time being at least.
Post Script:
It may well be that the House of Saud is practical enough to realize that their chance of being accepted as the House of the Caliph is slim to none and rating it as slim's being incredibly optimistic. They'd perhaps be content to just serve in their present capacity as "Keepers of the Two Holy Mosques".
This still puts them at odds with whomever is calling himself Caliph, who'll almost certainly want to rule over the peninsula as well as well as the rest of Islam. And, it continues them in the unfortunate position of preaching the second coming of the Caliphate while holding power only so long as that second coming does not materialize. So, they will, no doubt, continue to denounce any self proclaimed Caliph as an impostor.
And now for what may well be a bit of good news:
"ISTANBUL — Turkish voters delivered a dramatic blow to President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling Justice Development Party on
Sunday, with results showing it losing its majority in parliament.
"And, in a historic first, a party dominated by ethnic Kurds surged into
the Grand National Assembly in Ankara, marking a new moment in the
evolution of Turkey’s democracy as well as a direct challenge to
Erdogan’s own ambitions to consolidate power as president."
WaPo
[Lynnette]: But it is not the religion that is the issue here.
[Lee]: I believe ISIS would beg to differ with you on that.
Oh, I am sure there are many people among ISIL's followers who would do so. But I also think there are others in that organization who are merely using religion as a means to gain power. Who would come out on top in the end is anyone's guess.
[Lee]: And they will be fighting amongst themselves over who gets to call themselves Caliph.
Yes, we are already seeing fighting among the more extreme groups such as ISIL vs Al Qaida. Whether there needs to be a Caliph or not for that is debatable, I suppose.
... they'll also be fighting with those who don't want any of them calling themselves Caliph.
Perhaps this is something greatly to be desired. I don't mean by using the same tactics as ISIL, but definitely there needs to be resistance to Al Baghdadi calling himself Caliph. He has most certainly not earned it.
It may well be that the House of Saud is practical enough to realize that their chance of being accepted as the House of the Caliph is slim to none and rating it as slim's being incredibly optimistic.
And nor have the Saudis earned it.
P.S.
I do not know Islam, but in my mind a Caliph will act in such a way as would heal the schism between Sunni and Shia. So far that's not happening.
The schism between the Sunni and Shia arose over an argument about who was to be the next Caliph.
[Marcus]: There's over a billion sunni muslims, and I don't think Lee was talking about all of them.
No, you're right, I was reading that at the end of the day and misread the intent of his statement.
[Marcus]: The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for instance. Not really on par with IS and they have no Shia to battle there so their sectarianism is probably tuned down. But how would they rule given the chance?
Probably not in a manner that we would feel comfortable with. That seems to be the problem with all sorts of groups in the Middle East though. I see Lee has put up an article about Turkey. There is a case in point; an ally, a member of NATO, yet...Erdogan has done some things that we would not feel comfortable with. His non help on the Kobani/ISIL issue being one of them. The Saudi's use of Wahhabism to remain in power would be another.
But it seems that resorting to extreme control through force has been the historic norm in much of the Middle East. Those who really believed in democracy escape to somewhere else. There's too much corruption, too much greed and not enough justice for all in that region. It makes the desire for power the be all and end all.
The schism between the Sunni and Shia arose over an argument about who was to be the next Caliph.
The true Caliph should appeal to all.
"The true Caliph should appeal to all."
They gave up on that particular piece of idealism 1,300 years ago. You're not going to successfully wish it upon them now.
David Ignatius, (writing here for RCP rather than his usual haunts at the Washington Post) is saying that Assad's pretty much on the ropes. He does caution that Assad's been beat down this badly before only to be rescued by Iran; could happen again.
[Lynnette]: The true Caliph should appeal to all.
[Lee]: They gave up on that particular piece of idealism 1,300 years ago.
That's where I don't know enough about Islam to understand the real meaning of the Caliph. So I go with what I can Google:
A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة khalīfah pronunciation (help. info))—a person considered a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.
So if they have really given up on that "idealism" it would appear to me that they have given up on Islam.
