Oop, two minor things:

1) It's worth mentioning that our government DOES fund Radio Sawa, which is basically Radio Free America in Arabic, in Iraq, and they also provide feeds to CNN and Fox News in Iraq. So it's not like they compeltely dropped the ball. It's just the local angle that's been missing.

2) We're also raising money simultaneously for medical supplies, tools, and other aide for both Iraqis and Afghans, all to be distributed by service members volunteering. It's not just the TV project!

Just thought I'd mention!

Dean

I guess there are those who value character and those who just desire someone with similar policies to represent them.

I suppose some have a different definition of character. A non-webstarian definition.

I guess it's funny what style works with people. On a policy level it's hard to see a huge difference between the two men, but on a personal level the styles couldn't be more different.

I'm interested in how you can view Bush as "honest." The "war on terror" is based on the idea that "the terrorists" exist as such, when that is in fact false.

Micah,
Are you trolling? If not, please elaborate your point because I missed it.

(mostly devil's advocacy - as I don't really care all that much - sorry!)
Like I said earlier, I'm no economist. I'm not sure who Bill Kovarik is - the site indicates he was a journalist and is now a Professor of Media Studies?
Media Studies???
Scientists like me had names for people doing media studies! at college! 8)

Anyway.
Yes, Oil is a finite resource. It will run out as an economically useful resource one day. Some analyses indicate sooner, some later.

I'm not sure a purely "economic" view is useful? The "we've got loads let's burn it now" is a valid attitude?

Anyway
Some other (expert???) reports?

From Scientific American (reportedly) which disputes the validity of some of the published figures?

US EIA - International Energy Outlook 2004 which is huge and I don't care to read - sorry! Perhaps you economists can find the time?

What should worry me is that if we just keep burning this stuff - we are probably in for a bad time sometime.
It doesn't worry me - coz I'll probably be dead by then anyway.

Pollution in US cities increases heart disease

and whilst the US is doing a good job trying to clean up "its environmental act" some of the "figures" are quite astonishing (if true)

Clean Air Council

If we end up burning all that predicted oil reserve, are we burying enough carbon or planting enough plants to remove it again from the "system"? Perhaps you need to bury more diapers!? Oil/coal/gas are products millions of years old - that carbon has been trapped away while we evolved without it free in our atmosphere...

The larger that reserve is - the worse it could get.

Your "trust" in technology advance may be "optimistic".
Technology may be unable to find solutions - at all? We see it everywhere... it creates our "local" world -

"Teknik … Kniff, die welt so einzurichten, dass vir sie nicht erleben müssen."
(Technology… the knack of so arranging the world that we need not experience it.
Max Frisch 1911-
Swiss novelist and playwright

We're all likely to be dead in 4.5billion years when the sun burns out anyway - so who cares? 8)

Glad to see those embedded URLs – good for you!

I agree that burning anything, including oil, most likely increases the odds of people contracting lung cancer. The important question is whether the benefits of living in a modern society outweigh the problems of modern society. Before the industrial age, the air was much cleaner and fewer people died of lung cancer. However, life expectancies were much lower than they are now. So all in all, I'd rather live now than a few hundred years ago. (One of the misleading things about westerns is their clean streets. The average horse produces about 25 pounds of excrement per day. Moving to horseless carriages was a tremendous step forward for public hygiene).

At some point in the future, we will move to an even better solution than burning oil. Yet we will do so because these solutions are better for us (e.g., less air pollution, less dependence on other countries), not because we ran out of oil. The Scientific American link was quite interesting. But even their pessimistic view states that there are over a trillion barrels of conventional oil left to be extracted (page 81). This is consistent with the numbers collected by Kovarik.

One of the many reasons why we consume so much oil is that it is relatively cheap. Thus, we have spent many times the resources on devices than run on oil vs. running on alternatives. If we actually ran out of oil (or if it just got relatively expensive in innovative cultures), we would have alternatives on the market in a remarkable short time-frame. However, since there is no urgency, and since oil is relatively cheap, it will take time for these alternatives to come to market. I actually work in the same building as some people researching fuel cells. In their opinion, there could be fuel cells running cars in less than 5 years (and not the hybrids either). However, they don't realistically expect this to happen for about 10 to 15 years because there is no economic reason to switch. Some businesses will also have to come up with methods for safely storing and transporting hydrogen across the country just as people had to develop an infrastructure for transporting gasoline across the nation when automobiles were developed.

I do have faith in technology, the scientific method, and in people coming up with new solutions so long as their culture fosters innovation. If that makes me an optimist, then guilty as charged. :-)

(I still don't really care - but no-one has responded - so I guess I will?)

Oh well... I hope your faith is science is as strong as some people's faith in a divine being. I am a scientist - of sorts. If BMD and space probes count? I design complex electronics and even now I see an end to "technology" as I see it. There are no real major "breakthoughs" today - just smaller and smaller mobiles? Wow.

Oil is cheap? Perhaps.
Or is it?

I'm no Green. I just think logically. Very, very logically. I see us burning all the locked-up carbon in the world, and not burying a balanced measure. I see "the sons of Abraham" beating the wotsit out of each other for illogical reasons and I see the "great power(s)" justifying intervention when it suits political aims when they think they can win.

I see justifications for all sorts of things, like why the US is superior and why terrorism is wrong and why democracy is wonderful. I hear (obviously?) incorrect reports about the CIA recruiting Saddam to assassinate someone? US support for Iraq vs Iran. But when Oil becomes an issue? I don't really care anymore.

It's all bollocks really.

Humankind has evolved (or been created by the DB) for many many thousands of years.

Right now we are almost 60 years away from the only offensive use of The Atom Bomb - and colour television was yet to be achieved. The US experimented with atomic weapons for civil engineering tests! Television has at least gone "colour" since then...

We still burn oil/gas/coal and so on - and like the gun - nothing has really progessed for 100 years or more. There are only more guns and more people burning oil.

We can now change our planetary environment faster than we can evolve to live in what we create.

This isn't about Left/Right politics, it's not about Religeons, it's not about Nations or United Nations.

It's about Greed.

"I want" - regardless of the consequences.

How about "the human species"?

I do agree much of the political discussions may not mean much. Human nature is flawed and technology has not changed this. Atheism is a depressing religion. But even assuming you are an atheist (and this is a large assumption on my part; correct me if I'm wrong), your overall outlook seems depressing to me. I hope it is not depressing to you.

No scientific breakthroughs in the last 100 (60?) years? Current advances in biotechnology and nanotechnology are quite promising and we are only at the very, very early stages of both technologies. Both have much promise. We have the technology for spaceflight (if not the will to do more than dabble with it). The invention of the internet is revolutionalizing communications and will continue to change our world in many ways (including allowing folks like us, who would have never met otherwise, to exchange views and better understand each other).

Fuel cells are still years away (perhaps a decade or so), but even if we don't find any more oil other than the trillion barrels of conventional oil (and trillions more of unconventional oil) already discovered, we will have plenty of oil left when these are operational. And if all of the estimates are wrong and we start running out early, fuel cells could go to market earlier (there is just no economic reason to bring them to market when they are expensive given plentiful and cheap oil).

We know easy and effective ways to capture and bury carbon (scroll up to top of link) and should this prove necessary, it can be easily done.

Nor do I see all of this as about Greed. Sure, that's some of it, but much of it is what I would call enlightened self interest. By almost every conceivable measure (life expectancy, availability of potable water, percentage of people not starving, etc.), we are far better off than at any time in the past and the trends continue to improve. This is a good thing.

You are not wrong. Yes, I am an Atheist. I mentioned this on my desciption you can get if you hit my name/link below?
I was also not Christened so I may be a heathen too?

Atheism is not a "depressing religeon".

Time for a quote?
"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
John Buchan 1875-1940
Scottish novelist
Governor-general of Canada 1935-40

Which I like because of the humourous wordplay rather than than any accusatory aspect?! 8)
I'm not depressed by my outlook on life. If you read my self-description you note that I don't have much respect for the "human race" as a species. It certainly hasn't exhibited much in the way of "value" - except to itself? It is merely the dominant species on this rock. Three cheers! Hmmn.

Fuel Cells: Sound great. The only problem is, is that they don't actually create energy, they merely store it for use. Like any kind of battery. The energy still has to come from somewhere, in this case, from Hydrogen. FCs are very clean when used, but how clean is the method of making the Hydrogen? There are some interesting avenues being investigated I agree.
US DoE Info

But: We still need the Energy from somewhere...
I still fall back on the basic premise that, whilst we have abundant stored energy available now (in unrenewables), at some point in the (hopefully) distant future we will run out, at that point we will have to rely on the only (important) energy input the Earth has. Solar energy. It all boils down to that in the end.
Obviously, this presupposes that we won't get our energy off other planets. That way lies other dangers.
There are also at least a couple of other long-life and relatively clean energy sources:
Nuclear Fusion. If we can use that Hydrogen in much smaller quantities to generate power we might be on the right track. We might run out of Lithium in a 1000years or so though.
Geothermal. Might last a while longer - it might save the world. Only problem is we have a population growing faster than resources can accomodate. Hence starvation and terrorism and "haves" and "have nots" and so on.

Someone asked me earlier to use my logic/electronics experience to analyse something else (?). If you look at the Earth as a "black box" it has one major input - light - and some minor ones (gravitons, rocks, solar wind) - plus the box contains a fairly large "battery" of stored energy. Outputs? Radiated/reflected energy, Hydrogen, Helium, the odd spaceship...
one day the "battery" will indeed run out...?
An analysis.
this only one viewpoint, I know, and I'm sure you can find contrary arguments. I'm not too bothered (see below).

Dumping Carbon
Dumping Iron Sulphate in the oceans sounds a lot like the Euglandina rosea story all over again. These sorts of things worry me (not much really though!). I'm not too convinced how sustainable these sorts of methods are?

Progress?
Perhaps I expressed myself badly. I was referring to energy production specifically - not nano-tech and biotech. Rather dodgy areas for some in any case? Either one of these could easily exterminate our species if badly controlled.
Anyway -
Energy production - like the gun - hasn't progressed much recently. The only real innovation in energy production is Nuclear Fusion/Fission. We've been burning "stuff" for hundreds of years, we've used wind energy almost as long, solar power has gone a bit more "techno" but not much else. Tide power might be considered new-ish, but isn't really very viable IMO. Geothermal - OK - that's newish too, although some nations have used them for hot baths for quite a while? 8)

Basically we can argue energy issues 'til the sun turns cold. What we have isn't an energy problem - it's an energy demand problem - ultimately - a population increase problem. We have an overriding faith in the concept of "growth". That is what is ultimately unsustainable.

Also?
When a dominant species gets too widespread, the less dominant ones "learn" to exploit that. Viruses and bacteria in particular.
I personally suspect we will all die out through using up all our anti-biotic solutions. One day one of those bugs'll get us! 8)

I'm not too bothered?
Inevitably, I think, the human species will either become extinct, in loneliness, on this rock, or spread itself like a virus itself across the Universe leaving the expiring remnants of its profligacy on used-up and overpopulated worlds in its wake.

Depressing? Not really - just think of it as "evolution in action". If you accept that the human species as "just another animal" and "blaspheme" by accepting that there is no Divine Being - you just sit down and enjoy things while you're here, accept that you're gonna die and try to live without stress, aggravation and hatreds.
On the species level - the same thing applies.

Thanks for both the reminder and your description. I read it on your first post and then forgot all about it when I wrote my last post.

No insult taken nor intended on our exchanges. I'm glad you don't find your worldview depressing. I find atheism to be a depressing religion because IMO it takes more faith to believe life was a chance accident than it does to believe in intelligent design, but I am glad the fact you think all human endeavor is eventually futile is not depressing for you.

It may interest you that the Christian view of man is similar to your own; Man is a fallen sinful creature who, as a species, will never overcome his sinful nature without help. But this is digressing quite a bit from our original topic.

Yes, fuel cells do not solve every problem, but it is certainly an improvement over our current situation. I have every confidence that we will produce a better solution over time; but I also expect to use fuel cells for a large portion of my life.

Your black box analogy is pretty good, but we have other inputs other than solar energy. The amount of space debris that impacts Earth (or, more accurately, impacts our atmosphere and rains down to Earth) is quite large. Also, current fission reactors can produce more energy than they consume, although they do have problems with nuclear waste. But I mostly agree with your points, I just have more faith that we will find better and better solutions with them.

I did misunderstand your point about new technologies, but biotechnology may resolve some fuel problems too; fuel cells do not have to burn hydrogen; there may be fuel cells that "burn" a special type of bacteria that grows in sewage sludge. These fuel cells would take the place of current sewers and also power your home. True, this is mostly theoretical right now, but it could easily come to pass in another hundred years or so.

I don't understand your Euglandina rosea reference. What does a land snail have to do with a process for burying carbon?

Our main disagreement seems to be how we see people and how we are progressing. Despite all our flaws, I see people as a great resource. With more people than ever before, a greater percentage of people have access to clean water and sufficient food than ever before. You called this a an overriding faith in the concept of "growth". That is what is ultimately unsustainable. I do not agree it is unsustainable (or more precisely, I believe we have plenty of room to grow and that as a nation's wealth increases, society will naturally check it's own growth). People are an asset, not a liability.

As parts of Europe are expecting to dramatically decrease their population over the next 30 to 50 years, I think one of their main problems will be finding ways to increase their growth instead of worrying about hypothetical problems about too much growth.

Having done with chainsaws for the moment, let's cut through this a bit.

Frankly, it's all about convenience. To change over to any other source of energy than reprocessed Dino Juice would require a complete change in the energy infrastructure.

This means that some fairly large percentage of the existing investment on infrastructure would become useless. Big money does not like waste. Do some research and see who holds the restricting patents - globally - on the "emerging" alternative technologies - the answer is, the current enregy companies....aka Big Oil. True, they are doing further research, but what is the goal of that research? to provide us with something new that does not pollute as much? No, to continue to be ableto hold those restrictive patents.

Why is it so cheap to produce a Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon chip in comparrison to a high efficiency solar cell? The technology required for hte solar cell is much cheaper than that of the CPU (okay, the cpus are more expensive, but the Northgate nad SouthGate chips, the sound controllers, the memory chips - the blasted circuit board they are mounted on are not)

I was watching an episode of NOVA 20+ years ago in whcih they were going on about fuel cells and alternative fuel sources. I am sorry to say that the available tech for us consumers is not much advanced over that (bearly at all) and I fid it hard to believe that the worl wide scientific community would not be at all attracked to the study of such things.

As for Hydrogen generation being dirty - bah! - there are tons of ways to generate Hydrogen that are compeltely clean, or that serve to clean up some other waste stream that is decidedly unclean (sewage is a prime example - tons (literally) of hydrogen there) the really nasty big of this clean energy is that each of us can in fact supply a bit of our own needs completely cost free (once the equipment is in place) and that is what Big Oil is most concerned with - imagine if everyone out there was able to supply say even 2% of their overall energy needs themselves...what would that do to the revenue stream.

Imagine our man in charge Mr. President in say 8 months if the overall demand for energy was cut by 2%, by 10% ??? What would he do then? What about his #2 man? what would he do?

So gentlemen, and any others, let cut right to the bottom. The current view on energy and the fosil fuel reserves and the effect that these reserves have on cost is folly. We know how to make lots of enregy that is perfectly clean and thus preserving of the earth's ecosystems for millenia to come, certianly the cost to do so is high - right now - but as much of the basic tech is ancient, it must be argued that the cost is held artificially high, much of that due to licensing costs, and regardless economies of scale would rule and the cost would fall. The ironic part is that much of the "clean" energy souces have no on going fuel cost, so this means no residual income from feeding the thing...busniess is not interested in one-offs, they want regular, steady, continuious income streams so that they can project just how many martinis they can have with lunch in 2010.

Now, this all being said, we can go back to the corbon balance discusion - a very real one - and pick that up where we left off.

Other than my disbelief in the conspiracy theory about big oil owning all the alternative energy patents, I agree with your points.

The conspiracy theory never made much sense to me and I've been hearing how the evil oil companies have all the patents tied up for close to thirty years now. And I suspect these theories go back farther than my memories of them. Since the lifetime of a patent is now 20 years (up from 17 years), something does not hold water...

I 100% agree there are clean ways to obtain hydrogen. We will have to develop safe ways to transmit it to every town just as we had to do this for gasoline a century ago.

Hiya Adn. Trontor!

I almost thought Don and I were on our own here! 8)

Don - no insult inferred in any way! However - I prefer to avoid religeous discussion as I neither want to change your views nor wish you to try and change mine. If "sin" is equivalent to "ecological folly" - we might agree! 8)

I will gladly "have faith" that clean Hydrogen may be producable even in the near future.
The basic premise is still that FCs need energy and I suspect we'll burn all those fossils until we run out, then we'll run out of the next unrenewable "solution" until one day, possibly way too late we'll be back to beeswax candles and bedtime when it gets dark again.

We are talking entropy management here, and current politics/ enonomics/ population growth etc are just shoving harder - in the wrong direction?

At the end of the day our "planetary battery" will run out - we will become energy "hunter gatherers" only, perhaps.

I'm no prophet of our future! - I just consider that the human species seems to be exhibiting much the same properties as a bacterium in a petri dish. It grows 'til it reaches the edges, and if it can't get out, will eat all the agar solution until it runs out and dies. A perspective only?

The black box analogue still holds true in the ultimate analysis I think. I covered the aspect of space debris under the term "rocks". If we have to rely on vacuuming the Earth's surface for this material - we'd be too poor to do it?
You can't "make energy". Only extract it. Even the Sun is just another "battery" - it too will run flat one day. The only basic truism I can see on our macroscopic view is Entropy.

I like Entropy - it doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is! 8)

Euglandina rosea
An ecological microcosm issue. Some islands/locations introduced this snail eating snail to "ecologically" control the intrusion/introduction of Achatina fulica - which as a result has lead in some places to the near extinction of other indigenous snail species. "Ecological solutions" often only make things worse. The best way to avoid these issues is not to "play" with the ecology in the first place. Most nations now realise this. Indigenous NZ wildlife is threatened by the cute looking Possum, Australia is riddled with Rabbits, in the UK we have a minor problem with escaped/freed Mink. These are just examples. We're now more fightened of the imported Potato or Brazil Nut than we are of guns and drugs - I think.
Anyway - the snail thing... links
Euglandina rosea
Achatina fulica

No. I don't have any solutions. Dumping megatons of Iron Sulphate in the oceans might just trigger off other events. No idea what, but like generating energy from the Gulf Stream might divert it and bugger up the UK's climate patterns... no thanks. I like my climate. (I live 5 degrees north of Montreal - but if we get 1" of snow the country virtually collapses - it takes hours to get home for some. Snow is rare - we get maybe one or two days a year (where I live).)

