Blog powered by Typepad

« Everywhere the grip tightens | Main | First big test failed, Mr. President, let's see how you get on with the second! »

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Excellent find, DD. I can only conclude that either our leaders know something extremely important that they are not going to tell us (i.e. military or diplomatic intelligence) or they are a bunch of utter idiots. I have difficulty deciding which until I remember the pasty tax. That normally does it for me.

"Syria has supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles that have a
range of 300 nm." I have to say that three hundred nanometers is a pretty unfrightening range for a missile.

What the Russians used was fentanyl, which I did not know, before then, could be made a gas. I've given tons of it, as transdermal patches for cancer patients. If the Russians had had adequate supplies of naloxone, preferably in prefilled syringes or just an army of paramedics on hand, to put in endotracheal tubes and get the patients on ventilators, (or even just an even bigger army of nurses to squeeze the air bags), even if they had insufficient vents, they could have gotten the death rate down to single digits, and really impressed me with their cleverness. As it turned out, not so impressed.

None of our damned business, anyway, even if it actually did happen.

Tory MP from Stratford upon Avon was on the roger melly tonight stating that WMD was banned after WW1.
Maybe the interviewer should have mentioned Hiroshima or Nagisaki! Ooops!! Was that the yanks that done it. Boom la la, la la la Boom.

DM, that'd be nautical miles.

Michael. I'm given to understand the Spetznaz operators weren't accustomed to working "with" whatever constitutes Russia's 'Search & Rescue' folks - the 'Fire Department' guys removed the victims from their seated positions (inside the theater) and unceremoniously dumped them (on their backs) on the sidewalks outside.

The theater op coulda been worse - I might've been another school.

JK, That's a detail I had not known. I have a problem with our over-deployment of SWAT teams, but they do have paramedics standing by. Some cities, like Dallas, even have a mobile operating room on the scene, perfusion pump and all. I'm fairly sure the UK has something similar, I know that the Canadians do(Probably minus the mobile surgical suite.)

But, on a much brighter note, it would appear that France and Britain have succeeded in making their governments see sense, at least for now. This may have a beneficial spill-over for us. I know that many British people think their government follows the leader, in DC. However, there is a great deal of similar complaint over here.

Note, I said that the countries, i.e. the people thereof. We HAVE governments. The governments are not the country, whatever they might think.

OK, time to go save lives and stamp out suffering, or at least, not the contrary.

Cynical though it may seem, it is not in our interests for the Syrian conflict to end any time soon.

If the Sunni and Shia Islamist / Jihadi nutters wish to get on planes, trains and automobiles and leave the West (and anywhere else in the world, for that matter) to go to a place we don't give a shit about and slaughter each other, we should be rejoicing!

There is no hatred like brotherly hatred, and when two bully brothers have menaced a street of neighbours, what better outcome for the neighbours than the two brothers decide to fight each other?

When they fight each other they're too busy to bully the neighbours. If anything the neighbours should be holding their coats while they knock six bells out of each other! We should be handing out plane fares to the Taliban and Hezbollah; instead of points reward cards, give them an AK47, RPG with ammo, pat them on the back, and send them on their way to Syria.

And when one of the bullies has finally snuffed out the other, and emerges exhausted from the fight, even the weak and feeble neighbours can muster up the will to rub him out.

What better solution for Russia, the West, Arabia, Afghanistan, well, the entire world in fact, to solve its Islamist / Jihadi problem than to help them on their way to somewhere where they slaughter each other - something they are keen to do themselves?

The last thing we want is for one or other side to win the war too quickly. Chemical weapons could do just that for Assad. So a surgical strike on Assad, if correctly explained as being confined only to make his side stop using chemical weapons, would rebalance the conflict nicely.

Bring to the boil and simmer consistently for about 100 years. Like the wars of religion that were confined to Christian lands, it's only fair that an Islamic land hosts its own factional conflict. And in 2113, when the victor stumbles away from the body of the vanquished, we can squish him too; then like Christianity after the wars of religion, Islam can enter Enlightenment and join the modern world.

A bit like the way we fought world war 2 really: we hung back on our island and held off those feisty yanks who wanted to get stuck in too soon, while we let class-Socialism and race-Socialism beat each other to a pulp, only helping and stoking just enough to keep the violence levels between the two to a max. And then only when decency was stretched to the limit, we joined in - more or less just in time for the victory parade!*

And wasn't class-Socialism so much the weaker for having battered itself to death with its brother-from-another-mother? The strategy saved us from facing another hot war, rather it was cold. I can't remember who it was who said that Stalin did more for democracy in Europe than anyone else.

SoD

* Yes DM, I know, try telling that to those who fought in the Normandy bocage, I'm talking relatively.

One problem is that what we sometimes call 'Wars of Religion' were really about something else, the rise of the Bourgeoisie. (e.g.Catholic France fighting on the side of German Protestants.) If the Moslems are really, actually fighting about Mo Hammad's succession, I don't have a good picture of what might emerge. A great deal of it is tribal, if I am understanding correctly. I really can't see an end to that. If we get rid of O'Bozo, and oil exploration takes off, the diminishing oil reserves in most of the Middle East will bring in less revenue, so they'll be able to afford less ammo.(Maybe?) Trouble with that rosy scenario is that, when the UN sanctions were cutting deeply into Saddam's revenue stream, he just spent what he had on weaponry, and then complained his people were starving and dying for lack of food and medicine. However, your starting premise is right, better that they fight each other than us. Yes, it's cynical, and I am a little ashamed for agreeing with it, but it is the unvarnished truth.

The familial allegory is apt. They're fighting each other with gusto but if an outsider steps up .. they'll 'both' turn on him.

This is not, as you say, about some doctrinal differences, this is about power and wealth.

My worry on the scenario of 'stand back and let em have at it' is just how the 'communities' here in Blighty will react. Will we have a few 'altercations'? What are the odds on a Bradford vs Luton match? (or more probably both sides attacking us for not supporting them, saying the wrong thing, looking the wrong way, being offensively white)

You're right, keeping a "long slow burn" war going between our enemies requires some skill to avoid becoming the cause of a "kiss-and-make-up" scenario and thence a target. Possibly beyond the competency reach of our lot.

The vote has decided we won't even try now, anyway. We must just hope the Saudis are sneakily supplying some decent gear to keep the Sunni nutters in the fight.

SoD

The comments to this entry are closed.