And members of ISIL or Al Qaida may say that the Shia are not real Muslims, but I would say that it is not their place to judge that. It is the Caliph's.
From Lee's Saudi Militancy article:
The sectarian hatreds being unleashed today in the Middle East will not simply vanish when they cease to be convenient. This is a long game, and the countries involved need to understand that the consequences of their actions will be felt for generations.
This would take a forethought that I am not sure our leaders have on hand.
Lee, I just finished the Philip Gordon article. Not that I am an expert on the subject, but I agree with his thinking. Except, under the point he made about preventing a terrorist safe haven I would add trying to help those people within each country who do not believe in extremist thinking. Because while they may not be traditional allies, like states in the region, they are of critical importance in stabilizing the region.
"I would add trying to help those people within each country who do
not believe in extremist thinking."
Help them do what?
[Lynnette]: The true Caliph should appeal to all.
[Lee]: They gave up on that particular piece of idealism 1,300 years ago.
[Lynnette]: That's where I don't know enough about Islam to understand the real meaning of the Caliph.
You don't need to know more about Islam or the meaning of the Caliph in this matter. If the sunni side puts a Caliph forth the entire shia side and a large portion of sunnis as well will refuse him. If the shia side were to put one forth they may get (since they are more hirearcheal) support for the Caliph from the majoritty of their own, but they would not get a single sunni to agree to that.
IF we're talking about a Caliph they could all agree on it would have to be such a Caliph that even christians, buddhists and hindus acknowledged that a God had been born. It would have to be that obvious, and failing that the two Islams will not agree.
Lynnette: "There is a case in point; an ally, a member of NATO, yet...Erdogan has done some things that we would not feel comfortable with. His non help on the Kobani/ISIL issue being one of them. "
Well I believe that the best friends in Turkey are among the non-islaimists of the CHP-party, the inheritans of Kemal Ataturk and his secular nationalistic turkish state. The ones you dealt with when Turkey became a NATO member and sided with the west.
Of course the Kurdish question is not in anyway easier with the CHP than with Erdogan. But other sets of political questions are.
Lee: "David Ignatius, (writing here for RCP rather than his usual haunts at the Washington Post) is saying that Assad's pretty much on the ropes. He does caution that Assad's been beat down this badly before only to be rescued by Iran; could happen again"
Question: what do you suppose would happen were Assad to fall?
My best guess is this: Assad loyalists who have the means to flee will do so. But they will be few. The bulk of Assad loyalists will have no choice but to fight on, and that fight will turn Damascus into dust.
Ethnic cleansing will commence where christians and ethnic minorities are either pushed out or enslaved. Allawites will be killed en mass and all of them will attemptt to flee but only a minority will be able to do so.
Then the "victors" will go on and on combatting amongst themselves. IS and Al-Nusra being the dominant players but there will be others as well.
I foresee an exodus of several millions of people and a slaughter numbering in the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. And after that - no stability but continued low level conflict for decades.
Lebanon will blow up too for that matter. Creating a whole new areana of ethno-religous cleansings and chaos. No way Lebanon can stay intact if Syria falls.
"…what do you suppose would happen…"
It is possible, maybe even likely, that the supposedly ‘moderate’ Arab forces Ignatius identified as the "Southern Front" fighting in the south, with Jordanian and U.S. support, will ally with the remnants of Assad's forces once Assad is swept aside. Then it'll be a three-way against al-Nusra and al-Fatah (supported now by Turkey and Saudi Arabia) on the one hand and ISIS on the other. This will probably result in partition of eastern Syria between the U.S./Jordanian supported forces and the Turkey/Saudi supported forces. Not because they necessarily want it, but because it'd be too embarrassing for their patrons to keep up the fight. (ISIS is gonna be around awhile yet and pretty much everybody will want to concentrate fire on them so long as they remain a threat.)
And, the blowup of Lebanon is not certain if the parties agree to a partition of eastern Syria.