"Big money does not like waste."
What Big Money also does not like is losing profit by being Clean. What big money likes is more money. This leaks into the "person in charge" issue. Who decides? Who signs Kyoto? etc

The basics as far as I can see is that whilst "enlightened self interest" operates (and I doubt the "enlightened" bit - a lot) we are spiralling out of control towards a future misery of "haves" and "have nots".
The modern perspective is that the "poor" and "uneducated" can field 10 year old boys with Kalashnikovs to fight against "unjust wrongs" and population growth is still rampant. The "have nots" can now hijack planes and kill thousands.

We're on a very very slippery slope. I suspect we will not find a way to stop in time.

In the mean time - enjoy yourself. I do

Cassivellaunus,
I've been thinking about how to oblige your request to avoid religious discussion while still talking about our original subject. I think we'll have to keep the discussion to the relatively near future (not the billions of years you mentioned). Not only meet your request, it also makes more sense. Assuming mankind is still around even a thousand years from now (let alone a million), we have less understanding of what their technological capabilities will be than an educated nobleman in the year 1004 AD could have imagined about life in 2004.

In the relatively short-term - "just" a century or two - you seem to believe we will have major energy problems because of two key reasons.

1) We will run out of non-renewable solutions in this time frame and
2) our population continues to grow "too much".

Is this a fair assessment of your position?

Regarding "We are about to run out of Oil":

I would refer you to:

The Real Oil Problem.

This is a publication by M.A. Adelman of MIT. He notes that Jimmy Carter (a brilliant mind, one of our most profoundly intelligent presidents per The Economist) stated in 1979 we would run out of oil by 1990, and that John Strong Newberry stated in 1875 (EIGHTEEN Seventy five) we would run "soon" (129 years and counting) but, more to the point of "we are about to run out of lots of stuff" is the concern in 1800 that "we are about to run out of coal". In fact, coal production for Europe peaked in 1913. There is still lots of coal in the ground. It is relatively expensive to extract relative to the costs of other energy sources, but it is still there and if is should, at some point, become less expensive then people will start digging it up again. The coal didn't run out. It became "uneconomical" to use. Note that "uneconomical" does not mean "I am so smart I know it will someday be expensive" but "it is expensive in a market economy."

We use what is the cheapest, simplest resource to get the job done. When that resource becomes more expensive, we make other plans - use another source of energy in this case.

But we didn't run out shortly after 1977, shortly after 1875, nor shortly after 1800.

This is Greg by the way...

I can't deny any of Brian's comments, Sage advice if ever I heard it. The suggestion of only 1 extra chain and no extra bar was due to Don Quixote's concern with budget on the initial purchase - I wanted him to get enough to work with AND the saftey gear, the rest he will collect over the years.

As Brian indicates, over the years you ammass a nice collection. We have several bars and chains on the wall, or "in the truck" - our wood lot is adjecent to the house/barn/shed etc so 99% of the stuff stays there. We also have a collection of saws for different types of cutting, so as opposed to bringng a second bar, we just bring a second saw - there are usually two of us out there as well. If the morning goes well, I dress up the chains at lunch and we go back out for the afternoon - hit a rock in the field and it's a bit of a bummer. Can't stress enough the goodness of a sharp chain - I've even gone so far as to resharpen one if I got it wrong (it's all about geometry, each chain has it's own preference) rather than fight with a poorly cutting chain all day. A sharp chain cutting in clean green wood will stay sharp for a good long time (1/2 day anyway) and can be dressed up while you finish off that bottle of pop from lunch (with practice)

What we have is a dedicated tool box which holds all the various files and sharpening guides etc. If we are going to range far and wide, the tool box, grease gun, fuel mix, and bar oil, extra bars and chains goes with us.

Over the years, the desire NOT to have to resharpen the chains got me/us good at not hitting the ground etc. Dirty trunks (either the outside being encrusted with mud, ingrown barbed wire - an all time favorite - or you suspect hidden stuff like nails and old signs or CHAIN - I've hit it all)are the defenite chain killers. Hit something good and the chain is junk, or is going to take a lot of work to get back to shape - the worst part is that ALL the teeth must be the same profile, so you can end up filing away a lot of good chain to get them all even - these become your "junk chains" for use in this sort of cutting.

As Brian indicates, replace worn out items (chains and bars) while they have some useful life left in them, they come in handy.

Cell phone in pocket - BUTTONING pocket is key, you do a lot of bending and standing and the phone WILL fly if you rely on the belt clip or just drop it in - of course, there is always a rock or piece of roadway for it to land on (thus spake the voice of bitter experience)

As for the difference between Poulan and Husky - the heavy duty construction is a very nice thing in terms of smooth running and reliability. The commercial saws also have a chromed cyclinder wall, this makes a big difference in wear in air cooled engines. Other than that, I guess it's a matter of pocket book and color preference (I was not aware that Poulan had been bought by Husky)and having been a man of orange for not quite as long as Brian has been with Green, I suspectthat I will remain loyal. That saw has never let me down. But before this degenerates into a shouting match over who/which is better, it must be said that lumberjack and saw should be a VERY comfortable fit. As I told Don Quixote, in our collection of saws we have brands other than Husqvarna - price and intended use were prime considerations at the time of purchase...but all are well balanced and comfortable to hold (other saws are Echo - for working up in the branches of a standing tree - light weight and about $300.00 cheaper than the Husky counterpart - but clearly not as good a machine - whe have a STHIL - were it not for the addition of an 8 tooth rim sprocket upgrade for the saw we would have gotten rid of it, machanically it's sound, but in terms of cutting is a far second to the Husky, Johnsered's - prior to the company being sold, this saw is 20+ years old and it was THE saw (better than the STHILs - and hands down better than the Homelites that we first started with but soon got rid of those loud, smoke beltching, bone chattering things and got the Johnsered's thus was the beginning of the "commercial grade chainsaws or don't bother" era, and lastly we have what is effectively another echo - it's a pole pruner and is specifically a form follows function sort of thing, again Husky version was WAY out of price league, though I think that they have a competative model now. We have other Huskys too.

Bottom Line: Get what feels good and has a strong safety record. I've always felt that buying the heaviest dutiest tool that I can will serve me best in the long run.

In the case of Don Quixote, he initially had some criteria of choice and of those Husky was hands down winner, I sort of scared him into the 346XP over a less costly husky alternative, but that was based on the fact that he stated that he would be doing a bunch of his cutting SOLO. The extra $100.00 for the safety features seemed like really cheap insurance, as Brian said, it only takes once - I haven't had my once yet, and hopefully never will (but I'm going to buy some chaps very soon - haven't had them "all these years" but I've managed to scare myself into a pair as well - seems that now that I'm not a singel teenager I don't feel so invinsible anymore.... Apparently Mrs. Quixote was happy with that part of this deal.

At 30 face cords a year, Brian knows from where he speaks, we only did about half that at the peak - two guys on weekends around family concerns and general upkeep of machines and property, I think we did okay. Dad is Brian's Age and I'm about 20 behind that. (presented for purposes of realative sageness) and I speak for my Dad here too, so combined perhaps we have more sageness ???? whatever.

Chainsaws are incredible tools (just try it with a buck saw and and an axe!) But they have the potential to be very nasty with a strange taste for flesh and bone.

Be careful, be safe, enjoy those winter nights by the fire!

(WOW!! That turned out pretty long - sorry. And yes, I could certianly keep going)

LOL -- He just THOUGHT he was going to be cutting solo! I was right there with the phone :)

I grew up on a farm. Whenever my father was using the chainsaw, one of the children went along just to watch. This was before common cell-phone usage. Having a "watcher" kept my mother from worrying. Just that little extra-bit of safety. And we all heard the story many times of the man that lived next to the Simpsons that chainsawed alone, cut his leg, and bled to death. (We also heard about the Harper girl that was blinded by fireworks, and that Kirkland boy and snake-bites, etc).

When I was a teenager, I was the "watcher" the day the chain snapped back and caught my father across the neck. For some reason, the chain just stopped. He had a serious scratch from the flat impact of a big chainsaw hitting him in the neck. But, he wasn't decapitated. It made an impression on me.

(Its just as well AQ got advice from Greg and Brian because I was really leaning toward the newer "pastel" colored saws at Lowes.)

Not to scare anyone, but growing up we had a family friend kill himself with a chain-saw (hit a nail while putting on too much pressure due to a dull chain) This was long before safety bars. Chain saws are a tool, and like any tool, safety MUST come first.

So... when do you start juggling them?

ALWAYS safety first - ALWAYS

the real trouble comes after you get comfortable with the tool, then you start to take chances that you would never have done when it still scarred the pants off you - case in point is my tablesaw - it threw a piece at me, and had even said to myself: 'Self, should NOT leave that there, it's going to throw it' but I did, 'cause I said: 'it's just for a second, I'm turning off the saw anyway...ooof!...D*mn....sh*t....that's going to leave a mark....thud [the last was my sorry backside hitting the egg crate....the saw had grabbed and thrown a 7 1/2" x 2 3/4" x 3/8" chunk of pine at me and caught me in the ribs. I lucked out as the carbide tooth the was broken off in the process missed me. I was too lazy to put on the feather boards etc for the cut - knew I should have, but didn't. At leat I had the presence of mind to have my son stand well back and on the safe side of the saw....I was lucky, it missed anything vital (perhaps it should have hit me in the head??) and left only a very sore bruise for about a week as a souvenier for my troubles.]

However, I have never gotten hurt (knock on head) with a chain saw, but know someone who did - he's lucky to be walking on 2 feet - in this case it was a 2 man job, his dad had sawn half way through his shin before either of them realized it, he was holding the end of the log up while dad cut through it - nice scar - made big impression on impressionable 12 year old holding onto first chainsaw (I was a big 12 year old) one that I wont soon forget.

Your dad was a lucky man. No question about it. The husky would do no worse in the same situation, the chain will be stopped before it hits AQ's neck - though I have never broken a chain yet (watch the chain tension and you wont have problems....don't tighten too much when it's hot or else it shrinks and overstrains itself when cold - if you do have to tighten a lot when hot, loosen a little before it cools, or watch it when it's cooling off....chain should be able to be pulled through by hand ensure that kill switch is in the OFF position, preferably with the plug wire disconnected with moderate effort, if you feel you are pulling hard, or it's biting hard into your bare hands, then it's too tight and only waring out bar and chain faster than it should) As stated someplace before, the chain sprcket and clutch freewheel on the drive shaft while you are doing this, so you are NOT pulling the piston through it's cycle, however, a hot engine with a left over charge, or partial charge, in the cylinder could under specific circumstances result in a single "pop" which, could result in a shredded hand. The kill switch works by groundingthe spark plug circuit - very old and very reliable process - but pulling off the wire is the extra insurance that takes only a second to do.

ALWAYS ensure that the kill switch IS working. Normally, the day will start by prepping the saw for work and then starting it right there at the garage and running it for a minute or so, enough to get it to run smoothly - just to ensure that anything like a fouled plug, or clogged jet isn't going to end the day early and make the round trip a waste of time. Then shut the saw off using the kill switch. If it DOES NOT shut off with the switch, place on firm surface (like the ground) and hold it down with one hand and your foot (through hand guard,but off of throttle) and then pull the plug wire off the plug or otherwise ground the circuit. FIX THE SWITCH right away. I have had this happen from time to time, a wood chip or small stick has gotten into the works - some such switches use to be just a metal blade that was pushed into contact with a ground by moving the switch - I'm fairly sure that all new stuff use completely enclosed switches - these can still fail.

Another little safety trick is the throttle jab, this enaure that your finger is not somehow binding up the throttle and that when you let go, it let's go. Gloves can get caught up in the throttle from time to time and you don't realize it. This is the same as the drag racer sitting at the line and gunning his engine....before you clamp down hard on the throttle to make a big cut, just goose it a touch, just to be sure that you have response - it becomes second nature, doesn't seem to bother the saw at all, and as all these littel stories do, has proved valuable on occasion.

Have fun, be safe (I just can't seem to keep these short...sorry all)

Terrible idea but now politically necessary.

I think that Blair should be brave and run the Euro Referendum simulataneously. This would stop the media turning the Constitutional Referendum into a "get out of Europe" poll!

Tony Blair the Gambler


Gordon. Put the whole lot on 36 red!


What has he got to lose? He has had two terms in power and things are getting sticky. In cricket you usually go for sixes in that situation.

Steven Den Beste has an interesting comparison on the proposed EU constitution and the US constitution. Warning: If you click on">http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/01/Europeandisunity.shtml">on the link, you'll have to scroll quite a way down. The bulk of his post discusses why Europe is becoming less relevant to the world as a whole. However, he makes some interesting comments on the EU proposal.

It's been very interesting to compare and contrast the American constitutional process and the European one. The American proposal fit on four pieces of paper; the European one runs to hundreds of pages. The American proposal concentrated almost exclusively on the structure and powers of the proposed government, but the EU constitution is much different.

In my opinion, the single deepest flaw in the proposed EU constitution is that it attempts to prescribe not just the structure of the resulting government, but also what its policies must be on a wide variety of subjects. Many questions which the Americans assumed would be dealt with by the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States are hard-wired in the now-failed EU constitution, and thus placed beyond the reach of Europe's citizens or their elected representatives.

"the proposed EU constitution is that it attempts to prescribe not just the structure of the resulting government, but also what its policies must be on a wide variety of subjects"

Now why are they doing that? Is it because the framers of the EU constitution basically don't trust the EU Parlement, and are planning to run the EU not by having the parlement vote on laws regarding this and that but by lots more direct referenda? (I think 'referendum' is IVth declension, regular, but I won't look it up so Cassy and Khobrah will have something to do with their day) See my coming post "California Government" in this thread.

Or is it just an example of Bureaucracy run amok? Give a bunch of Enarques a piece of paper and they produce 8,000 pages of dense prose?

I think its bizarre (and alarming :) that I've been defined as a Lefty on two different site in two days. I never even suspected!

Yet I find myself believing that there are indeed finite resources. Of course, this would be because there ARE finite resources (just infinite potential). But, you can't go down to the bank and cash a check because you have the potential to make a lot of money next week.

And I'm pretty sure that someone should be in charge. However, just because I believe in SOME organization and authority doesn't mean I believe in "bigger is better" government.

Incidientially, the "darwin" theory of the economy (that only the fit will succeed and prosper) doesn't consider that once the "fit" survive they may become "unfit". The answer that then another more "fit" company will rise up doesn't consider that (1)An incumbent company will often have the size to squash a start-up, just as Microsoft tends to kill newcomers. (2) Customers will stick with the familiar as long as it is meeting minimum standards, as in "liking what you buy, instead of buying what you like". Brand-loyalty is a strong force. (3) A less "fit" product may be desirable in some situations because of standardization. For example, Windows is not the best operating system yet it is acceptably functional and has the added benefit that most people are familiar with it.

I'm a bit skeptical of the value of a one dimensional scale, but since most people use them, let me chip in with my two cents.

I agree that most on the left think wealth is a zero sum game and thus the economic role of government is to redistribute wealth while most on the right think wealth is created and thus the economic role of government is to provide an environment where more wealth can be created.

I think Drew should clarify what he meant when he said those on the Right do NOT believe that anyone should be in control. If Drew meant no one should be in charge economically, then I mostly agree. If he meant no one should be in charge at all, then I disagree. But I don't think Drew was espousing anarchy; I think he was simply discussing the Right's preference for minimal regulation on firms.

I am not sure where people would label me, but I believe companies should be lightly regulated (no regulations leads to monopolies, which leads to inefficiencies).

I also think my lovely wife misconstrued Drew's statement about wealth being created. She and I just had a debate about Drew's post and she thought Drew claimed that those on the Right believed in infinite resources what those on the Left believed in finite resources. Since she believes there are finite resources, she fell into the Left camp... Having just read Drew's post, I don't see any claim of finite/infinite; so this was just a misunderstanding (probably based on Lady Quixote's posting while parenting several children).

If there was any misunderstanding about finite/infinite then I got it too. I understood Drew to mean "zero sum game" as the view of the Left.
I am assuming we are talking "economic left" (and right) rather than social, for simplicity.
I am more skeptical of this 1-D scale with each posting. My current estimate is that we need 3 axes minimum.

Finite Resources:

I may have been _too_ skimpy in the interests of brevity. By "finite amount of wealth/jobs/energy" I mean a Malthusian sort of world view. Only so much farmland, only so much food can be produced per acre, therefore only a fixed amount of food (and a growing population so there is "Doom Impending"). But the amount of food that can be produced is NOT fixed at the scale of the next increment of food (think of Calculus finding the slope of a curve, not of solving the entire world's problems all at once).

Take Oil. Everybody knows "we are about to run completely out of oil in X years"

But we never will. Don't think about all the oil and all the future, think only about the next unit of oil (litre, barrel whatever). We are using oil. So some guy who wants to sell oil goes to get more. Not "all the oil" but just the next litre. Human nature being what it is, all the oil that was really easy to scoop up is scooped, But there is one more litre over there. It may be a little harder to get, at the bottom of the sea, or have a little more sulfur content, so it is more expensive to refine, but he can get just one more litre.

Since that single next unit cost him a little more, the guy who wants to get it will have to pay the producer a teensy bit more. One more unit is produced, yet another guy buys it (at a marginally higher price) and eventually you get in equilibirum again.

You will never "use up all the oil" for two reasons: As the cost of getting more rises, and the cost of paying for it rises, you will (always) get to the point where some people will decide it is just not worth it. They will ride a bicycle, get a car that is more fuel efficient or take public transportation.

And some other guy will come up with a substitute. For oil that might be ethanol or electric powered cars.

So the amount of oil consumed won't hit zero and the amount of _energy_ consumed (the big economic category) will continue to rise as long as the economy grows.

Bigger economy is just another way to say "more goods and services" ie more wealth. Having created that wealth, people will want to consume it, and having created that wealth they will be able to afford to pay more for energy.

