<body>

Discolor Online

Weblog of the sweetest person you never want to piss off.

 

Rant Twofer

I was in the car last night listening to the radio and so I heard President Bush's speech about his current plan for Iraq, including the troop "surge". I noted a couple of quotes in particular. First, Bush said:

"In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

I read this as an attempt to address the problem of Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army whose wishes even Prime Minister Maliki has deferred to. Muqtada al-Sadr is king of "sectarian interference". His group also controls 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament. I'm really baffled about how American forces can deal with that...

Bush also said:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

At first I thought I was over-reacting in thinking that this sounded like the same sort of fighting words that preceded our war on Afghanistan but then I read this:

American forces just stormed the Iranian Consulate in Irbil, Iraq, confiscated papers and equipment, and arrested five people. I'm deeply concerned about the ramifications of these actions.



Closer to home, the Federal Way school board has decided to restrict showings of An Inconvenient Truth because a family has complained.

"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

What is wrong with people?! You want to debate the accuracy or validity of the scientific evidence put forward in the film, go ahead! Let's have it out in open, honest debate. Perfect! Enforcing public ignorance based on your personal religious views? Hell no.

Check what The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (referenced in the news article) has to say. How about the American Meteorological Society, or the American Geophysical Union, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or Th National Academy of Science? Any of them have "opposing views"? If not, if the scientific consensus is that global warming (or "climate change" as it's being couched these days) is here and is a problem, why does education on this subject have to screech to a halt based on this:
"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said.

I ask again, what is wrong with people?!

Labels: , ,

 
 

Wargames

In the context of games and gaming, my friend Robin Laws pointed several of us to this article.

I'm reminded of the American Revolution and the Battle of Bunker Hill. The better trained, better armed, superior forces of the British lined up to fight against the colonists, only to find that the rules had changed. The would-be Americans didn't shirk from using "partisans" and "irregulars" nor did they hesitate to use guerrilla warfare. "All out war for all out victory" was the new doctrine. The British eventually won Bunker Hill, but they lost the war.

They had won the battle, but at a terrible cost: out of 2,200 troops, 268 British soldiers and officers had been killed; another 828 were wounded. The Americans also suffered heavy casualties with 115 killed and 305 wounded. The British army’s military victory at the battle of Bunker Hill was a moral victory for the colonists, however. Colonists throughout America realized that the conflict was no longer just a rebellion of Bostonians and other Massachusetts colonists against British occupation. They had proved to themselves that, united, they had the ability and the character to confront the superior force of the British army. The cost of British victory was so great that serious doubts were raised about English leadership; many now understood that war with the colonies would be hard, long, and expensive to both sides.

Labels: ,