Lee: "It is possible, maybe even likely, that the supposedly ‘moderate’ Arab forces Ignatius identified as the "Southern Front" fighting in the south, with Jordanian and U.S. support, will ally with the remnants of Assad's forces once Assad is swept aside."
Really? Under what banner? Because most, not all but most, of the Assad forces are Allawites. And most of the opponents are sunnis. Do you see those factions coming together as a viable option? For that to happen there would need to be a common identity and the only one I can see is coming together under the Syrian flag as a national force. But I believe it may be too late for that to happen.
Lee: "And, the blowup of Lebanon is not certain if the parties agree to a partition of eastern Syria."
If the agree no, but what realistic scenarios are there of "agreement" these days.
I'd say that the "west" has forgotten a few facts that used to be true in our communities/countries as well, especially before the "state" was cemented as the supreme authority:
1. Family thrumps tribe.
2. Tribe thumphs ethnicity.
3. Ethnicity trumphs nationality or religion.
4. religion and nationality might at any one point in time thrump eachother.
If you think of things in an evolutionary way it all makes sense. And since we're just clever animals after all evolution is what guides us, whether we like to admit it or not.
"Really? Under what banner?"
The Syrian national flag is one possibility. Or, they might resurrect the old Free Syrian Army colors. They might arrange new colors instead; there are options; the flag is not going to be a deal-breaker.
[Lynnette]: I would add trying to help those people within each country who do
not believe in extremist thinking.
[Lee]: Help them do what?
Survive.
"3. Ethnicity trumphs nationality or religion."
And yet we see Arab Shia siding with Aryan Shia (Iranians) against Arab Sunni.
[Marcus]: IF we're talking about a Caliph they could all agree on it would have to be such a Caliph that even christians, buddhists and hindus acknowledged that a God had been born.
Yes! Exactly. Al-Baghdadi is most definitely not a God. And judging by the definition of a Caliphate he is not qualified to be called Caliph either. No, all the Islamic State is creating is a two-bit dictatorship using the cloak of Islam as a cover to lure in the gullible and those with a grudge against the world.
[Lee]:It is possible, maybe even likely, that the supposedly ‘moderate’ Arab forces Ignatius identified as the "Southern Front" fighting in the south, with Jordanian and U.S. support, will ally with the remnants of Assad's forces once Assad is swept aside.
[Marcus]: Really? Under what banner? Because most, not all but most, of the Assad forces are Allawites. And most of the opponents are sunnis. Do you see those factions coming together as a viable option?
I believe I agree with Lee on this. You are looking at it purely from a sectarian point of view, but I think those forces under Assad may be more pragmatic in their view of their situation. If Assad falls, what do you think they would prefer, an Islamic state, or the chance at a secular one? And if their choice is the second option, who would they feel they might be able to achieve that with? Oh, I'm not saying there wouldn't be difficulty, but remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Oh, and from that article Lee posted it appears as if some Assad supporters are already looking for a way out.
I foresee an exodus of several millions of people and a slaughter numbering in the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions.
You better hope that you are wrong, Marcus, because those millions may end up on your doorstep.
The only thing I know for sure about this whole thing, is that nothing is certain.
The G-7 have pledged to phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century worldwide.
85 years; I believe that's intended to be another way of saying, ‘Not in our lifetimes.’
Jeb Bush is proposing a ‘more robust’ NATO military presence on Russia's borders, Poland and the Baltic states especially. How the hell he's gonna get agreement on that from NATO is unclear.
But in the scheme of things 85 years isn't very long. I also think it is too late. But what struck me is that it was basically an acknowledgement that things are very serious. To eliminate the use of fossil fuels in 85 years is, historically speaking, putting the pedal to the medal. It's also probably impossible when you consider all of the money that has been invested in various fossil fuel projects.
And it actually may not be of benefit long term to totally eliminate fossil fuel use. There may come a time when we want the planet to warm up. I suppose it depends on how much we think we can regulate climate through human activity.
So, in short, I think we're all doomed to having to deal with serious climate change. Perhaps they would do better in trying to reach agreements on how to deal with that in a unified manner. They can start with mass migrations of people. They can also look at how to minimize water usage in drought prone areas, or the creation of fresh water through such methods as desalinization.