I think "fixed amount of energy, of jobs, of housing" is a tenet of the Left. Look at what they do to fix problems: redistribute. The US tax code or Lionel Jospins plan to reduce unemployment by going from a 40 hour to a 35 hour work week to redistribute the number of hours of work in the economy. He was seeing the number of hours of work in the economy as a fixed quantity.

And I don't think any of these are fixed. At the margin they grow.

Provided "somebody in charge" doesn't bollux things up. In the example of guys deciding at the individual level that they would rather pay for an electric car rather than pay for oil at the current level, that will work _at the individual level_. It will NOT work if Somebody In Charge decides that now, in 2004, 10% of the driving public must switch to electric cars whether the drivers want them or not (we had a law in California forcing the auto sellers to sell 10% of their cars as electric cars. Then we had an electricity shortage that was worse than the oil shortage and we scrapped that law).

More on what I mean by "People In Charge" in my next post. And it isn't just economics. But it doesn't mean a free for all where everyone can decide for himself whether red lights mean "Stop" or "Go" either.

Stay tuned.

Hey Drew, you just re-stated Xeno's Paradox using oil instead of distance.

If you use Oil in Xeno's original paradox you can just slide the last few millimeters .

Seriously: Exactly! And like the original Xeno's Paradox the solution lies in looking at "a delta, a change in supply smaller than episilon, an arbitrarily small change in demand" rather than getting lost in the Ultimate Answer.

(Achilles does actually catch the tortise, remember).

To return to the Left-Right thing.
I promised 3D (just like the graphics people) so here goes:
Social Form - coherence by size
Small Groups(loyalty to clan)...Large Groups (loyalty to King or nation, deference)
Economics
Low Tax...High Tax
Personal Behaviour
Strict social codes(1950s Australia)...Loose Social Codes (Los Angeles)

Many combinations are possible. For instance a small self-defined community with strict social codes and high group tax. Or perhaps a Right Libertarian group with near zero tax and loose social codes. Or a large Communist State with high tax and strict social codes. Or 1930s Italy with a Fascist dicatator and strong state intervention - how Right wing is that?

Also there are issues like the relationship between State and Religion or Weapons Control.

(Achilles does actually catch the tortise, remember).
So we will run out of oil?

The Greek owned supertanker delivers the last load of oil worth extracting to the last operating refinery?

A reader (lets just call her Mrs Q) writes: "I think its bizarre (and alarming :) that I've been defined as a Lefty on two different site in two days. I never even suspected!"

Dr Cobden replies:
Don't worry! Mathematicians tell us that exactly 50% of Americans are "one the Left" on a typical day. Many never suspect and go about their lives perfectly happily.
However you should check you are not suffering from the "Academic Left", this can be quite dangerous as exposure to poisonous doctrines can result!
Symptoms to check for:
* using the term "post-modernism" in telephone conversations
* quoting, with approval, French philosphers not yet dead
* organic wholefood catalogues printed on re-cycled paper about the home
* worring about "signs" and "signifiers" when watching films
Prompt treatmeant is essential:
* do not drink beverages out of demi-tasse (small cups), use a 16 Oz beaker at minimum
* watch another Simpson's episode
* do not accept lunch invites to "the Faculty"
These simple guidelines could save you from a lifetime of grief.
Good luck!

"The Last Oil Worth Extracting" is what people are ALWAYS shipping. That is what "worth" means. The last liter that I can sell to someone so desperate for oil he will pay me to extract it.

The price to extract asymptotically rises as the amount decreases. Eventually you get back in equilibrium i.e. there is hardly anyone willing to pay that. But they do find some way around it. When the price gets high enough you use a substitute that, today, is more expensive than the next dollop of oil but will not be should the price rise.

As to the Greek Tanker Owner, well, he will ship it if he is not too distracted by the cat fight between the ex-Prima Donna and the ex-First Lady going on on the other side his private island.

"Personal Behaviour
Strict social codes(1950s Australia)...Loose Social Codes (Los Angeles)"

Let me chew on that. I agree "Social Conservative" really means "Traditional" or "Sticks to Strict, old time code of behavior."

And I agree thare are "anything goes" people. But I don't agree the "Social Left" (The Department of English at Stanford University for example) have anything at all loose or inclusive about the attitudes they will permit to be voiced anywhere in their neighborhood. They are _at least_ as dogmatic as the Hard Core Social Conservatives.

If you doubt this say "God" (or worse "George Bush") in the Faculty club and watch what happens.

Hmm, there are two kinds of Strict Code people. Sort of like in 1600 there were "burn you at the stake if you are Protestant" people and "burn you at the stake if you are Catholic" people. Identical in actions, and in their "compassion and tolerance." Differing only in the beliefs they were use to justifiy lighting the pyre.

Freshly, out of breath from talking to much on another thread. (huff puff)

First I will state that I have virtually no knowledge of economics whatsoever. I do have what I think is a Logical mind - logic (in the form of boulean logic) is what I have been doing for 20 years or so.

Finite/Infinite.
I do think people might be being a tad simplistic, and optimistic too, I think. Which is nice! - I like simplicity and optimism. North Americans (I'd imagine?) see infinite perspectives from having vast horizons? I stood out on the flat, flat plains of Alberta and I'd never seen so much sky! I stand at night where I live and I almost never see decent stars in the sky anymore - we are just too crowded in the UK and light pollution blots them out. I don't just mean in the city either.

Oil as we know it may follow an asymtotic graph as described, and the last drop may be the one drop of crude my Dad has encased in a paperweight (he worked in the oil industry) but it will effectivley become too expensive against other processes at some point and we may well end up using vegetable oil or something else. Electric cars might fill the gap - but we still need energy for those from somewhere, and electric aircraft - while in research - are a long way from replacing oil fuel based ones.

Basically we have non-replacable energy sources and renewable ones. At some future date we will have to be significantly reliant on renewable. When the last depleted sources of avgas will not fill a plane sufficiently to even get down the runway - and cost $20billion - we have met a limit.

So it moves over to refined vegetable oil perhaps - and smells like a airborne chip shop. We need to find land to grow those oil plants - the energy content comes from solar energy. This becomes land not used for feeding people? Unless the world population stops growing we may be looking at an uncomfortable and more selfish future...

We even have a finite limit of renewable power - the power of the sun falling on the planet. At the edge of our atmospere that incident enegy is roughly 1.4kW/m^2 - nice! Roughly equivalent to 2HP/meter^2. A 150hp motor car will need at least 75m^2 of 100% efficient solar power to run at that power level. That 1.4kW/m^2 is a pure figure based on black-body maths with no atmosphere and no losses in conversion. Less than 50% of this actually reaches the planet's surface. Current solar panels are about 15% efficient? Some quickie maths and that 75m^2 is now 1000m^2. 0.1hectares. Sounds useable. If you can do that directly - but you have to store that energy, more losses - and industry to create that storage and make the car - and it just gets worse?

Some renewable resources can also possibly be killed off aswell - like Fish one day? - like the Moa? Without someone "in charge" to regulate the quotas we could just end up with long term boom bust cycles- or just a future trickle of Birds-Eye Fish Sticks costing the same as a jar of caviar does now. The poor are eating Soylent Green by now...?

Air/water pollution. There's a worry? Without anyone "in charge" are you confident that major companies will self regulate? Lose profit for cleanliness. Or will they just start making a profit selling gas-masks and replace fish cakes with Algae cakes?

Wind and tide power have limited applicable areas - but as the price of power increases, more and less efficient areas will be exploited. Solar power uses food acreage - they can't both have all the sun's incident energy...

The date "X" may well be in a million years, but I'm pretty sure living will be pretty miserable for the majority of life on the planet by then.

We might escape to the galaxy? Not all of us, a few 10's of thousands maybe - not billions?. We cannot assume that "technology" will be there in time to "save the race".

Current electronics technology can already see the wall it is driving into. Power density. There are some alternate technologies being envestigated - they might work...

Energy and Time is always a problem. It's possible Nuclear Fusion might save the planet from turning into a huge spherical solar-panel - it's not an area of expertise for me... Geothermal might be deemed "renewable" but I suspect this is a technical misnomer - it's just a huge ready charged "battery". Infinite? No.

The Sun itself is just a huge nuclear reaction - it has only about 4.5billion years to go?

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell 1879-1958
American novelist and essayist

Hmmn - I sound like a Lefty too - or a Green. Actually I guess I've kind of "abstained", from both politics and the human future?

I suspect the human race has a finite limit of time left, one way or another. Sorry guys! 8)

We just do not seem to "self regulate" as a "species characteristic", except perhaps in the same way a bacterium or virus does?

Speaking of bacteria? How are we doing on the anti-biotics technology front? What sort of future safety margin do we have left????

"Only So Much"

Please note I am not asking all of you to agree with the position I characterize as "Right". That was the point. Some of you will be far to one side, some far to the other side and some (like wishy-washy middle of the road AQ *G*) sort of in the middle.

But one important difference ("one of the axes of political and social thinking" as Dr. Cobden would put it) is:

Left: There is only so much. We should learn to get by with less. We need to redistribute more fairly with less inequality.

Right: Let's just make more.

I think everyone understands what I am trying to say about this being a main division between groups of people, and I am sure the crowd here sees things from different parts of that spectrum.

"Someone Needs to be in Charge"

By "someone needs to be in charge" I do not mean, as it's opposite pole "there are no rules." The opposite is "we are all adults and all equally able to decide what is right."

"Nobody is in charge" doesn't mean no police and no traffic laws. It means "There is no one who is a member of the Great and the Good."

I asked about the vote on the EU constitution in another thread. For those who live in "Fly Over Country" the EU is going to vote a Constitution up or down. Each country is voting.

In some countries the vote will be by referendum (all the voters vote). In other countries the government, usually the legislature will do the voting.

This is an excellent example of "Someone Needs to Be in Charge" vs "No one should be in charge"

Do you think a) that this is such an important issue (it certainly is important) that it should be put to a referendum where the entire (adult) population gets to vote? Then you think "Nobody should be in charge" in the sense I mean it.

Do you think b) this is such an important issue, so complicated and nuanced, so far reaching in its effects, economic, legal and political, that only those with trained minds who are willing to devote themselves to a life of public service (the career politicians and civil servants) can really have the understanding of the issues needed to decide what is best? That Alf Doolittle, down at the local with his mates, certainly can't be allowed to let his crude prejudices decide something so pivotal?

If the latter you think "Someone should be in Charge"

Some of you will think the one, and some the other (that again is the point. It is an axis along which we have different views).

But I have noticed that people on the "limited amount" end of the How Much Is There axis tend to also be on the "Someone should be in charge" end of the "Need anyone be in charge" axis. I don't think they are independent variables. In part, as I said, because of the limited-rations-in-the-lifeboat mentality. Among other attituds ;-)

I think the ruthless Cass has summed up the energy situation in physical terms.

Let's see about the Left-Right distinction and Energy.

Some local Greenpeace trendies explained to me that they have a "Green-Grey" axis to describe how "right on" someone is environmentally.
Now the UK Conservative Party is quite "Grey" (especially was under John Major). But so is the Left-bent National Union of Mine Workers. So was the Communist Government of former Czechoslovakia which used to strip mine low quality coal and give it away to the People's steelworks. Whereas the centre-Right German CDU is fairly Green.
We can see that Greenness is not soley the provice of Lefties, except perhaps in California.

We even have a finite limit of renewable power

What about breeder reactors?

Consensus

Today happens to be the 25th anniversary of Magaret Thatcher's ascent to power. Several of her positions on still-relevant issues are being published today, including her view on consensus, which I suppose people will agree with or fault depending on their view of Lady Thatcher.

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one beleives and to which no one objects."

We even have a finite limit of renewable power

What about breeder reactors?

I'm not sure of your point?

You cannot make energy from nothing. Entropy is the real King here.

There are two basic forms of Energy as exemplified in Schroedinger's equation.

basic stuff (sorry)
Total energy = Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy

What we have are large sources of both - in our "black box model" of the Earth/Sun etc.

Kinetic Energy - the motion of the stars, planets, moon, impacting meteors etc
Potential energy - the nuclear energy of heavy metals and fusion potential of the lighter ones, geothermal energy, oil etc

Once we've fused or fissioned everything to Lead ("top dog" entropy wise IIRC)- nuclear energy is dead too?

None of this really relates to the original question. Yes, there is a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe.

a) We will never "run out" of energy because, as any energy source becomes rarer and more expensive to scoop up the next dollop, the number of people willing to pay for that next dollop of energy will decrease. You will never get to the last molecule. No one will pay the exhorbitant price for that last molecule.

b) The body of human scholarship devoted to deciding _how_ to distribute a scarce resource is economics. "Deciding which of several uses clamoring for any resource and deciding when to substitute some other resource instead to try to get the same usefulness" is really the core of economics. And the economic answer for how you decide how to distribute energy, or oil, or rutubaga leaves is: "A market that either is, or closely resembles, an auction in which all buyers and all sellers have complete knowledge of the quantity and quality of all goods/services offered and the prices of all bids to buy or sell."

The answer is not "have someone who is really smart say how to distribute rutubaga leaves and have that really smart person decide when you need to substitute dead oak leaves instead of fresh rutubaga leaves."

That latter answer, which seems reasonable, has been found not to work.

None of this really relates to the original question.

True! Am I getting confusticated about what thread I'm answering sometimes - or what? 8) Oil Reserves or Consensus!

I'm still not convinced that a purely Economical/Monetary analysis of rutubaga leaves - or whatever - is the only analysis worth considering?

My point about breeder reactors was in answer to renewable energy in the remotely foreseeable future.

But as you and Drew point out, this line of thought should be continued in the Oil Reserves thread.

To your other question - I don't think the economical anaysis is the only analysis worth considering. The economic analysis will provide the most efficient way to distribute scarce materials over the long run, but it provides little input to the question Should we be doing this?

Of course, this does lead back to Drew's original point about the difference between left and right. If you tend to believe essential resources are very limited, you have one perspective. If you believe raw materials are reasonably abundant given innovative and well educated people (who can find alternative and superior ways of accomplishing things given sufficient motivation), then you have another perspective.

Bingo! Quixote has summed up the point admirably (even though he is a primate).

Although political views are not one dimensional, people's views do tend to cluster. There are two general groups, and I think the main reasoning that leads one to one group or the other (if, indeed, one "reasons" as opposed to making an emotional selection) are

A- Economically, mostly - that if one believes "stuff is running out" one chooses the left

B- Not only in economic areas but in most areas of social interaction - that if you believe "well educated people" (an elite) is better at deciding what everyone should do you likewise choose "left".

Cassy pretty clearly doesn't agree with the position of "the right" by that classification. But he seems to me to prove the point of two groups, sortable by the criteria I am proposing.

Admiral, surely trade deficits are historic. In plain words they are what they were when you settled the paperwork. So doing your accounts on Dec 31, the $6 million you paid the PRC for those MP3 players on April 20 is still $6 million.
You can do purchasing power parity adjustments like you can do inflation adjustments. But most official stats are done on an historic basis to make the sums easier. As you note, you can get wildly unstuck this way if your central bank is asleep!

Cobden,
I'm not sure your example applies to trading deficits, but I would call your example an example of a firm's debt - which is indeed fixed.

I looked up the definition of a trade deficit. It is simply when The value of a nations imports exceeds the value of its exports.

I am not 100% certain how the US measures trade deficits. I believe it simply tracks the stated dollar value of imports vs. the stated dollar value of exports for each month. So trading deficits (and demand) will change dramatically with currency fluctuations unless firms have long-term commitments at set prices.

Does this make sense?

Don, your month by month example is indeed what I meant by settlement period. As the currencies change, if you settle monthly, then the annual defecit in dollars would surely be the sum of the sub-totals?
One would not adjust it again for accountancy purposes.
Now what would be difficult would be a journalist re-stating the defecit in a 3rd currency. Which rate would he use? Stick to dollars (you will..) and you should be OK.

I feel loved ! But nothing I do will make the underlining appear. And if I try adding those "u" and ">" things, the "preview" feature just eats them, even going so far as to make them dissappear from the "in progress" comments box.

Now, all I need are some nifty smiley faces! And hearts. I'd like some little hearts I can add to my comments :)

Well that's interesting. Apparently the MT program (my blogging program) ignores underlining.

Here is a quick test of all the features I mentioned. bold, italic, underlining, a fun link and a

new paragraph.

Well, that confirms that MT does ignore underlining in the comments section. So you weren't doing anything wrong. Thanks for letting us know.

The software tries to protect you from a comment which may behave in a hostile manner. Thus no real heavy commands are supported.

No clue why underlining is in that category though. It never seemed that dangerous to me!

Let's see:

The software tries to protect you from a comment which may behave in a hostile manner. Thus no real heavy commands are supported.

Nope - quoting doesn't work either!

another test

Of course a NICE blogger would put up buttons to make this easier for his commenters ;)

Movable Type Support Forums

"testing... testing...
" ehem.... 1, 2, 2, 2 erm...?

Irreligeous?

What I am trying to figure out here is not what the US is doing (well, not just that but "what the US is doing" is pretty obvious) but "how are people in the US and in the EU, particularly in the UK, deciding what to do"

The answer seems to be lurking somewhere in how we each approached Kosovo (intervened and Europe, save Russia, agreed), Rwanda (did nothing and Europe agreed), Afghanistan (invervened and the EU sort of went along), Iraq (intervened and some of the EU, leaders more than citizens, agreed but most of the EU went ballistic).

The algorithm for deciding whether to intervene in some other country lies somewhere in thinking about those 4 cases. By "Algorithm" I don't mean "what should have been done." I don't think anyone is proud in retropsect about standing aside regarding Rwanda. But "what are the mental steps the EU and the US actually take in deciding to intervene or not intervene.

To introduce myself. I am a British Liberal Democrat. Those words probably trigger a "lefty" warning in the USA. However round here it means I am a centrist. We have real lefties in Britain: socialists, trotsykists and the like.
I am English, though a minority of my ancestors were from the Celtic Fringe. I think the EU is an opportunity for the UK, handled correctly.
I believe in Enlightenment values, including separation of Church and State. I do not believe in supersitions such as Crystal Healing, New Age Stuff, crop circles, UFOs and Creationism.
I found the US/UN discussion interesting as it brought out many romantic views about the UN from both sides of the pond. After a while a minority pointed out that the UN was not supposed to do things, it was supposed to let the founders alone while providing a talking shop. Was this the Anglo-Saxon Romanticism that the Continentals and Ben Disraeli mentioned?
Later I hope to discuss principal UK political parties and UK views about intervention.