How the hell he's gonna get agreement on that from NATO is unclear.
I don't think the G-7 could agree on what to do about Russia either. I am starting to wonder if other things may not settle that matter more so than our intervention.
I'm not surprised at Jeb Bush's stance though. Very Republican.
An interesting story here on Gaza.
Lee: "And yet we see Arab Shia siding with Aryan Shia (Iranians) against Arab Sunni."
Sometimes it isn't as clear cut as I made things out to be.
[Marcus]: IF we're talking about a Caliph they could all agree on it would have to be such a Caliph that even christians, buddhists and hindus acknowledged that a God had been born.
[Lynnette]: Yes! Exactly. Al-Baghdadi is most definitely not a God. And judging by the definition of a Caliphate he is not qualified to be called Caliph either.
Then I am very reluctant to believe there will ever be a Caliph that meets those standards. I simply do not believe in that. I would basically personally have to withness a decending from the skies to believe in that, and I very much doubt that will happen.
Lynnette: "I believe I agree with Lee on this. You are looking at it purely from a sectarian point of view, but I think those forces under Assad may be more pragmatic in their view of their situation. If Assad falls, what do you think they would prefer, an Islamic state, or the chance at a secular one?"
In that case a secular one, if those were the only choices. But I doubt if Assad falls his opponents will readily forgive the rest of his regime and his security apparatus. And I doubt those Baathists willl readily share power with any faction that's been fighting them. And I do believe that sect and tribe are factors that play a large part behind any outspoken ideology.
Then again, I doubt Assad will fall very easily to begin with. I read in a Swedish newspaper just today that Quasem Soulemani is in Damascus and has brought 7K Iranian and Iraqi shiite fighters to prop up the regime and assist it in turning the tide once again.
Like Lee mentioned:
"He [Ignatius] does caution that Assad's been beat down this badly before only to be rescued by Iran; could happen again."
Could be already happening.
Lynnette: "You better hope that you are wrong, Marcus, because those millions may end up on your doorstep."
I DO hope I'm wrong Lynnette. And one second reason is am am sure lots of new refugees would end up on our doorstep and I believe that would be a bad thing for Sweden. But, believe it or not, my main reason is I really hate to see all this human suffering going on in the ME.
Lee: "Jeb Bush is proposing a ‘more robust’ NATO military presence on Russia's borders, Poland and the Baltic states especially. How the hell he's gonna get agreement on that from NATO is unclear."
Agreement or not I'd say it's the wrong way to go. Russia will just join in the arms race and the world will be even more dangerous.
Russia has already declared that in responce to a continuation on that "missile defence"-shield (that's said to target Iran but which everyone and his grandmother and her cat knows is aimed at containing Russia) they will dot the border areas with mobile nuclear armed Iskander missile batteries. The responce to a beefed up military presence would likely be the same plus more tanks and arty as well.
If the aim is to initiate an arms race to deplete Russian state coffers then it might be a way. If the aim is a safer world it's not.
"(that's said to target Iran but which everyone and his grandmother
and her cat knows is aimed at containing Russia)"
Everybody and his grandmother must be dumb as that damn cat. Ain't nearly enough missiles in the proposed system to contain the Russians, who would simply swamp it with superior numbers. The Iranians don't have enough nuclear warheads to go that route (won't have enough for that for quite a while, if ever).
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/pentagon-study-u-s-defense-shield-against-iran-missiles-is-seriously-flawed-1.502588
They seem to have their wires crossed. They say the currently proposed system is intended ‘to protect the U.S. from Iranian missiles’. Perhaps you'd like to quote someone who's got a clue instead of these clowns at the Associated Press? (Folks who wouldn't even put their names on it but released it as generic AP reporting without any attributions I noticed, from what seems to be a misreading of an unclassified GAO report.)