I live in California where there are a lot of Italian Families who have been here for years and who used to own the whole state when it was agricultural.

This old Italian on our street wanted to clear about 4-5 acres of his property in the hills, and he saw an add that Sears had Chainsaws on sale over President's Day Weekend. They were Craftsman and the guy told him it had the usual Craftsman money-back guarantee. The saleman further told him he would have no trouble clearing 1 acre per day of small trees and saplings.

So he worked really hard on Saturday, but he only cleared about 1/4 of an acre.

Sunday he decided he would give it his all. He started right at dawn, worked twelve hours, exhausted himself, but only cleared about half an acre.

Monday (the last day of the 3 day weekend) he was so exhausted he could only clear a few small trees.

He brought the new craftsman chainsaw back to Sears on Tuesday and told the guy it didn't work as the saleman had promised.

The salesman told him not to worry, and he could certainly get a full refund if he was disatisfied.

"Just let me make sure there is nothing obvious wrong with it," the saleman said, and he pulled the starter rope.

The Chainsaw immediately began to run smoothely "pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-"

"Hey!," said the old Italian. "Whatsa dat noise?"

First, let me say that I have somehow mislead our fearless leader - I'm not from New Jersey, or even the Jersey Coast. I hail form a little farther North in New England - well, there's a "New" in it anyway.

Chainsaw jokes, - who knew! And boy that guy must have been tired.

In case anyone was trying to find a "Husky" that is the short name for Husqvarna - they used to make sewing machines, vaccumes, and motorcycles - now they've wised up and make chainsaws.

Don Quixote did indeed shorten things up a bit, I am certian that he cut out a gigabyte or two, I have been know to be a bit....long winded....on certain subjects, but he's got the gist of it there.

If anyone else has questions etc, I'll be happy to check in on this page from time to time and spout tomes of wisdom to anyone brave enough to read it all. I have been cutting wood for about...hmm...going on 30 years now, and to my credit I still have all fingers, toes, and the stuff in between. I've seen enough people who don't and it's a scary thing.

Now table saws, there is a whole different animal - mine recently has taken to throwing things at me "kicked by a horse" has taken on an entirely new meaning for me.

It's an old saw, but you can't be too careful when it comes to safety

Good luck to all would be woodsmen.

Alamia is in deed where I found the best price for the safety gear. The prices listed at Jack's are exceptional

A note on the "346XP Rancher"

The 346XP is NOT even remotely in the same class as the 55 Rancher. The 346XP is the chainsaw equiv of the patrolman's service revolver or the army's "M-16" It is the quinticential everyday, everyjob saw and does just about everything - with the 18" bar it would be happy cutting up a tree up to about 34" in diameter if you knew how to do it. The saw would be out of it's league in a tree like that, but it would do the job and it would not hurt the saw - if you took a few precautions - or just as happy sending small scrub brush to the composte pile...and unlike our happy but tired Italian gent, you can use it all day and feel pretty good when your done (assuming that you are in some sort of good physical condition, this IS hard work)

The right tool for the right job holds true, but the 346XP is perhaps the best tool for most sawing jobs that most of us will run into (for that tree I gave as example one of the big brutes of a saw would be a better choice for felling - when you get right down next to the base of a tree like that you realize just how big it is and just how small and irrelivant you - and your saw - are, you'd like to think that the saw at least doesn't feel the same way)

Okay, I'll stop now and I apologize for the atrocious spelling

Ah, New England. That does make more sense. I was wondering where in New Jersey you lived. When I think about New Jersey, wooded landscapes are not my first thought...

I miss my little Poulan :(

It was an 18" Farmhand model. The biggest tree I ever dropped with it was a Black Gum about 40" in diameter and 75-80' tall. I dropped several other Gums with it (all over 2') and cut them all up for firewood.

I even did a little carving with it (putting my daughter's initials in a stump)

Now I live in a development where you can't even THINK about cutting down a tree without appearing before 3 different commission boards.

Of course, with everyone living on 80X120' lots, I guess that keeps the idiots from putting a tree through someone else's window!

Can't put a tree through someones window? Where is the fun in that?

Pulan used to make a nice saw, I haven't really looked at one in over 2 decades, so things may have gotten better/worse I don't know. they didn't make anythign in the commercial/logging useage areanas back then and is probably why we went a different route. Black Gum, that's a fairly hard wood isn't it? Must have been a bit of a chore, but sounds like you know your way around a a tree and a saw - I've taken down Hickory and Oak in that size and larger - big trees are....BIG

Yes, Gum is a hardwood - about equal to
Oak (at least its not Hickory!)

The weird thing (to many people) is how the trees get bigger as they go up. Calculating for a drop, you really need to understand just how WIDE those suckers are!

bigger as they go up - interesting, I'llhave to come down your way and cut a few dozen down, they sound like a nice challenge ;)

Hard as Oak - ouch. Nice for heat content though - are they a brittle tree, or do they hold together well?

I have a Remington that is borrowed from the neighbor. When I go to use it as soon as I start to hit the tree, the chain stops but the chainsaw is still running. Why is it doing this?

the chain stops as soon a you hit the wood because the clutch is slipping. I suspect that it has just worn out. the clutch is a centrifugal device, the spinning engine causes 2 or 3 large masses to be flung out against the inside fo the drive drum. The friction between the outside surfaces of hte masses and the inside surface of the drum is what droves the chain sprocket.

1st tihng to check is to see if there are any oilly (sp) deposits on the inside of the drum and/or the driving masses - clean them with a degreaser such as CRC Breakleen.

If cleaning it doesn't work, then it may be time for a new clutch.

How is the engine running? If the engine has no power, then whe the chain hits the wood it will not hvae the tourque to maintain the rpm to keep the drive half of the clutch grabbing the drum half. Check the air filter and the plug, if they are good, try adjusting the mixure

so

1) clean and inspect the clutch
2) Clean and inspect air filter
3) Clean and inspect spark plug - regap
4) Check the mixture settings - this is a "by ear" thing, if it sounds like it is running smooth, and it accepts a jab of the throttle without getting lugged down then it's about right (better to be on the rich side than the lean side - fule/oil mix is the engine lubricant

Hope this helps

I COLLECT OLD BIG CHAINSAWS. I GET A THRILL OUT OF THEM THAT I FELT FOR THE FIRST TIME AS A KID WATCING LEATHERFACE. I KNEW THAT SOMEDAY I WAS GOING TO OWN A CHAINSAW JUST LIKE THAT.
I NOW HAVE TWO '70'S MCULLOCH 250'S, TWO SMALLER MACS OF THE SAME ERA FOR MY FIANCE, A BIG PIONEER, A NEWER STYLE MAC(LABELS MISSING, DON'T KNOW THE SIZE EXACTLY, BUT MEDIUM FITS),AND I AM ABOUT TO AQUIRE A FEW MORE MCULLOCHS. HOW DO THE OLD MCULLOCH 250'S I MENTIONED FARE PERFORMANCEWISE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER BRANDS? I WOULD LIKE TO FIND THE BIGGEST AND MEANEST MCOLLOCH EVER MADE. I WANT A CHAINSAW THAT IS HUGE, HEAVY, LOUD, OBNOXIOUS, AND COMPLETELY IMPRACTICAL.THE SATAN OF CHAINSAWS.ALSO I WANT TO REBUILD IT MYSELF.THIS IS MY HOBBY AND IT KEEPS ME OUT OF TROUBLE. ANY ADVICE OR INFO THAT ANYONE CAN GIVE ME AS TO THE TYPE, YEAR, AND WHERE TO AQUIRE ONE WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. I LAY FLOORS FOR A LIVING. WOULD ANYONE BE INTERESTED IN BARTERING FOR ONE?
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

I have a craftsman chainsaw which I have done some work on(replaced gas tank and fuel lines) and I had it running and adjusting the carberater when it stopped and locked up. I wasn't able to pull the starter cord. I took the spark plug out and got it unlocked. Now it will not start. It seems like the piston rings or did I kill it? What are your thoughts on this because I prefer to do the work myself. Thanks for the help!

My first chain saw, a 16" craftsman, failed me this weekend out of the box cutting small juniper and cedar in the Texas Hill Country. Spent more time pulling the cord or trying to figure out why it wouldn't start than I did cutting. Primed it according to instructions but it acted flooded every time. Once running, it cut fine. Until it stopped and then it took me 20 or 30 minutes to get it going again. Finally, one of the bar nuts vibrated off (I may have loosened it too much) and the chain came off and it was time to call it a day. Never did find the nut. Packed up the saw and plan to clean it tomorrow and return it to Sears. Maybe I need a Husky since I have a lot of cedar to cut.

Easy. All political parties make it possible to avoid the unpleasant and time-consuming effort of actually looking at the voting record of individual candidates. Parties allow the whole election thing to keep functioning in the face of crushing voter apathy, and during times of actual interest in the political process, parties provide something to polarize around (i.e. you're a Republican, so you must be an evil, oil-loving Nazi who hates brown people).

So, don't look at me. I just vote Republican because the GOP is the most likely to act in a conservative manner but still move in groups large for actions to take effect as laws, political appointments, etc, despite outliers like... oh, say, Aaron Specter. Or many of Prez Bush's domestic policies. Geh.

As to what they actually do, a lot of the things (at least to me) the centrists are doing are indistinguishable from what the Dems want-- in my eyes, at least. I guess I should vote Libertarian, except that I'm really not a fan of their ideas either. I need to start a, "Nuke people who aren't the US" platform. Or maybe prevail upon Frank J to start a "Nuke the Moon" party. I don't know.

1) The Parties and the Voters

Perceptions:

Republican:
Rich bastard. (“Rich” meaning “has at least 1 more dollar than I do”). Not “Concerned” (see Democrat). Wears a baby fur seal coat to a ribbon cutting ceremony where he opens his new Oil Drilling Facility in the middle of a Baby Fur Seal Habitat. Hates children and the environment. Wants to poison both. Usually by putting mercury in school lunches. Old. Religious. Not religious in an acceptable Eastern-mysticism-you-can-claim-without-actually-knowing-nothing-about-it way but goes to church and stuff. Homophobic. Listens to “talk radio”, (i.e. not the government broadcasts on NPR).

Democrat:
Likes taxing everything. Sees Big Government Programs as the Solution To Any Problem (unless the program is run by the military in which case the military progam it _is_ the problem). Is Caring and Concerned. Concerned about the environment, homelessness, unemployment, second hand smoke, and lots of other things he his concerned he is not Informed enough to be Concerned about yet.

Has lot of bumper stickers to show his concern. “Stop Drilling for Oil” for example. Usually has one of those on _each_ of his 5 ton SUVs. Concerned about the Homeless and the Unemployed to almost the same degree he is Concerned about keeping new housing projects, new stores and new businesses Damaging the Environment (“The Environment” meaning “the amount of traffic I encounter while commuting in my SUV”). Hates religion almost as much as he hates second hand smoke. (Black Baptist Churches being an acception, of course, since he is extremely guilty about slavery. His ancestors were Italian peasants who didn’t come to America until 59 years after slavery ended, but he is guilty about slavery anyhow, just to be sure). Loves all cultures except Western Civilization (it is “Imperialistic” which has something to do with the Queen and Kaiser Wilhelm).

Is Concerned about Racism. Keeps a small note book to be sure he calls Native Americans (no, that was last week, uh, “First Peoples”, no, you only say that when translating for Canadian-Americans, “First Postal Codes!” that’s it) by the politically correct label. Worries that America might become some sort of “melting pot” where all sorts of different people and cultures blend into a swirled amalgam of combined shared traits. Because if we all mixed together and shared traits it would be hard to demonstrate you are not racist.

If you ask a Democrat a question, like “Tell me about Global Warming” he will say “I feel . . .”
If you ask a Republicans he will start “I think . . .”

(Try it as an experiment but don’t tell the people they are in an experiment).

More as things really are:

Republicans _used_ to be older, richer.while the poor and the youths were Democrats. Youth seem to be swinging to the Republicans now, though. I am not sure if this is rebelling against their Democrat parents or the rising terror they feel when calculate the cost pensions and medical care for the Baby Boomers. The Republican Party gets most of its support from business people and small business people, suburban and small town residents (a “small town” is a suburb you actually work in, rather than driving from to your job in New York or LA. There are a few “small towns” left in Iowa I am told).

The company owner would likely be Republican and hate all the government regulations, while the company workers likely be Democrats and want the government to make the work place safer. We have almost _no_ trade union members in the US any more save only the government workers unions (teachers, clerical workers for government etc.) I think we may have about 10-13% union membership. Mostly the people behind the desk at the Motor Vehicles Office when you go to renew your Illegal Alien Driver's License.

The Democratic Party gets most of its support from big cities, the North East and California. For those of you in Europe there is a part of the United States that is not New York, Harvard or Los Angeles. It is called “fly-over country”. But you can just ignore it. We all do.) The Democratic Party is very much the party of Government Employees. It works for them as its main constituency and they support it almost uniformly. The Democratic Party is also supported, exclusively, by the Lawyers organizations (the American Trial Lawyers Association). Black voters are almost entirely Democrat. Other non-white races much more split.

As an aside, there is a huge battle going on now for the Latino (Latin American) voter's support. Latin America (and Asia) are the big sources of immigration here, particularly in California and Texas, states with already huge and rapidly growing populations. Latinos have become the "biggest minority." That is Politically Correct Speech for “largest group that isn’t of European-ancestry. Although if you ever learned anything in school (other than sex-education and how to write letters to Congress saying your teacher wants a raise) you know might remember that Latin America has people in it whose ancestors came from Europe.

The struggle for the Latino vote shows a Big Schizophrenia of the two parties. The Latinos want more immigration, more government support for workers with entry level jobs, but they tend to be family oriented and religious. So being told (by the Democrats) "We love you. Join our party and we guarantee free health care for illegal aliens. Including mandatory abortions for all your devout Catholic daughters on their 13th birthdays" This makes them uneasy. They are not so uniformly committed to either party.

(I will get to “Social Conservative” and “Fiscal Conservative” in a bit. But as a clue, 98% of America (everyone but Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh) will say “I am Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative”.)

Did you know that _both_ Gore and Bush are fluent in Spanish and campaigned (in Latino areas) giving speeches in Spanish in the 2000 elections? John Kerry, on the other hand, is fluent in French. As you would expect.

And there are LOTS of Asian immigres from all over the pacific rim. The main thing (I will keep coming back to this) that makes the character of us so different from the character of Europeans is that we are a nation of continuous immigration.

2) The Parties and the Government:

Europeans probably think of our government as “The President”. We are lots more decentralized than that (intentionally). Bill Clinton himself said (after about 1 year in office), “I was amazed to find how much power Congress actually has.” Congress and the Supreme Court have a lot of clout. And the States are semi-autonomous in many things (but slowly the power is sliding to the Federal government).

Clinton and the Big Change:

For 50 years or so Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, was continuously in the hands of the Democrats. The Presidency went back and forth from Republican to Democrat (Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton) but no one seemed to pay much attention to Congress. Voters would think carefully about the people running for President and vote for the individual they liked best, but then just vote for their same old incumbent representative year after year.

Then Clinton came along and woke everyone up. He was a remarkably polarizing person (you loved him or despised him) and, after he had been in office 2 years at the 1994 mid term election the US voters were so panicked at what he was trying to do they actually paid attention to the candidates running for Congress (Clinton wasn’t up for re-election yet in 1994). They voted in new guys, mostly Republicans, and for the first time since before WW II the Republicans controlled the legislative branch. (The other thing Clinton did, indirectly, was make Bush president. If the Dems had had the wit to just convict him of perjury and be rid of him, then Gore, not Clinton would have been president, Gore would have run for re-election in 2000 as an incumbent and would surely have one. Clinton basically consumed the Democratic Party’s power and future to feed his own career and the Democrats love him for doing that. I guess that is what “charisma” means).

This loss of control of Congress was a huge cataclysm. Without going in to all the technical details a) the Republicans changes the structure of how the legislature worked. 2) Being in power tends to keep you in power. Take this “Campaign Finance Reform Bill” for example (please take it). It limits the amount of money an individual can give to a political campaign. But the amount you can give is higher if the candidate is already in Congress than if he is a challenger (you don’t think either party’s representatives would vote for any law that might make it easy for somebody else to get their job, do you?)

And we “redistrict.” Because the US population is rapidly growing and because it is very mobile internally we periodically re-adjust how many seats in Congress different states get. The people in power (both parties) being nobody’s fools, design the voting districts such that _their own_ seat is pretty sure to re-elect them. Since the balance shifted from Democrat majority to Republican majority not just in Congress but in most of the State governments this “make things safe for the people already in office” activity tends to perpetuate that Republican majority.

So the Presidency will likely fluctuate back and forth some in coming decades based on the individual candidates and their charisma, but I don’t see the Congress going back to Democratic control any time soon.

Now that they are in power, the Republicans are fragmenting and becoming more centrist. That is probably a natural effect of actually running things, and of the fact that, being in power, they attract a lot of people who want to be on the winning side but are not ideologues. Note for example the “We-love-small-government” Republican Congressmen are voting for all the government programs they can find, then making up new programs.

The Democrats, being out of power are becoming more ideologically pure and uniform (ie farther left). This is in part because a lot have thrown in the towel and quit (it is no fun being in Congress if you can’t accomplish much) but if you burn with True Fervor you will stick it out. The “New Democrat” thing seems dead.

John Kerry (the Democrat candidate for President) has the furthest left voting record of any of the 100 US Senators, for example (if you count “vote higher taxes/lower taxes, vote for military spending/against military spending, vote for/against new environmental rule. That sort of stuff.)

Nancy Pelosi (Party leader of House Democrats) is _way_ to the left of Tip O’Neal (who led the House Democrats while Reagan was President).

3) Minor Parties

We do have minor parties (Parties other than Democrat or Republican) in the US. They are not very interesting. A more interesting subject is why we have only 2 parties while other representative democracies have many parties.

We have the Peace and Freedom Party (whose platform is that the US should end the Vietnam War), the American Independent Party (a white racist party founded by George Wallace before Wallace found he could get more votes as a moderate liberal and joined the Democrats), an American Socialist Party and LOTS of other parties. In wierd places (mostly in California - Berkeley, Santa Cruz and San Francisco, and in Seattle) there are lots more. Berkeley (where the University of California is) has a Trotskyite Party. As I am sure you are aware they favor going directly to a world wide revolution to bring on the Worker’s Paradise and they particularly hate the mainstream (Leninist-Stalinist) Communist Party which preaches bringing on the revolution one country at a time. Berkeley town council meetings are well worth attending if you ever visit California.

Most of these parties are of absolutely no import. They have a few thousand members in a country of 300 million. And those members tend to be the people who worry about flying saucer conspiracies. Berkeley, Santa Cruz and San Francisco aside I don’t think any of them have ever even produced a mayor of a small city, and never a member of Congress (the one Vermont Socialist in Congress is a shill, see below).

There are two exceptions which did have an effect on US politics, however. That effect had more to do with the time and situation (“Set and Setting” as we say in California *G*) than the parties: the Green Party and the Reform Party.

The last presidential election was, as a fluke, incredibly close. You may have heard about this. The election turned on a tiny fraction of the votes, and, because we do not elect a president as a nation, but elect the president state by state (who ever wins the majority in that state gets a number of votes proportional to the state’s population) the election turned on an even smaller number of votes than the percent difference in the nation as a whole. The Green Party got a tiny portion of the popular vote. I think it was 6% (somebody can look that up, I won’t bother). This is actually a huge percentage for a third party in the US, probably reflecting how closely the population was divided between backing Bush or backing Gore (i.e. not only was the population divided 50-50 but some individuals were divided 50-50 and chose “other”.) Because the election was so close that 6% had a disproportionate effect on the outcome.

The Democrats are convinced “Bush is the Green Party’s fault” and are furious at the Greens. They are assuming that the people who voted Green would have predominantly voted Democrat instead (the Greens obviously being on the political left). But a lot of the Green voters were voting Green because they didn’t like either Bush or Gore. We will never know what would have happened if the Democrats could have outlawed the Green Party the day before the election but the 2000 election was so close the Democrats may be right. If you can ever be “right” about a hypothetical future.

The 1992 election (Bush 41, the current President’s father, vs Clinton) was similar. In 1993 there was a new party, the Reform Party which had a larger following that any minor party in a long time. That was Ross Perot’s party. Perot got a larger percent of the vote than the Green’s did in 2000. But it is not so clear the Reform voters would have all gone one way or the other had Perot never existed. Anyhow, Clinton won with more votes than Bush 41 but way less than half the popular vote. And maybe the Reform Party gave Clinton the election, maybe not (see hypothetical future above). But the Reform party did not carry a single state.

The Reform Party was the party for people who were unified in their dislike of both mainstream parties. They seemed to have almost nothing else in common. They produced Jesse Ventura (the Wrestler/Actor) who did win an office -- Governor of Minnesota (Governor of a state is a big deal although that may not be apparent to Europeans. Much bigger than being a Senator or Congressman). Jesse won in large part on his personality and not on any “Reform Party Principles” (Jesse Ventura has very little in common with Arnold Schwarzennegger although the two may seem similar. After all, both acted in “Predator.” (So did Carl Weathers. I am waiting for him to run for office.) I will get to Arnie (my governor and a rather a special case) later). Jesse has since faded from the political scene back into the sports/entertainment industries whence he came. Actually our Founding Fathers thought that was how things should be. Leave your day job, be in political office a few years, go back to the community. They didn’t want career politicians) and the Reform Party fell apart in part due to Perot’s charming personality (ask me if you don’t know) but in large part because there was never anything there other than “I don’t like the mainstream right nor mainstream left parties.”

So we have had only two minor parties that made any difference at all recently (vide infra - that is a little Latin to keep Cassie and Khobrah awake) and their “influence” was mostly to bollocks up an election where the other two parties were very evenly divided, not to actually win.

What is the last time a “minor third party” ever came to the fore (‘Anyone, anyone? Beuhler? Anyone’) and why does the US have only two parties where France or Italy have many? In my opinon (which is all these posts of mine are *G*) the answer is in large part “inertia”. In one of those countries where there are 37 parties and the government is parliamentary and always a coalition, it is possible to get 10% of the vote and be a player. In the US, where there are mostly two parties, if you get 10% of the vote then the election to the House Seat you are trying to grab comes out Repulican 48%, Democrat 42% and YourParty 10%. You came in third. And if you DO get a single member of congress elected then what? There are a couple of “sham third party” people in Congress (one “socialist” and a couple of “independent”s) but actually they are Democrats. They caucus with the Democrats, vote on leadership and committee positions with the Democrats, and generally follow what the Democratic whip tells them to do. What else should they do? Form their own caucus? How would they ever get on a Committee? “For chairmanship of the House Transportation Committee the vote is: Repbulican Lackey 253 votes, Democrat Lackey 200 Votes, American National Niceness to Everyone Party nominee 1 Vote.” Terrific.

There is a money problem too. This is a big country and you need a big organization to get on the ballot nationwide. Getting on the ballot only in Ohio and Nebraska is unlikely to get you propelled to national office. The Reform Party got around that by virtue of Ross Perot pumping gazillions of dollars of his own money into the party, and even he couldn’t get elected. (It is not only money that counts, in spite of what John McCain tells you). (As an extra credit question, where did Ross Perot’s gazillions come from? Hint: NOT oil).

If a third party does come along with a hot new idea what traditionally happens is one of the two other parties looks that idea over and if it seems likely to get votes from some reasonable fraction of the electorate they absorb that policy into their own policy. The last time a new party got started, it was only because the idea they proposed was SO repellant to the two existing parties neither would touch it. The idea was “abolish slavery” and the third party were called “Republicans”. But the idea caught on and they managed to get their man (Lincoln) elected president, finally.

You heard it here first:

I had said about Jessie Ventura the sometime actor, sometime wrestler, sometime governor of Minnesota:

"Jesse has since faded from the political scene back into the sports/entertainment industries whence he came."

Today he announced he "may" run for president of the US in 2008. He also said he thinks the office of President is "too confining," said that if elected he will move the White House to Minnesota because his wife prefers to live there. He also put out the political position statement that he won't have a political affiliation or, to quote Mr. Ventura: "No party, no nothing," he said.

See, as I said. He has gone back to the entertainment industry where he has considerable talent.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_el_pr/ventura_president_3

UK Mainstream Political Parties
Parties and their factions. How they see themselves and how others see them.

Conservatives
Social - Tories
Self: Family, community, class system, place, safety, Monarchy. Civilisation is going to the dogs due to: socialism, blacks, liberals, rock music, long hair, dope.
Other: Party of pensioners wishing the 1950s would come back. Hate Europe with vengence, out of touch, rant endlessly on TV, NIMBY.

Economic - Neo-Libs - Turbo Capitalists
Self: Absolute freedom subject to contract, de-regulate everything, America is the future, Europe is tired, why speak French?
Other: Red braces, designer lager, flats in London and NY, destroy Health System, loud, money mad, sell burgers to your kids in school, sleazy.

Labour
Old - Classic - Real - Socialist
Self: defend working men, big state payroll, unions, dignity of labour, projects, International Solidarity, sing the Red Flag.
Other: look, socialism died in 1989. OK? Grow up.

New - 3rd way - Blairism - The Project
Self: steal moderate Ec-Con policies, mix with 'communitarianism', sucker Lib Dems, form broad alliance - like 60s US Democrats -, befriend USA
Other: Conservatives with a red banner, use PFI financing for 'off-book' Enron style financing public projects, spin doctors, pagers, PDAs.

Libdems
Self: the one party not bought by Big biz/unions, slowly built a real party after half a century in the wilderness, why do we never get on TV? community politics, build from grass roots up, costed policies, grow new talent, previous leader now runs Bosnia as UN High Representative.
Other: men in sandals dreaming of David Lloyd-George, unprepared for government, I can't remember their policies just now, never on the TV (apart from their leader who did a quiz show once), quiet lot, don't they run the local council? One of them got me a new bus stop once, I think?

There are other, smaller parties. Wales and Scotland have Nationalists. There are Greens. However the power is in Westminster and MPs are elected by First Past The Post. Like good racehorses their owners must feed and groom them expensively.

Democrats ... Mostly the people behind the desk at the Motor Vehicles Office when you go to renew your Illegal Alien Driver's License.
Is this License a new "stealth tax" levied by the Califronia State Government to plug the hole in their finances?

I heard things were getting bad there...

Cobden,
Thank you for the perspective on the UK parties. I thought they were concise, interesting, and humorous.

Struggling to summarize our brilliant insights so far:

I think we have on the whole agreed that the UN does not have the power to enforce any of its decisions. Some of us have said that was intentional: that the UN Founders designed it to be powerless limit the actions of those same Founding States.

We then discussed (well, I asked) if the UN serves any useful purpose at all. By “UN” we limited the discussion to the Political Arm (the Secretary General, Security Counsel and General Assembly), as distinct from the Social Service Branch (the WHO, the ILO etc.) Had it ever attempted something, succeeded at what it was trying to do, and was that result an improvement in the world?

The only two things we came up with were that the UN provides a forum where member states can air their differences verbally (rather than just picking up the nearest sharp object). And someone else said the Political Arm has allowed the UN Social Service arm to exist (ie without the General Assembly the WHO wouldn’t exist). Others can expand on this if they wish.

I noted the UN and many members have a different view of the UN’s authority, and that difference between the true powerlessness of the UN and a perception it has any power and authority is dangerous. People find the assumptions they have been operating under aren’t true or aren’t shared and they become hurt, angry and hostile.

See my post Sam’s Bus Ride

written years ago in another discussion. It is a parable of what happens when two groups find to their surpise they don’t agree who is in charge of what.

We discussed the US Pre-emptive Invasion doctrine. I noted that this is nothing new and came up with a long list of similar occasions where the US stepped inside some other country and changed the leader or government, usually without asking permission and sometimes over the explicit orders of other entities, including the UN. People added more examples. We (the US)do this maybe every 5 years or so. It is not a new doctrine.

Examples were Kosovo where the UN did not give permission for a US led war, where the Security Council wouldn’t back the war (the Russians were pro-Milosevic on ethnic/religious affinity grounds) Kofi Annan said we didn’t have UN authority and we were violating International Law and we went in anyhow and Milosevic is in a prison cell, not a presidential palace.

Our invasion of Grenada stirred up quite a bit of old unhappiness among the Brits (ask them about it). Panama (Manuel Noriega) was another example. The list is a long one.

On the subject of Panama one of the participants mentioned this as “Imperialism” and I was about to start writing about what the US sticking-itself-into-other-countries-and- changing-them is. Imperialism? Paternalistic? World’s Self Appointed Cop and Benign Dictator?

But then we decided to move here.

The other participants may (are likely to) think I got some of the above all completely wrong. My apologies if I didn't get your positions down correctly and please add or correct anything I said above as you see fit. But at least that is enough outline that passers by can probably figure out what Great World Issues we are solving.

It seems that most countries approach this whole UN thing with a relativist moral view, ie, what's right or wrong depends on your perspective. When the countries of Western Europe and others mostly shared our moral views on the nature of right and wrong there wasn't so much of a problem. However, now that many of those countries no longer share the same basic definition of right and wrong then the US is faced with a choice. Continue to act in it's best interests and in terms of what it sees as right and wrong, or shift to more of a post-modern view where such things are determined more by popular sentiment and expediency.
If we take the former road, the UN will most likely need to diminish in importance for the US. The latter road leads to more "internationalist" silliness such as having China on the human rights commission.
That's my .02 cents anyway. I guess that was kind of a long post and there aren't even any clever latin phrases.
-jdm

in line with Quixote's decription of himself I have also produced one for me at the URL below...

Whilst what you may read there might indicate that I'd approve of recent actions - I don't really. Not because it is "wrong", but it was the wrong way..?

In my previous e-mail discussions I argued the case of "consensus" over "might is right". A world view over a nationalistic one. Evolution over intervention.

A precis of my discussions...

The US operates a "consensus" political system internally. Why does it feel it has the right to operate a "might is right" one the international stage? World matters should be managed on a consensus basis too, I think.

The US invasion of Iraq, or the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Both were "might is right" actions. Difference? Not much IMO ... except concepts of morals - and those differ from person to person. Without consensus each nation is just another Saddam - operating his own values.

The UN is the current international consensus forum - however flawed? - it should be strengthened and improved rather than "undermined".

Terrorism should be "dismantled" rather than openly and directly confronted. The latter only strenthens their will, and unites them.

I haven't repeated all my reasoning - those are only the basic points.

I also wrote a "Sam's Bus ride" from another viewpoint - I often play "Devil's Advocate".

Hmmn...
It'd be nice to think that a body like The Commonwealth might work as a system - an equal community of "like thinking nations" working together.
It won't - it will just factionalise the world, you have to have all the differently thinking nations together - talking and encouraging - lying and cheating too - yes.

As ever - history will judge - and perhaps like others, Iraq will have to be partitioned - or maybe it can work together still.

History is why the UN was created. I can't think of either a better reason, or a better way.

Latin epigrams, huh?

How about:
Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume, labuntur anni, nec pietas moram, rugis et instanti senaectae, adferet indomitaeque morti.

No, how about:
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Well, there's always:
Nil ego contulerim iucundo sanus amico.

And, just because I'm feeling Machivellian:
Oderint dum metuat

If none of these suit, I'll just have to Scavenge up some others!

Wasn't Cassevellaunus some Brit who shot his mouth off once too often, and as a result Julius Caesar invaded Britain?

Not that one's choice of handle is any sort of portent. Or has any influence on the haruspices. No, "on the auguries".

Darn, those two always mix me up.

Traffic Suggestion:

This thread may get really crowded very fast. People (me and others) are planning on posting about the definitions (real functional definitions) of the US and British major political parties, similarities and differenced between the Suez Crisis and the US intervention in Panama (two canals, no waiting), and Imperialism vs Paternalism vs Gangsterism.

I am inexperienced at this format but I suggest:

For anything related to this (US, UN, Intervention in the affairs of other nations, premptive wars) make the title of your thread "US,UN,Intervention:" and then "Suez" say. So we will have "US,UN,Intervention: Suez" and "US,UN,Intervention: Conservative, New Labour and Lib Dem".

That way (I think) one can search the common key words "US,UN,Intervention:" to find all the threads but post a follow up to the Suez-Panama discussion without confusing people in the other sub-threads.

But if anyone (like Khobrah or Quixote) sees a cleverer way to organize multiple subthreads hear, tell us all.

Well, only AQ can start a thread and all replies are always under one thread. (this isn't like a forum/message board)

Either he has to create a serious of threads or all replies will need to be here.

Of course, if you want a more classical methodology, you are all welcome to start up a series of threads over on Serpent's Tooth.

I'm one of the Brits in the original discussion... to me, the discussion was interesting on several levels. Firstly, it taught me I still harbour anti American prejudices / jealousies. Second, it taught me Americans can produce justifications for everything they do - sometimes this is kneejerk denial of awkward facts, sometimes they have very good reasons I hadn't thought of. The discussion was somewhat Yank-bashing, more or less politely. Both sides (Brits and Yanks) admitted to their countries having an atrocious record vis a vis military action vs other little countries. Some of the Americans seemed reluctant to admit that things such as Greneda, Nicaragua etc were - not to put too fine a point on it - atrocities. One thing which did NOT come up now I think back on it, is I don't think that Britain ever invaded anywhere on humanitarian grounds like the US sorted out Kosovo... but basically, I think the best comment was when one Brit said (I paraphrase): "America doesn't seem to have mastered the subtle approach to defusing tensions. It just jumps in and pumps more energy into an unstable system." I think this is what Europeans have learnt over the last century, and American foreign policy needs to take on board. Americans prefer a straightforward approach. This comes across as aggressive and hostile in some cultures.

I'd agree with most of Paul's comments (although I still want to do some more homework on both Grenada and Nicaragua before I would agree they were atrocities). However, I fully agree some of the wars in our past were unjustified (e.g., the war of 1812 for starters).

I fully agree the American method is more straightforward and less subtle than modern Europeans are comfortable. However, I remain skeptical that the subtle way is effective in practice (at least as evidenced in modern times). As Paul himself admits, the US directly intervened in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons (over UN objections) to stop the slaughter. If the subtle way worked, this would not have been necessary. The subtle way did not work on Saddam either (or is 12 years not enough time for a fair test?).

However, I applaud Paul's honesty in admitting anti-American prejudices. It takes a lot to admit that. One of my reasons for engaging in any of these conversations (email forums or this site) is to expose people from different cultures to different ideas. I've learned a lot from these efforts and I'm glad to see others also are gaining from them.

I suspect I have harboured prejudices against the US too. Some of these have to some degree been deflated, others have been enforced.

I had a feeling that the US populace is often "insular" in that it does not look at the rest of the world - other than being "other places" - not US. perhaps I'm wrong?
http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/geography.shtml

The issues relating to Grenada are not complex, Grenada is a small island (group) and was building an airfield for tourism. Problem was - they had just peacefully toppled a corrupt regime and were working on a new socialist but democratic approach to its future - and a constitution. Reagan just saw that the Cubans were involved.

Grenada is and was an associate state of GB - the Queen was and still is The Head of State and has her representative there in the person of her Governor General. It is also a member of The Commonwealth.
www.thecommonwealth.org
Things were strained with the UK - but not out of hand.

The US seemed to want to dictate what they could or could not do? That seemed presumptious to me.
What happened next was probably indicative of that sort of "muscleing". There were other ways to do things.
When the hostage thing happened - not good - it just went from bad to worse and the US effectively invaded a form of British state. It all worked out OK and only 24 or so Grenadians killed -some of whom were in a mental institution - and 300 wounded? I may have my facts wrong. Some reports have it the students were not under any serious threat and that Reagan was working to another agenda.

The UN deemed the US action Illegal.

On the other side?
Kosovo - OK yeah - the US did that, like they won both World Wars and broke the Enigma codes! 8)
Kosovo was a NATO operation - and OK there were more Americans than anyone else involved - I might be wrong but I seem to remember the first units into Kosovo were British?
Not important - it was still against UN sanction, and 5 years on you only have to read the press bulletins at the UNMIK online website to see that things are still not going well.
It might have been the best solution - we'll never know - and the UN get to have to sort out the mess in the end.
OK

At the end of the day things do not pan out well when you just barge in?

Ho hum

Cassivellaunus, I suspect you have harbored anti-American prejudices too ;-) Hopefully this exercise will be enlightening for all of us (myself specifically included).