And, by the way, I notice that you didn't bother to dispute but that the Russians already have plenty ‘nuff SS-27s to swamp the proposed system. They're probably just looking for an excuse to run those newer SS-26s up against the EU's borders where ya'll can see ‘em mover around regular like and be properly intimidated.
Whatever. Don't feel like bickerin' with ya'll. I'd rather go to Paris and see what the cheese-eatin' surrender-monkeies are upto. So I'm gonna go do that. See ya'll next week.
"Whatever."
Yeah, right.
Marcus can be surley as he pleases, but the Russians didn't design and build those short-range nuclear missiles (250 miles with a nuke on ‘em) to be blasting away at the United States.
And, Obama's gonna send another 450 - 500 soldiers to Iraq--advisers, training and logistics and spotters and like that supposedly. A reaction to the loss of Ramadi no doubt.
And, Obama's gonna send another 450 - 500 soldiers to Iraq--advisers, training and logistics and spotters and like that supposedly.
I saw that. At first I saw 1,000, then it had dropped to 500.
A reaction to the loss of Ramadi no doubt.
I'm sure they'll prove useful for something.
Have a nice trip, Marcus! I've never been to Paris. You'll have to let us know the highlights when you get back.
Early rumors around the news mills are that the new troops are mostly gonna be making first contacts with Sunni tribes in the area, looking for local Sunni folks who wants arms to use against ISIS. This is not gonna make the government in Baghdad all that thrilled, going around their chain of command entirely, but it's probably overdue.
It appears that they are getting all sorts of help to fight ISIL, some of it questionable.
At 51 years' old, and an actor, ya gotta figure he's not a Pat Tillman.
lol! This is true.
It looks like ISIL is coming out ahead of Al Qaida.
I think in this case the Obama administration has been correct in characterizing ISIL as the same as Al Qaida. While they may have a different structure of operations, their extremist behavior warrants the same response we have had to Al Qaida. As they point out it's smart from the legal standpoint.
"… their extremist behavior warrants the same response we have
had to Al Qaida."
I would disagree. They're concentrating on achieving a caliphate in the Middle-East. That means we are a secondary target. Their main targets are local. With al-Qaeda it was reversed (only because bin-Laden concluded (correctly) that the Muslim countries in which it was based would tolerate its presence so long as it didn't directly threaten those same Muslim countries).
With al-Qaeda we pretty much had to take a leading role in the fight, ‘cause most of our erstwhile ‘allies’ in the region would just kick back and enjoy the show while they took pieces out of us.
We can't afford such a laid-back attitude, but we don't have to take the lead role in fighting what is properly their fight now. They don't like it; the neo-cons don't like it; the Republican ‘kill-em-all-and-let-God sort-em-out’ crowd doesn't like; the Pentagon doesn't like it, but it is true.
... we don't have to take the lead role in fighting what is properly their fight now.
From what I have read ISIL, except for those conscripted in its territory, is recruiting a large amount of people from other countries, including the US, as well as Europe. While we may not need to take the lead in all aspects of this fight I still think it necessary in some areas, because they are attempting to recruit people who may be in a position to hurt the homeland. Sure, those in the Texas attack failed, but that doesn't mean the next ones will.
For the countries in the Middle East who are currently infested with ISIL it is certainly their responsibility to deal with that, especially as it is largely due to the Sunni/Shia schism that we are seeing the spread of this in the region. But if we can help then I feel we should. It may bring a quicker and more favorable resolution than if we stepped back and just watched what is happening from the sidelines. Otherwise we will see a generation growing up in the Middle East who are living in the 7th century. A huge waste.
Switching back to Ukraine, which we haven't talked about for a while, here is a small blog post by someone who is visiting Kiev.
I started to listen to the PBS radio program that was mentioned on the Twitter feed, but unfortunately it cut off right after it started. They had just started to talk about NATO and the willingness of various European countries to defend, or not, themselves against Russia. It sounds that many don't see the threat. So, perhaps Marcus is not unusual in his views on that.
"From what I have read ISIL…and etc."
As I mentioned before, I'm not advocating that we take the same sort of laid-back attitude toward ISIS that the regional Muslim countries were taking so long as it was al-Qaeda screwin’ with us. But I do think we ought to make it clear to the locals that we do feel compelled to save their bacon from own bastard children. They raised and fed this beast, now it's come around to bite them. It always was gonna come ‘round to bite them; al-Qaeda's turn from attacking Arab countries to attacking us, the ‘far enemy’ was a temporary, tactical maneuver from the beginning. (And the Obama administration is correct on one thing--doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things if they call themselves al-Qaeda, or ISIL, or ISIS, or re-group later under some other name; although we do need to keep up with the evolutions. But, I digress…)
It always was gonna come around and bite them. This was their baby and we don't have to save them from it now that it's grown up to be a psycho teen-ager. We can afford to make them do the heavy lifting themselves. (At least now that it's morphed back to its original intentions and primary targets.) I don't mind helping where they need the help and we got it to give, but we're not the first one's up anymore and we don't have to step up and volunteer for that position either--I say we should not volunteer. They raised these vipers; they can carry the heavy lift required to take ‘em out, now that they can see the fruits of their ways.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It sounds that many don't see the threat. So, perhaps Marcus is
not unusual in his views on that."
I don't think he's at all unusual. That's why I think we ought to pull out of NATO. It's a defense alliance, and we do not agree on matters of defense anymore. We ought not keep pretending that we do. Trying to keep up that pretense just generates unnecessary friction between us and Europe.
And, we don't need to keep them free of the Soviet orbit anymore. Before we couldn't risk the Soviets getting their hands on European technological and production capabilities. They'd take Europe first, then they'd come after us, with those extra assets behind them. We couldn't risk that happening. Now, the Russians will have their hands more than full just trying to control Europe; they'll not be coming for us afterwards.
While it looks like the Europeans, for the most part, are hesitant to defend themselves, it still looks like Americans and Canadians still feel a strong sense of duty to help if needed.
That's why I think we ought to pull out of NATO.
I still think that is not the right way to go. Right now the Europeans are looking at the situation in Ukraine and thinking it doesn't really affect them. There may come a time when they realize that it does. Europe is still a close ally and trading partner of ours.
And it appears that the migrant problem is being heard loud and clear in Greece.
Writin from My Pad. Just came back to My hotel here in Paris. During dinner we met two lovely yanks from Illinois just south of Chicago. An older gentleman WHO took his granddaugter on à two month trip across europé in between High school and college. Conversed for several jours and shared tips on what to do. Very nice evening.
"I still think that is not the right way to go."
I hold a decidedly minority opinion on this.
"There may come a time when they realize that it does."
At which point they will blame NATO's lack of military capacity on us, and demand that we bear the responsibility (and expense) for making things right.
Quote from your article:
"Not all of the data in the Pew report is bad news for NATO.
According to the study, residents of most NATO countries still believe
that the United States would come to their defense."
Contrary to the opinion expressed here, this is bad news for NATO. It means that the Europeans continue to view NATO as a cost free (to them) commitment by the U.S.A. bear the responsibility and expenses of their defense. This means they have no incentive to suffer any inconveniences like say, not making money selling advanced battleships to Russia, not buying Russian gas, or in any otherwise pissing off the Russians, who can be unpleasant if challenged. And it just irritates the hell out of them when we press them to take any measures short of us coming to their defense if they deem it necessary. That's not the deal they think they got. The deal they think they got is they don't have to do anything, and we're on the hook for their defense.
Stratfor does a ‘Net Assessment’ on the Middle-East. It's not real long, but it is dense. This is analysis of how things got to be the way they are, not a pretense at having ‘the solution’. Fairly good analysis though.
An older gentleman WHO took his granddaugter on à two month trip across europé in between High school and college.
Nice grandfather!
Conversed for several jours and shared tips on what to do. Very nice evening.
That's one of the things I always enjoyed about traveling to a foreign country, meeting new people and enjoying some nice conversation. :)
[Lynnette]: There may come a time when they realize that it does.