To answer your comments, yes many Americans are insular. And many are not. But this is human nature. Other than curiosity, there is little reason for many people to care what goes on outside their particular region if it does not affect them. This is especially true as your particular region is large. For example, I meet a lot of Chinese in my line of work. Most of them have a very good grasp of the Asian rim and know a fair bit about the USA. However, they know little of South America or Europe because these regions have little perceivable impact on the Chinese. (And virtually every one of the Chinese who did mention Europe had negative views – the Chinese have LONG memories). However, I'm suspect I'm missing your point about the insular comment. Why is this important?

Now your summary of Grenada is way too simplistic (and wrong) even for an straight-forward American who may miss the nuances that so delight the stereotypical European. On October 13, 1983, Grenada suffered a military coup that was quite bloody. There was nothing peaceful about it (nor was the previous administration, an experiment in non-communistic socialism remarkably corrupt). So this part of your explanation is just wrong. Nor did the US unilaterally move in. In response to an appeal from the governor general and to a request for help from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, in the early morning of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the island of Grenada. [Note: scroll down to the Grenada section.]

Is this the same "governor general" that you speak of?

Grenada is and was an associate state of GB - the Queen was and still is The Head of State and has her representative there in the person of her Governor General.

In other words, the US affirmatively responded to an appeal from the Queen's representative and now a citizen of the Queen blames America for obliging the Queen? Is this a fair assessment of the situation?

I'll wait for your response before I spend time answering your other comments.

How do you know what actually happened? Not just in Grenada, but anywhere else (Panama, Kosovo, Fallujah).

You can "follow the news" (most people don't even do that) but the news doesn't tell you what happened. It tends to tell you what that newspaper or broadcaster wants you to hear to promote his own political philosophy.

"Here! Look! I was right all along about those bastards!" is generally what you get. So the Brits (re Grenada) hear the US fascist interventionists overthrew a peace loving government and we in the US hear the US killed a bunch of Cuban troops and freed the US hostages.

How are you going to tell which is which? As the readers of the prior E-mail thread are aware I am in the unusual situation of actually knowing one of the hostages. But only one. And I never chatted with any of the peaceful Cuban construction workers who were killed in the firefight when the US Rangers freed the hostages from the construction workers.

You can follow more than one source of news to get more than one viewpoint (and following Al Jazeerah, El Aribya, and The Guardian does not count as "more than one viewpoint") but that gets exhausting very fast. Particularly if you want to follow Iraq _and_ Rwanda _and_ the civil war in the Sudan at the moment.

I tend to read what the various media report but then consider the prejudice of that particular new source for "windage" (ie how much do I discount what they say and in which direction based on their agenda) and just plain common sense.

For example those Iraqis with "Iraq Baby Food Company" (in English) on their shirts saying the US had just bombed the only Baby Food Factory in Iraq.

I certainly don't read/listen to the news with an uncritical mind. Dealing with attorneys and drug addicts all day may be a help in sorting out the "news" from what actually is happening *G*

If you have a simple, straightforward, trusting approach to things like I do, you may be confused by the link in AQ's post above. Clicking on it gets you some page about the A-7 (A US Navy Carrier Jet). But if you scroll and scroll and scroll down the page (or search the page for the word "Grenada") you find the section the Admiral mentions. It is cleverly disguised under the heading "Grenada" where it didn't occur to me to look.

The GG's request was for assistance - but I'm not sure an invasion was what he was asking for? Also the Commonwealth Secretariat was not consulted by the US or OECS. Like I said earlier - this put some noses out of joint but I don't really have a problem with that especially.

True - if the GG did shout for help "in force" then I will apologise, but I can't find a transcript of what he was asking for?

The "bloodless" coup I was referring to was the first one where the New Jewel Movement took control and started the whole US opposition thing?

My real objections are not really about the invasion itself, although I think it was premature, but more about the US's attitude towards Bishop's government - which some people consider was a reason for the bloody coup by Coard in which he was finally executed.

Anyway - for further reading on Grenada I would invite you to read

http://www.fpif.org/papers/grenada2003.html

or

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1098.shtml

Whilst the second has a scent of bias about it, the first one seems like a well written treatise?

I am not a great news reader, although I tend to believe the BBC news, they have always seemed factual and truthful and without what I can recognise as bias. I might be wrong.

PS - how do I embed URLs in my text like you guys do? 8)

Cassie said:
"My real objections are not really about the invasion itself, although I think it was premature,"

In the Email discussion we compiled a list of the US intervening "at the wrong point in time"

Cassie and others thought the US intervened in:

WW I too late (I agree. It would have been better for the world had we intervened before Europe had ground itself so completely to rubble but we didn't have the political will)

WW II too late (I agree pretty much on the same grounds as WW I. We were "engaged" in WW II sooner than was apparent BTW. US warships on convoy duty and German warships (U-boats) were shooting at and killing each other for monthes before the US and Germany declared war. But it was sort of concealed by mutual consent because neither the US nor Germany were ready for open warfare yet).

Grenada: Too soon per Cassie

Iraq (Gulf War II): Way too soon. Should have given sanctions and UN resolutions longer to work.

Anyhow, as I commented at the time, there is just no pleasing some people.

As a question, was the US intervention in Kosovo too soon, too late or just right?

At some point someone has to make a hard decision about letting the current situation continue or starting a shooting war because he thinks that is the lesser evil.

Hmm, I have to get my "Imperialism/Paternalism/Officious World Policeman" piece completed.

You were apparently thinking of the 1979 coup. It was relatively mild as far as coups go and all accounts that I have read agree it was relatively bloodless. And you are correct that many in American government were not happy about the coup. On the other hand, the American government freely allowed American businesses to operate in Granada at a time when American businesses were not allowed to trade with many countries on Uncle Sam's black list. This is despite all the activity that is alleged in your first reference. If all of this was going on, why allow American businesses to trade with Granada? It could be explained by government inefficiency, but more likely Granada fell into the middle ground. It certainly wasn't on America's good list and it was not on our bad list.

Getting back to the 1979 coup, like most (all?) illegitimate governments, it carried the seeds of its own destruction. Four years later, another coup took place. After the new rebel leaders murdered the former coup leader (Bishop – the guy the American leaders allegedly hated), things went downhill for the latest crop of rebels. It quickly turned bloody and this is when people called for American help. At the requests of those I mentioned before, Reagan sent in the troops.

I don't claim that Reagan was 100% altruistic to do so, but that was a factor. Other factors included ensuring the safety of American students (who were in fact safe, at that time, but this was uncertain during the coup), a chance to eliminate a violent communist government (the leaders of the new coup were literally Marxist-Leninists), and a chance to positively use American force to dissuade other potential tyrants.

I think you make an interesting point about My real objections are... ...more about the US's attitude towards Bishop's government I have had many politically discussions with Europeans and after a while, the discussion usually reaches a point where my European counterpart realizes he disagrees with how America does things (attitude, process, etc.) more than what America does. This is a cultural issue and I do not know of a way to handle this other than via discussions to help people bridge cultural differences.

I'll write a separate post soon on very basic HTML that will show you how to embed links. Check the main site in a bit. The BBC, the New York Times and CNN represent some of the most left biased news media that try to appeal to the mainstream. They are at least as skewed to the left as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are skewed to the right. I don't look even try to find an objective source anymore, I try to ensure I read a variety of sources (including those from other countries – see the links on the right of my main page: "News from America" and "Tidings from Afar" for some interesting perspectives).

Damn! I wrote a whole treatise on solving all the world's geo-political problems with brilliant and simple solution and then something went funny and the page expired! Now my thoughts have gone and I'm going to sound stupid again! 8)

I usually compile my "expressions of lack of understanding" in text using Notepad so I'm still not sure how to do the embedded link thing in either this or the on-line "post a comment" text entry device I just used and failed at? Never mind!

Anyway. In reply to I most of the responses I seem to be generating counter-argument on? (and where are my compatriots!! 8) )

The World Wars, tardiness (and misrepresentation)! ....

I am being quoted out of context! 8)

Whilst no one can deny that the US was later than most in those wars - they were not "their concern" - I don't consider that a problem - they were operating under consensus rules. Even though they were rather "straining against" them in WWII. I have no personal complaints, but was merely identifying a "common view" over here that we rather use as *humour* rather than accusation. Similar indeed to the WWII contemporary expression about US soldiers being "over sexed, over paid and over here". It was an expression of an irksome situation rather than of complaint - I think. There was no question that we resented their presence on the more serious aspect of winning the war.

Grenada....

I wasn't "apparently" thinking of the 1979 coup - I "was" thinking of it. Also of Carter's and more importantly Reagan's reaction to it and their own agenda(s?). This was the start of the "problem" IMO. I didn't write that treatise - an associate professor did - since he works/worked in CA I'd "guess" he's American too.
So the US allowed companies to trade. That then says that the rest is untrue? Illegitimate govt, maybe - but the US had its own agenda and acted on those alone I think. They wanted and excuse to topple a psuedo-neo-Cuba and did so. The Commonwealth has other methods of persuasion....
I am merely presenting a non-american view here - more "other" views
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/482.aspx
http://198.231.69.12/papers/amsc1/016.html (a student paper)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Urgent_Fury
http://www.caribnationtv.com/grenada.html
http://mt.sopris.net/mpc/military/t/grenada.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Grenada_KH.html

some American Views?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande07.html
http://amh.freehosting.net/grenada.html
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Grenada%20rescue%20operation

I fail to understand why, in the face of near global disagreement with them, US opinion still clings to its standpoint? Or am I being unfair?
History records Grenada as the first successful campaign since before it's "thing" in Vietnam. It records other things too.
search for "Grenada" on
http://www.fas.org/man/congress/1999/h990202-war.htm
(I don't know the speaker - "bleeding heart liberal"? or realist?)

Anyway
It seems we may have to "agree to disagree" regarding Grenada. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I felt at the time what the US did was "wrong" and most of what I have read since seems to agree with that IMO. Ho hum.

"How and What"
Oooh - crikey!!! 8)
Regarding the "how" and the "what" of the US doings, I'm pretty worried about both. Like I said in my self-description - I don't like politicians - I just can't think of a better way!

In a previous e-mail I used a quote:

"A monarchy is a merchantman, which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; whilst a republic is a raft which would never sink, but then your feet are always in the water."
attrib. Fisher Ames 1758-1808
American politician

Although I am a Royalist - I do not advocate a Monarchy for Britain today! I am merely resistant to their removal and Britain becoming a republic. That's a whole new discussion and my logic may be riddled with more prejudices than I wish to explore. 8)

Anyway... I digress

"How" and "What"....

My concerns are inflated by statements like "the US action in Kosovo" which was in fact a NATO action. A NATO consensus. A good one IMO. It does have its ramifications though. UNMIK is still there and some conflict is still happening. I have friends who have been there under UNMIK auspices (I also have a friend who was a UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq) - they did not enjoy their experiences. Kind of like "I went to Iraq and all I got was this lousy UN T-Shirt" 8)

"How" they do things seems to be reliant almost completely on "Sam's gun". Whilst the world may need that gun - it also needs it to be used carefully and with thought, not just at the whim of "a president" elected by admittedly "flawed" processes. See other threads above?

"What" they do is also questionable, they have their own agenda it sometimes seems. Predominantly a desire to impress their political values on the rest of the world?
In the previous e-mail conversations I made reference to the US seemingly suddenly awakening to terrorism due to 9/11, where (for long historical reasons) various nations in Europe have been facing Terrorism for ages. These nations learned through "hard lessons" what should be done? You don't fight terrorism with a "big gun" in the same way you don't get fleas off a cat by shooting the cat, perhaps... The "what" here relates to Iraq 2 - invaded because of WMD (discredited?) but really because they wanted Saddam Out and 9/11 gave them a moral (not logical) standpoint to operate from.
Discuss?

Not particularly wishing to open a "bag of worms" here regarding specific issues but...
Grenada and Iraq 2 are a "what" and "how" I'd disaggree with.
The "War on Terror" is a "what" I'd agree with and a "how" I'd disagree with.
Kosovo and Gulf 1 are a "what" and "how" I'd agree with.

To get back to the UN issue?

Whilst I seemingly agree with the UN's stance on, say, Grenada, I disagree with the problem that Kosovo action was unlikely to be supported - due to Russian veto - veto... hmmmn. There is also the issue of "humanitarian" intervention as not being within its mandate so Kosovo was deemed to be a security risk. Weak argument? This is to some extent arguing a case towards a pre-defined conclusion. (there's a word for that I think?)

OK???? For condideration:

"The UN should have a restricted mandate, be over-ruled by vetos and undermined by "individual nation action". It should be a powerless opinion factory. "

OR

"The UN should be empowered, have force for implementation of consensus and should be supported in it's resolutions - regardless?"

OR

"The UN should be disbanded."

OR

Other....

Discuss!

NOTE:::: BEWARE!!! I also argue "Devil's Advocate" sometimes - I told you this is my "resume" in my name's URL link! If you can work out where I'm doing it - I must be going wrong somewhere! 8)

Chin chin!

Ooops! Addendum.

I forgot! - I removed the bit about "Devils Advocacy" in my resume - my mistake!

But I do like to view things from the other side - and vocalise them - or try to.

Cassevellaunus:

1) Please tell me how you define "consensus"

2) You said: "Grenada and Iraq 2 are a "what" and "how" I'd disaggree with.
The "War on Terror" is a "what" I'd agree with and a "how" I'd disagree with.
Kosovo and Gulf 1 are a "what" and "how" I'd agree with."

With that in mind take a look at my "US,UN,Intervention: Intevention" thread.

Think of it like a software program or a circuit board you are trying to reverse engineer. You give it the inputs "Kosovo, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Iraq" and get one set of answers from the "US Circuit" and a different set of answers from the "UK Circuit"

What is it in the two circuits that is making the output different even though the input is identical?

Regarding the BBC, I would ask the Brits and particularly Cassie (or is your nickname "Cassy" *G*) anyhow Cassevellaunus as a Royalist and admirer of the Royal Navy to take a look at:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768569.html

(I haven't learned how to embed those cool URLs yet either).

Cassy wrote:

"Damn! I wrote a whole treatise on solving all the world's geo-political problems with brilliant and simple solution and then something went funny and the page expired! "

This reminds me of a science fiction story I liked:

Paleontologists discovered petroglyphs on a large rock in the back of a cave. These were no ordinary petroglyphs. They were small, precise and in some sort of dot-swirl writing. But the site was paleiolithic - early Cro-Magnon from about 30,000 B.C.

The Paleontologists came to see the writing started out simply, mostly mathematical series, then progressed to flesh out the language. It was strangely reminiscent of those dots and dashes beginging with mathematical series the SETI project and similar use beaming radio into space hoping some distant alien civilization will one day receive and be able to decipher the message.

So they call in some scientiests from different specialities. They begin to decipher the writing and become more and more excited. This _was_ written by humans, but the humans are writing that they, the Cro-Magnons, have been contacted by an Alien Exploration vessel from far towards the Galactic Core.

The Cro-Magnons, having dealt with these aliens during their 20 year survey of earth are now planning on leaving on the vessel with their tribe, but are writing this to their far-distant homo sapiens brethren to let them know about the Aliens and what they, the Cro Magnons have learned.

Excitement among the scientists gets even higher, if that were possible, when they decipher the next few lines: "We are leaving but we will leave for you, in the short time we remain here on this, our home planet, the two things we think will benefit you most and hopefully make it possible for other humans some day to follow in their path, and visit the civilizations of the Galactic Core. These two scientific advanvces they will record here are Faster than Light Space Travel and Immortality."

The scientists obviously continue to work around the clock deciphering the petroglyphs. But the leader of the expedition goes to his tent for a few hours' sleep.

A horribly dejected scientist soon awakes him. "We have deciphered the next line" he tells his chief.

"And?"

"It says, 'Continued on the next rock.' ".

Hmmn. I feel myself being dragged into a moral debate on definitions and legality here! 8)

By "consensus" I am (in general) referring to an agreement by a body of persons or representatives which may or may not have full approval of all of that group.
I'm not defending this viewpoint as the original terms of discussion were related to more ambiguous issues of the US, UN and so on. I used the term as a generality deliberately within the assumed terms of that discussion. I haven't seen anyone actually debate the viewpoint with me yet?
The UN, democracies and so on operate predominantly (or at least idealistically) through similar means? This is the point I am making rather than individual distinctions about veto rights and our own images of "democracy". Nothing is perfect in this regard.
I'd rather discuss issues relating to the "might is right" over, shall we call it, "debated majority agreement" if the word "consensus" is not apt?

I had a look at your new thread - I just haven't had time to think about it whilst "fielding" issues on this one. I'm also not sure that my expertise in boulean logic is likely to be helpful. Electronic logic deals in absolute values and rules - not human failings and "morals".

Applying "black box" principles to complex human issues is a futile exercise - too many inputs and outputs - that is what politics is also failing to completely resolve?

Re: The BBC, Drew.
This is a case in my point, I think. The BBC do not generally pander to its audience nor its own government - an issue that has caused some UK govts to want to reorganise things I think.
Anyway - this is straying off-thread too I think. They report what Al-Jazeera say and what others say too, not just what Brits or the US want to hear. I can't comment on the Navy's feelings on the issue. Whilst the BBC is state-run (and publically funded), it also has its own "freedoms". I don't beleive everything I hear either - but as the BBC does not need to compete in exactly the same way as Commercial stations or newspapers do - they have more freedom (such as it is) to be non-sensationalist and just stick to facts?
IMO
I also read stuff occasionally!

Cassivellaunus,
Thanks for sticking with it even if your email friends are missing. On the Grenada incidence, I guess we will just agree to disagree (and yes, I know many US professors agree with you. That is about as surprising as finding a leftist at the BBC. The most virulent anti-American opinions do not come from abroad, rather we export it via spoiled academics who think they should be in charge). For the record, I am not defending all of our actions regarding Grenada, but I do think the invasion itself was justified after the second coup (and I must admit, I think it a riot that the Queen's representative asked for our intervention – I'd love to see a transcript of the actual request). You are probably right that Reagan wanted a reason to topple the government to prevent the spread of socialism in our backyard. A bloody coup is pretty good reason for action. So much the better when the Queen's representative and other agencies ask us to do what we want to do. Frankly, I'd love for Iran, Libya, Syria, and a host of other nations on our black list to give us a good reason to depose their leadership. So from that perspective, Grenada was a complete triumph for American foreign policy. You may not like the goals of our foreign policy, but that is frankly irrelevant. A strong majority of Americans supported it, it succeeded, thus it was a success. (It may or may not be some solace to you that I don't approve of many of our actions during the cold war including some of the things that the US allegedly did before our invasion. I always support the removing of bloody tyrants, but I believe many of the other actions, if true, where both unethical and counterproductive).