[Lee]: At which point they will blame NATO's lack of military capacity on us, and demand that we bear the responsibility (and expense) for making things right.
Which will probably mean it's too late.
[Lynnette]: Not all of the data in the Pew report is bad news for NATO.
According to the study, residents of most NATO countries still believe
that the United States would come to their defense.
[Lee]: Contrary to the opinion expressed here, this is bad news for NATO.
I actually agree with you on this.
I'll have to check out the article tomorrow, it's past my bedtime. :)
"Which will probably mean it's too late."
I suppose we could luck out, but I'm not hopeful on that front.
Right now NATO is mostly just useful to Russia. It gives the Europeans a claim on influencing American foreign policy in Russia's favor. And they can be counted on to do so, as the threat to deploy short-range nukes against Western Europe should show. Those were directed against Europe, which wasn't giving Russia any problems, rather than against us; Russia pressures them to pressure us. And they do it.
In the meantime, all their incentives are to minimize any threat from Russia, on the theory that we will bear the costs when and if the time comes to bear them, and in the meantime there's no reason for them to bear any costs, which may come from displeasing Russia.
So, we've been nagging at them for years to actually make their 2% GDP commitment to NATO, and they've been promising for years to do it, and they just don't (they're cutting defense spending again on average). So, they get irritated at us nagging at them, and we get irritated at them lying to us (which confuses them ‘cause they think any sane people should have known they were lying, and they wind up deciding that the only sane reason for us to be still nagging at them and getting irritated when they lie about it, is that we're warmongers, which is all the more reason to side with Russia at any given time).
It's a wholly dysfunctional relationship.
No time at the moment, just wanted to let everyone know that it seems Zeyad has put his comments section back to English.
I read the Stratfor piece. Very intelligent analysis.
He didn't put forth an idea of Turkey's motivation for their behavior, leaving that for reader speculation. So...my pure speculation is...are they hanging back to see what will shake out in hopes of then stepping in later? Or are they actually backing IS in hopes of picking up some of the pieces after the fighting is done? Is Erdogan dreaming of another Empire? Or are they waiting for the US to step in?
I'm going with Erdoğan holding favorable notions regarding a new Muslim empire, with Turkey holding a dominant position, if not the dominant position.
Could call that a neo-Ottoman then perhaps...
I'm not even clear on why the the first one was called "Ottoman".
Ottoman
And why is this term used for a footstool?
Seriously?
It looks like they have their work cut out for them in Mosul.
Mosul's been a problem for a while now.
Looks like all the crazies are crawling out of the woodwork.
Looks like we're not the only ones with anti-war protesters.
"In reality, things are even worse than they look.
"The nation that is least willing to come to the defense of NATO
members on Russia's border is Germany, which opposes action by a
factor of about three to two. This is crucial because within Europe,
Germany is widely seen as the de facto leader on the tensions with
Russia — and the deciding vote should an eastern NATO member
come under attack."
VOX
Okay, what the hell just happened?
ROFL! I don't know, maybe the blogger Gods wanted to plump up the comments section?
Here, I'll go in and delete the...ummm....extra eight posts. :)
Ahhh, there, that's better.
There is an even greater risk: that Putin will be tempted into testing NATO's resolve to defend the Baltics, but that he will overstep or miscalculate to a degree that forces NATO to counterattack. The potential consequences of such a scenario, of open military conflict between the nuclear powers of Russia and NATO that could easily spiral out of control, are almost too terrible to contemplate.
How many wars have been started due to miscalculation?
There is a risk that Putin will overplay it and force NATO forces to resist him, but I think it's rather less of a risk than the author anticipates. Our ersatz allies in NATO have proven to be willing to pretend to believe all manner of nonsense just to keep up a few mercantile advantages. The chances that they'd be willing to admit to believing anything that would actually require them to take military action are quite small.
…at least for the time being; Putin's not gonna start by invading Germany after all.
No, probably not, but he is going to be a pain in the butt.
He seems to be taking a leaf out of China's playbook. Whatever happens in Europe I don't think we should rest easy on either count.
Post a Comment