On posting direct links in hypertext, click here. Make sure you read the comments.

I agree with your comments on WWI and WWII, especially the part that they were not "our concern." (at least until December 7, 1941, but that concerned the Pacific Theater and only served as a very expensive and bloody excuse to join the European part of the war). In fact, out of all the twentieth century actions in which we participated, WWI is one of the least justifiable to me in terms of national security (down there with Kosovo). That's not to say I disapprove of our involvement – there is much in common between our countries and we won't let you go down the drain no matter how much it costs us.

You say I fail to understand why, in the face of near global disagreement with them, US opinion still clings to its standpoint? Or am I being unfair? Well, other than presuming European opinion (and that of many American professors) stands for global opinion, this is probably fair. But one of the (admirable? arrogant? both?) qualities of American culture is that if we think we are right, we act on it. If the cost of delay are not too high, we will wait and try to build consensus (and see if others see things we do not). However, if we still think we are right, we will act as we think best. We expect others to do the same. In fact, in our culture, we look down on people who see a problem, see the need to act, are convinced they are right, and then do nothing because others disagree. We admire those who have the courage of their convictions. Cowboy is a compliment to us; those who attempt to insult our President by calling him a cowboy only show how ignorant they are of American culture.

In another post we can discuss the pros and cons of different governance models. No matter which model used, it all comes down to how honest and competent the leaders are. The advantage of a republic is that it is easier to remove bad leaders than other methods. That's about it.

My concerns are inflated by statements like "the US action in Kosovo" which was in fact a NATO action. A NATO consensus. A good one IMO. Yes, the Kosovo action was a NATO operation like Korea. The US has not been in very many unilateral operations in the twentieth century (Grenada and Panama are among the few that come to mind). However, the slaughter in Kosovo went on for a long, long time before President Clinton decided enough was enough. Why didn't any European leaders take the initiative? It was their backyard. If an American president had not shown leadership, I suspect major fighting would still be going on (unless the attempted genocide would have been successful). Once we had shamed the UN into agreeing to do something, yes, we moved on. Our resources, while large, are still limited and we felt Europe could handle the rest. You point out that "How" they do things seems to be reliant almost completely on "Sam's gun".One of the biggest weaknesses of our allies in NATO is that our allies have very few ways to transport their forces where they are needed. Since there was a local area of need, it made logistical sense to allow the local forces to resolve it once the need for the heaviest firepower was removed.

You also say that Whilst the world may need that gun - it also needs it to be used carefully and with thought, not just at the whim of "a president" elected by admittedly "flawed" processes.No offense, but why do you think the rest of the world gets a say? We'll listen to various opinions, and give more weight to the opinions of our friends, but we will never give non-Americans the right to determine when and how we will use American resources. Build your own gun (in fairness, the UK is one of the few other countries that spends a decent amount on self-defense – we subsidize most of Europe by paying the lion's share of their defense).

You also ask for opinions about the UN. The ethical side of me says disband it. It is a waste of money and it is obscene to see folks from Syria on human rights committees. I'd cheerfully fund a council of democracies, but would not give tyrants a place at the table. My darker side says keep it. It gives many of the world's troublemakers a place to blow off steam. As both the strongest and richest country in the world, the USA is going to be the target of jealously and hatred. Providing an official forum for this makes it easier to keep an eye on our enemies and keeps many power-hungry folks away from positions of real power.

In regards Grenada there is a cynical view that there was another reason to go in.
Following the successful re-taking of the Falklands (thanks Casper...) the US saw that it was actually possible to win again after Vietnam. Where better to try than in Sam's Backyard?
I recall that time as the day after a manager from the company I worked for was on the BBC, answering the question, "Why were you building an airport for the communists?"
He replied, "A contract is a contract..." Ahh, capitalism.

Quixote,

It is a matter of debate whether the GG's alleged "request" was either real or if it were real, legal. It seems rather a mysterious affair to me. It seems clear to me that the OECS request was illegal under its own terms and the GG's "request" - even if valid under the new regime - should have gone through Commonwealth channels rather than direct to the US. I'm inclined to believe the "mad professor".

"Global disagreement" and "US Standpoint"
Hmmn. Herein lies the "nub" of the discussion?

Whilst I have cited a number of information sources for how wrong the US invasion of Grenada was, I have yet to see any seriously convincing counter argument?

Your mad and ambitious professor is also published on:
The Global Policy Forum
The OneWorld Network
Military Week's 23 Oct 2003 as one of their "10 Must Reads"
and was published in the
National Catholic Reporter.

The Canadian student's paper seems pretty thorough on these same issues too.

Independant Action?

You say -
"one of the (admirable? arrogant? both?) qualities of American culture is that if we think we are right, we act on it"

"(admirable? arrogant? both?)" - or Dangerous?
This is what people like me fear. The concept of the US "stomping the cat to kill the fleas" perhaps?

My corollary is that the US leadership in its independent action can be misinformed, working to a local political electoral/popularity agendum and in some cases the force projected is not sufficiently militarily experienced/capable to act alone? (new concept????).

Misinformed?
Was he aware that the airport was still open and that the students could have left if they wanted to? That it was technically still a Commonwealth matter? That the OECS request was illegal under their own rules. And so on?

Local agenda?
Reagan blatantly ignored Thatcher's "strong advice" during those times
{"He asked for my thoughts and advice. I was strongly against intervention" MT)
and he was seemingly upset that she'd found out before he could announce it as a fait accompli
("I had intended to call her after the meeting, once the operation was actually under way"
" [she] asked me in the strongest language to call off the operation" RR).

Even the "special relationship" was deemed irrelevant - it seems. Sad.

Inexperienced/capable?
New concept. Sorry
I will only state at this point that my professional knowledge base is in military matters and technology. My own researches so far indicate that US military planning, doctrine, training and attitudes seem inadequate and seemingly still littered with Cold War influences. The advance towards digitisation is now also adding a number of pitfalls which are reportedly being ignored also.

IMO
The "gun" IS big and powerful, but the hand seems to be "unsteady" and the intention uninformed? Discuss.

Next...
You ask...
"why do you think the rest of the world gets a say?"
OK - so the US is not "on the same planet" as the rest of us? I go back to the question about "might is right" over "consensus". The Nazis, Japan, Milosovic, Saddam, Galtieri and historically even the US over its "Native Americans" (or whatever the latest PC term is) are/were supporters of the doctrine of "might is right". (And yes, the UK is/was culpable too.)
The "nitty gritty" of Suez and so on are moot - but not necessary now please? Neither is Nicaragua and so on.

"Why the rest of the world should get a say" is precisely for historical reasons. We should be working more on how to resolve world issues other than just letting our own flawed local electoral machinery dictate the actions of individual nations - internationally?

I re-iterate. "Might is Right" is a descent into Anarchy - individually - or to international despotism - if some nation decides to become their own "world policeman".

Britain went that way once. Empire and all that. Thankfully - it is still friends with a lot of the Nations concerned and we work with them in the Commonwealth in a number of important (peaceful) ways (IMO).

If the US stands up to its "might is right" policy, it is relying on a consensus opinion of its own small part of the world, and must therefore bow to the right of Bishop/Coard in Grenada to do the same? Or China or Saddam or Kim Jong Il???? The bully in the schoolyard, the gun toting post-office worker? Where does it end?

If you espouse this ideology then you have to ask yourself why we are having this discussion? And why your new terrorist enemies hate you. Then remember that the UN was created as a forum to try and stop this kind of thing.

The US as it is, is now in danger of becoming a world "moralist" - and unpopular thereby - and has arguably been seen to inflict those "morals" already regardless of even its staunchest allies advice - let alone the UN?
If you stand by your "democratic rights" (=consensus) to choose your politics internally as a nation, and to dictate thereby who can kill who, abort what and so on, why then chuck all those ideologies out the window when it comes to nations interrelating?

Some other paths? - Admittedly simplistic....8)

The US becomes the "world despot" - like, say, Britain and its Empire was - or worse perhaps? Hmmn. Everyone - not just France and Germany - will isolate them I think. Some over here are already considering defecting from NATO to an EU common force concept - not as an objection to US stratagems/ideology right now - more of a rationalisation of EU "continental effort" and decision process. Sorry.
OR
The US creates a "gang of common belief", with the UK and some other "like thinking" NATO nations and others - no dissention, no contrary dialogue. The potential "axes of terror" do the same, teamed up with terrorists. The confrontation will only escalate. In a previous discussion I mentioned that terrorism can not be defeated by direct confrontation - we learned this with the IRA. It can be dismantled though popular opinion, covert ops, and to be basic here - boredom. The application of passive and staunch denial and resistance. IMO.
OR
We all look at the problems of the UN, assert consensus opinions and work out a way to live together without despots and wars. *pink flowers* *smiley faces* etc?
Bottom line - how is the world "best served" by individual nations? Though individual action based on local independent consensus? Or group action based on international consensus?
The only international forum right now is the UN. The US is ostensibly undermining that body in it's actions.

The UN.
OK - so Syria were on the Human Rights Commission. Right now so are Saudi Arabia. Hmmn. So are the US - and they endorse (regionally) "moral" issues other countries debate like the death penalty? So we discuss things.
Anyway...
This is rather straying into the "Social" aspects of the UN, but since it was brought up I will only state that "consensus" is not just about "like thinking people" getting together and neither is the US's democracy. Nor are world affairs. Before you enter dialogue on a political debate you have to be able to meet your "opponent" in that debate - otherwise you might as well just "gun that injun down" by shooting them in the back. You brought up Cowboys - not me. "The only good injun is a dead injun" therefore?
Enlightened opinion?

"Might is Right" huh?

I'll use that latin quote I am so apparently famous for again...

"Hoc volo, sic lubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas."
(I will have this done, so I order it done; let my will replace reasoned judgement.)
Juvenal (Satires 6, 1.223) 384:1

Time for a better world democracy I think?

"In regards Grenada there is a cynical view that there was another reason to go in. . .the US saw that it was actually possible to win again "

I will agree if you change "saw" to "demonstrate". I thought that at the time.

Grenada came just after, not Vietnam, but Jimmy Carter. Carter, as you may recall, managed to get an embassy and a bunch of people seized (through inept straddling the issue of the Shah) then managed to set up a half way military action to release the hostages and had that come apart again through being wishy washy.

Yes, in part I think the Reagan response to Grenada was to announce clearly to the world "Carter is over. This is not the same US government and we are not terrified of using force."

He also used LOTS of force in Grenada (way more than the other side had available). That was a reaction to the "Vietnam escalation" theory (best paraphrased as "Always use just a little less force than you need")

Reagan was saying "if we decide to use force we intend to have their be no question the force will work."

That is sort of the Powell Doctrine (which we can talk about more if you want but some guy said 'keep it short')

Anyhow, I agree if that is what you meant.

"Was he aware that the airport was still open and that the students could have left if they wanted to? "

As I said, one of the students, after graduation, became one of my post-doctoral students. He said he certainly wasn't free to leave, but then that may be a function of when during the events you mean. "Free to quit medical school and evacuate the island the day the Cubans decide they want it for an airbase"? Yeah, probably. But not free to leave after the death of Bishop.

Re the "airbase", he also said there was no question in the mind of anyone there that the Cubans were building military facilities. According to him, everybody knew it. People (Grenadans, not just the US students) would be talking on the bus about "more Cubans arriving to work on their airbase" etc. He was very surprised at how the US _played down_ the Cuban presence early on. He couldn't figure out why the US press was ignoring what people in Grenada all seemed to be chatting about.

Hmm, anybody listening who _was_ in Grenada at the time?

It is pretty clear we will not all agree on this one *G*.

The real question (at least what interests me) is how differently the US and "other than the US" decide "when, where, how much" to use military force.

Threats and Buses and Grenada

Relax, this is not going to be much about Grenada. (The crowd breathes a sigh of relief.) But it will mention this clever piece some guy wrote about Sam’s Bus Ride. (A moan goes up from the crowd; they head for the exit.) But only briefly. (The crowd hesitates at the door, then decides to hear him out).

In Sam’s Bus Ride one of the sub themes was threatening to use force vs. using force. Should you ever be in a situation where someone is doing something so awful you are convinced it would be, not “good”, but, “less bad” to kill him than to let him continue, you would doubtless rather tell him “Stop that or I will kill you” and have him stop rather than actually have to kill him.

For your threat to be credible the other party has to believe not only that you “have a gun” but that you actually have the resolve to use the gun. Carter worked hard while president to convince the world that the US would flinch at the last minute rather than use its military. Actually he is still trying to convince the world of that. That is why the Nobel Committee gave him the Peace Prize. I believe that part of Reagan’s intent re Grenada was to convince the world he did have the resolve to actually use the US military.

I think (you may disagree depending on which news sources you believe) that France and Russia were telling Saddam in the run up to Gulf War II that he was safe, that the US threat of force was not credible. Actually I think Saddam was such an isolated guy, that he thought he would survive the war, and I do not believe he would have folded in any case. But still, I think the French/Russia behavior before the war made the war more likely by telling him (falsely) they could protect him from the US.

In our current presidential election some people, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and (sigh) Jimmy Carter, are trying to assure the Other Side that they should just hang on, because if Kerry wins the presidency we will back down and the Other Side be safe. To his credit (write down this date. This may be the only positive thing I ever say about Kerry) Kerry is saying this is not the case and that he, Kerry, will follow through in Iraq with essentially the same military policies. But still that message is being undercut with the result the Other Side is being encouraged to fight all the harder.

I think in a situation where some of the parties are considering using lethal force it is extremely important for all involved parties to understand the real intent and the real capabilities of all the other parties. Party A should not threaten to use lethal force if they do not intend to follow through. That makes the next threat of lethal force, by them or anyone else, more likely to be ignored. If Party A threatens lethal force against Party B, Party C should not tell B that B can safely ignore A if, in fact, C has no control over A and no real understanding of A’s intent.

I am not spending all this time writing to try to convince anyone that the US invasion of Grenada or Iraq was “good” or “less bad than some other option.”

I am trying to convince anyone listening that perceiving the UN or the US or International Law as something it is not makes a dangerous situation more dangerous.

Drew

Crikey! - I write a whole rationale on the rights of individual nations to do as they please - or not - and I get pulled up on one of those arguably contentious points I used as an example? Oh well - the rest of my argument must be false too? 8)

While I in no way deny your student's statement - how can I? I have to judge, like we all do, on reported issues and analyses. My stated sources are not - as far as I can tell - sources of ill repute? They even highlight US debreifing as a suspect area of concern along with the security blanket that covered the whole event at the time? The whole thing is so suspicious and that it leads me to believe what I have read. E.g. What exactly did the Governor General request?

I'm still waiting for a something more substantial that argues that the US action was either legal or even "moral" (beyond "commie bashing")? 8)

Airbase. Right. Plessey Ltd - a UK company was building that "airbase". They categorically denied that there were any military installations it seems. Yes - Cuban workers were being used. Like we're going to send out a whole bunch of Brits to do the digging?

Reports seem to indicate that 90% of the students did not want to leave anyway and that the airport was open and operating normally (without military) the day before the invasion. Albeit without "domestic" flights due to US pressures? Hmmn.

Am I supposed to believe that all this is false and that a nation/govt with a population in the mere 10's of thousands is going to antagonise a neighbour like the US? Hmnn.

OK - read the report if you haven't already. Counter the arguments presented. I'm not convinced I believe all of it either - but I haven't seen anything out there except "unreasoned statements of fact" that in any way support the US/Carter/Reagan story.
This report has been published on more than one publication

Some other stuff relating to students/airport?
The Coard Coup was on 10/19 - The invasion was on 10/25...

Quotes:
On behalf of the Grenada government, Cuba notifies the US on 10/22 that it is ready "to cooperate in the solution of problems without violence or intervention." They receive no timely reply. — The Guardian (London) 10/27.

"US students in Grenada were, for the most part, unwilling to leave or be evacuated." — US Embassy in Barbados, 10/23.

The White House admitted that on 10/23 Grenada offered the US "an opportunity to evacuate American citizens" — New York Times, 10/27.

The White House also admitted later that four civilian charter flights left the Grenada airport on 10/24, carrying American medical students. — Hugh O’Shaughnessy, Latin America correspondent for The Observer (London).

No I haven't checked these assertions taken off the web. Is it all lies? Am I being mislead by a conspiracy against the US? I honestly don't know.

Actually - regarding Grenada - I don't much care - I'm getting slightly bored with the lack of serious opposition debate or supportable counter-argument.

In reality?
We are carefully side-stepping the whole new Iraq 2 thing by talking about an Historical episode of 20 years ago.

I used the student "thing", perhaps inadvisedly? - sorry - as part of a question about the US "might is right" ideology espoused by Don.

I commented that what I fear is that the US leadership and (military) is potentially

misinformed,

lead by "personal" local agenda,

inexperienced/incapable.

I thought I'd get a much more "vitriolic" response to those assertions! 8)

Come on chaps!

Drew
Buses and Grenada

I have to go to bed right now it's nearly 2am here.

Your arguments on the face of it are not wrong. I'll read it more carefully tommorow.

What we are debating here - to my mind - is whether the UN (or some new body perhaps) should have powers to enforce things? Or should the US be allowed to "stomp about" with or without "its gang" and do as it pleases.

Are you saying that "might is right" as a valid approach to world affairs?

Or is the question too simplistic?

Yes / No?

In response to Cassy's "What are we debating here"

You think I am rambling and unfocused? Uh . . . I am saying:

1) That which I said just above: Better to understand what the other people are thinking than to assume everyone has the same perceptions and world view, then have a rude surprise. The surprise generally occurs the most dangerous possible moment because that is when the various parties actually have to make hard decisions and show their true values and assumptions.

In the run up to Gulf War II the US and Europe were rather surprised, on both sides, to see that their assumption that they were all pulling together was wrong. That confusion did was dangerous and made a bad situation worse (and continues to).

2) I am observing, with interest, how differently the US and UK people are think about what should be done and why this or that action should be taken or eschewed. We (well me and the UK people chatting here as scientific samples of “US Person” and “UK Person”) still have a huge gulf in how we see things. That gulf may be more in how we see things should be than in what we think the current reality is.

This “consensus” thing for example complete stuns me every time you mention it. “Consensus” to me means “what the bulk of the people think." Not 50.001% but not 99.9999% either, because there is always the whacko fringe. Is that right? “A comfortable majority with no really strenuous objections”?

It would never occur to me in time of war or crisis to either seek my moral compass or look for leadership in which way the herd was headed. I don’t see “everybody is doing it” as any grounds for making a morale decision.

Is Consensus what _most_ people think? Heck, _most_ people involved in the India-Pakistan confrontation are Indian (most _people_ will be Indian soon). So if “most people” think Pakistan should be nuked would you go along? Most people decided that going with the flow was better than confronting a police state and starting a lot of random shootings of hostages. So most people sided with the Good Germans, not with Dietrich Bonhoeffer. “Most Countries” thought that it was safer to ignore Rwanda. That was the consensus. You don’t get a lot of leadership nor a lot of courage from “most people” in times of trouble.

Buses and Grenada reply

I've had a think.
We seem to be discussing two seperate issues from different starting points?

I understand your question about Parties A, B and C right enough I think. My answer would be that Party C has the right to say what it wants - even if it may be incorrect or based on wrong assumptions. Free speech just went out the window?

Sam's bus analogy could run along the following lines? A modified version of the one I used on the e-mail discussion...

Whilst it is true that Saddam used to beat up other people on the bus - the other passengers (with Sam's help) had taken his club off him, set up barriers so he couldn't hit them again, frisked him pretty thoroughly for any other weapons (which he eventually resisted saying - "I have no more weapons - go away"). Saddam is now sitting on the bus pretty much hobbled and everyone is watching him pretty closely. They even poke him with sticks occasionally. He is also severely limited in what he can buy too?
Sam has a problem when one of the rats on the bus bites him so he turns round and shoots one of the rat trainers on the bus (a "nasty" man who has completely different beleifs to Sam).
Sam then turns round and threatens to shoot Saddam because he thinks he still has gun hidden somewhere - (and he once trained rats?). Some of the passengers on the bus object and some don't. Why can't we just get him to agree to being frisked again? At least we could talk about it? What's the rush here?
Sam's "gang" go ahead and shoot Saddam anyway.
They have now searched the body and it seems he was telling the truth - he had no more weapons. Now Sam is having problems with some of Saddam's family.
(contentious aside? Some of Sam's family also trained or supported rats?)
Sam and his family are now pretty upset about the guys who objected. Members of his "gang" who are neighbours with them have no such problem.
The rats are insensed though - they always are when they see Sam blasting away with his gun. They hate Sam - always will.
There has also been a number of people who allege that Sam was the one who made Saddam the leader of his family in the first place?

Some of Sam's helpful friends have suspect relations with their own families too?

bah! It is all too complicated for my tiny little brain! 8)

So...
Why do the rats hate Sam?
For an alternate and biased (?) point of view I found this? (scroll down a bit...)
Why Do "They" Hate Us?

Anyway

My question is more along the lines of what right did Party A have in threatening lethal force on Party B in the first place?

These kind of actions are arguably why current world problems are the way they are?

I don't have any solutions either. I can only hope that nations can work together for betterment and security. That's why I support the UN and would like to see it improved and empowered.

The "What we are debating here?" posting.

No - I'm not saying you're rambling and unfocussed! I'm pretty sure I didn't imply it either. If I did, I'm sorry.

1)Some of Europe's "assumption" was that the UN is a good place to discuss stuff like this and that the US would be "wise" to work with it too? My personal surprise is that they went ahead so quickly when there didn't seem to be a case for haste?

2) Consensus. India and Pakistan. Hmmn. Either one of these working on an internal consensus to bomb the other is not a world (UN) consensus. You are misrepresenting my logic I'm afraid.

I've said this before and I fear to sound repetative.

The US has a population divided into states and operates a consensus system to govern its own internal affairs between those states.
Democracy. Yes/No?
Some of the States have laws/attitudes that other states do not agree with? Yes/No?

Now scale the whole thing up and consider.

The World has a population divided into Nations - it is trying to operate a consensus system to govern its internal (planetary) affairs between those nations.
The UN. Yes/No?
Some of the Nations have laws/attitudes that other nations do not agree with? And so on.

Simplistic I know.
Now unless you're going to tell me that the US Democracy is a perfect system. I would ask why you agree (and extol) an imperfect national consensus system at home in your State in the nation, but reject an imperfect international consensus system in your nation in the world?

Now if the international scheme is too imperfect - why not try and perfect it - rather than try to chuck it out?

Hmmn.

"Party C has the right to say what it wants"

I disagree with "what it wants" in some circumstances. The no-freedom-to-shout-"Fire"-in-a-crowded-theater principle.

Remember the example. Party C was telling B something which C knew to be false, or else saying it was true when actually were aware they really didn't know. C was saying "A won't use force" when either C thought A actually would use force, or when C really did not know but was representing to B that he did know.) This false representation to B was encouraging B (intentionally on C's part if you take "B" to be Saddam and "C" to be the French) to ignore the threat of violence, thereby making the actual use of violence more likely.

If you are asking "Do you [Drew] think free speech gives people the right to say things they know are false in situations where their knowling lie will cause someone's death" then no, I don't believe in that much free speech.

As a US/UK difference, it is my understanding, btw that free speech in the UK is more limited than free speech in the US, mostly because your libel laws give more rights to public figures and less to the press than ours do. But as I understand it both countries limit free speech at the point where the speech is harmful and knowingly false.

"The World has a population divided into Nations - it is trying to operate a consensus system to govern its internal (planetary) affairs between those nations."

Well, I agree with the literal sense of that but somehow I think we are drawing opposite meanings from those words.

Do I think the majority of the nations in the world are trying to establish a system under which by majority vote of nations Libya, Sudan, Saddam's Iraq and North Korea can vote that Libya is in charge of Human Rights, Iraq in charge of disarmament? (Iraq was scheduled to take over the chair of the disarmament commitee next, but the UN panicked when they saw that might not be "Saddam-Iraq" but "Iraq-under-US-Control" so they changed the succession of the chairmanship.)

Yes, they are trying to do that: Have a system of majority voting to control the US and make it do what they want.

However I think neither that such a system will ever actually be up and running. The US and other countries will ignore the General Assembly screaming "You are unspeakably evil, (and pay us reparations for your evil)". I think it would be a Very Bad Thing if we did establish a world government run by the votes of those tyrants and murders who run most of the countries in the UN. I think it would be a bad thing to have the UN decide who was "fit to vote" like the EU is deciding who is fit to be a member of the EU. That will quickly just degenerate into situation #1 above. North Korea and Libya agreeing with France and Germany that the US should not have a vote. Or like the EU agreeing that there is "just something not quite acceptable" about the Turks (nothing to do with brown skin or non-Christian religion, mind you, just something not quite right).

And (repetitively) I don't think it is a good idea to keep saying "we are almost there" when we are no where near a world government that can force member states to obey its decrees.

What do I think is better than having the unelected dictators who run the UN decide things by consensus? Have more representative democracies, more free market economies and more open education. Sort of like we are trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq over the screams and objections of the Consensus who are terrified at that thought.

After Carter... I can see that. Over here Carter is just "President Peanut", just another US CEO.
I suppose the military needed a dose of something after "Desert One". Watching a few Rambo movies did not cut it.

As for Vietnam...don't get me started. It is a most fascinating piece of history and worthy of endless study. How not to set clear policy and then not to stick to it.

Which brings us to the Doctrine of Sovereign States. This is the belief that the world is divided into nations, states whatever, and they are sovereign.
If you believe this then you have a right to defend your borders and have a customer service. Also you then believe that intervention into foreign territory is state to state warfare. If you do not believe in it them preemptive intervention is not plain warfare.
This works both ways. If we hold that our territory is sovereign (we do!) then so is theirs.
There is, apparently, a subject called International Law. But there is no Court Structure and no elected Assembly passing these laws. Unless you count the UN GA....?

"Party C has the right to say what it wants" post

If you are asking "Do you [Drew] think free speech gives people the right to say things they know are false in situations where their knowling lie will cause someone's death" then no, I don't believe in that much free speech.

OK - so now we now boil the concept of "free speech" down to legality? Where will we administer such International Law for "free speech" then?

Are we all to abrogate our National Sovreignty and Laws to a US Legal process? Or are we going to sit round a table and discuss things like Law, Human Rights, Interventionist Policies in an (imperfect) consensus way? Like we do at home?

Yes, the UK has it's own internal laws. So does everyone else. They are all different. So which one is right?

Some US argument on this thread seems to imply that theirs is the only "right". Via "might is right"?

Yet Don is professedly "pro-life" and his nation is pro- abortion? Does he charge about beating up doctors and nurses at home?

I am also still wondering if I will ever get answers to my previous questions, or more questions about "definitions" and "terms". Legalisms too. 8)

I presume you realise that this thread is in itself a microcosm of UN problems and issues - and (so far) it seems we are just the UK and US part of it! The "buddies"? Part of "Sam's gang"?

Hmmn

"so now we now boil the concept of "free speech" down to legality"

No. Not Legality. Right and wrong. Moral and Immoral. Sometimes the morally correct choice has nothing to do with the legally correct choice. And for better or worse this State vs State stuff is not occuring in an area where there is any real, agreed upon Law.

Hmm, now you want me to define "good" and "bad"? "Good" is how you want other people to treat you. It is how you hope your children treat other children. Most people agree on some rule like that (which includes "Saying things you know are false when you know this will cause someone else harm is 'bad.' ")

Yes, Nations might (as individuals have) agree to sign over their rights to some Group Authority. But they haven't and I have trouble seeing them doing it soon.

I certainly don't see the UN as any precursor of such a Group Authority. As I told you, I think _all_ the actions of the UN Political Authority have either failed or caused harm. AQ is even harsher. He listed their failures (like bungling their protecton of Milosevic) as their 'finest moments.'

"No. Not Legality. Right and wrong. Moral and Immoral."
reply.

Oh! I see.

OK. Yup! Forget legality. Chuck it out. Gone. woosh!

Morals then. Right and Wrong.

Crikey.

Whose morals are we talking about then? Yours, mine? Which ones shall we adopt, and how are we to decide?

Are we going to adopt ages old written moral values like - hey! - the Ten Commandments. That would be a good start for a "good" Christian "world moral stance". Yup. Let's do that - see where it goes.

Oh dear... which ones?

Oh dear. And we've only strayed into "christian/jewish" ideals here. How about Islam, Hinduism, Shinto etc etc etc,.

No - I most particularly do not want you or any other "individual" or "self appointed body" to define what is "good" or "bad". In the same way that a load of people didn't want the Pope, the Spanish Inquisition to define them either. Or Hitler, or... [add your chosen despot here]

We are now walking a path close to religeous convictions and beliefs. I am not religeous. I steer clear of such discussions for fear of sounding personally "anti" to some of the issues that topic raises.

And.
No - I was not Christened. I was born in an atheist house in the middle of a jungle and delivered by a chinese midwife. I am therefore a genuine "heathen" -if you will? If I am wrong - I am going straight to hell when I die. No remission. No last appeal. No chance. A complete gonner!
Ho hum.

So morally I am potentially to be considered "untouchable" - or a target of "conversion" by the the various religeous groups? Hmmn. No thanks.

I have my own personal set of "morals" - but I don't really call them "morals" - I call them "common sense". Common, in that most people seem to work OK with them and law (in general) supports them too. (And yes - I'm pretty sure they are based on those 10 commandments - or one of the versions. They aren't exactly "mind-blowing" concepts. Even then.)

I didn't expect this discussion to get this far along the scale of "rational thought" towards "moral conviction". Oh well.

"Whose morals are we talking about then?" etc.

Wow! Where did _that_ come from? Take a step back. Take a deep breath. Take your Mellaril!

I agree, not all religions have the same tenets. Some are good. Others are evil and destructive. The good ones are all pretty much the same. And you don’t need to see look at your neighbors test paper to see what every one in the Consensus is doing to tell the one from the other.

Some say “Don’t do unto others what you don’t want done back to you” and some say “Kill anybody who is the tiniest bit different.” If you can’t tell which of those is “good” and which is “bad” then, Houston, we have a Problem.

Do you want a situation where there is no law and no Big Religious Principle and where there is Good and Bad? How about the Supermarket (that is a ‘Merican word for the English “Saintsbury”). There are five people in line. You are in a hurry. Do you a) stand in line because they were there first or b) go to the front of the line because you are in a hurry? Neither is against the law. And let’s say for the sake of argument that you are in _such_ a rush you don’t have time to ask the other people what the Consensus is. And neither of those two choices are against any law.

This is not Rocket Science. Heck, it isn’t even Brain Surgery. At some point you need to stand on your own two feet and decide who you are and what you are.

A lot of comments since I last had time to go online. No time to respond to all the interesting comments, but let me clarify a few things.

Grenada: This thread – at least from the part I was brought into it – had to do with American military intervention. That is why I focused on the bloody 1983 coup. Someone asked for another source about the Governor General requesting assistance. I'm semi-familiar with the US government sites, so I went looking there. According to the US Government In October 1983, a power struggle within the government resulted in the arrest and subsequent murder of Bishop and several members of his cabinet by elements of the people's revolutionary army. Following a breakdown in civil order, a U.S.-Caribbean force landed on Grenada on October 25 in response to an appeal from the governor general and to a request for assistance from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. U.S. citizens were evacuated, and order was restored.

I could not find a transcript of the Governor General's exact request. However, that does not surprise me. Our government is still putting all of its records online, putting records of foreign correspondence online is definitely a very low priority. Perhaps one of the British members of this thread could search their own government's sites? At any event, barring someone finding a better source, I'll stick with the US government statement on this.

I also want to make clear that I never called Stephen Zunes a "mad" professor. I had actually read his exact article (published at a different site) before the initial reference. While I believe he sees things through a leftist bias, many of his points are well-founded. However, many are not. He makes sweeping generalizations (such as Of particular concern was the influence Bishop and his supporters--who were greatly inspired by the Black Power movement in the United States--could have on African-Americans. A successful socialist experiment by English-speaking Blacks just a few hours by plane from the United States was seen as a threat.) without any support. You and I try to do better than this and we write for free as part of personal discussions. Zunes is writing professionally, yet he makes other broad accusations without proof.

But I think we are beating a dead horse here. Drew has brought up perspectives from those who were actually there – perspectives woefully missing from the links of yours I clicked on (I admit, I only went to about 5 of them, the Zunes seemed the best of the ones I tried and they went downhill from there). I'm not defending all of the stuff the US allegedly did, if they actually did so, but given the bloody coup, I am proud the US showed the moral courage to put an end to it. You think this was an act of aggression (even though it may have been directly requested by your Queen's representative and was, at a minimum, indirectly requested). So we may as well move on.

Regarding the BBC: You say but as the BBC does not need to compete in exactly the same way as Commercial stations or newspapers do - they have more freedom (such as it is) to be non-sensationalist and just stick to facts?I believe that was the intent. It is also the reason given for tenure at American universities. I believe the results are the same. We can theorize about the reasons for this, but virtually everyone I know who reads a lot would put BBC on the far left side of the scale just as most people put Fox news on the far right. Sure, I can find people who find Fox (or the BBC) to be centered, but that tells me more about how that person sees the world than anything else.

As you say the nub of the matter is who controls when the US uses its might. You seem most upset when the US acted in ways where the UK disagreed (or at least when their PM and/or citizens disagreed). But nine times out of 10, the UK fought alongside with us. If the UK really disagreed with us, but came along just because you are good followers, then you have an internal problem.

Getting back to determining when the US uses its might: like any sovereign power, it will do so when it chooses. We will never, ever, give non-Americans the right to tell us what to do with our own resources. I can see what that might frustrate non-Americans, but I don't see why you fear it. From an American perspective, Europeans – as a whole – were responsible for much of the death in the twentieth century and Asian countries were responsible for quite as bit as well. The lesson most Europeans learned from this is to not trust nation states. The lesson most Americans learned from this is to attack tyrants early (and a skepticism about European leadership). So from a European view of the world (with a bias against nation states), America stands out as a danger. From an American view of things, Europe (as a whole, there are many notable exceptions) is filled with appeasers who would let another Hitler grow instead of taking prompt action. European inaction in Kosovo and Iraq (until the US decided to move with or without help) reinforces this perception. For my part I am glad many European nations decided to follow our leadership (and that Tony Blair was part of the leadership, not part of the problem), but I remain dismayed that not one European country was willing to even handle Kosovo until and unless the US got involved. So the two perspectives are far apart. They will probably grow even farther apart.

I appreciate your politeness and time in sharing your perspective. One of your comments illustrates the difference between European and American perspectives as I just described above. You said The "gun" IS big and powerful, but the hand seems to be "unsteady" and the intention uninformed? From an American perspective, the gun hand is firm and the intention steady. But some observers are quaking so hard their glasses are trembling resulting in blurred vision where appeasement looks good. I am sure you won't agree with my assessment (any more than I agreed with your assessment). But it does highlight the difference in how our cultures view things.

I would like to bring one point of American law to your attention though – it may make you feel a wee bit better about our gun hand. Our president does not have the power to wage war on his own authority. He has to get it from Congress. (The president can give orders for brief actions without Congressional approval, but anything that takes a lot of time and effort requires this approval).

One last comment, then I'm calling it a night. You ask for a consensus driven world where might does not drive the rules. As long as we are governed by human beings, it will not happen. And I doubt you could come up with a fair way to do it, even in theory. Should we go by the number of citizens? So if China and India vote together, that alone accounts for over 40% of the world's votes? After all, if you want a representative consensus, that is the logical result. Or do you want every tiny country to have the same say as a large country with many times its population? That hardly seems fair nor logical. But if you have some ideas, I am interested in hearing them.

When time permits, I'll try to answer your comments on the UN (one of the biggest wastes of US taxpayer monies in existence).

I have added a new Sam story over at the bus ride blog. Check out Sam still rides the bus

Recall that the founders, including Roosevelt, were people doing actual things. Practical people winning WW2 and planning how the planet would look after 1948. They knew a good working compromise when they saw one. Later on purists could live in the nice safe world they made and choose to stamp their feet. So it goes.

Our president does not have the power to wage war on his own authority.

Is this the War Powers Act?

I understood that more than one President viewed that as unconstitutional. There are fudges available to Presidents. Just as Congress exclusively makes treaties, the Executive makes "Executive Agreements" - scholars cannot tell the difference. Wasn't it Nixon who established that the President can bomb who he damn well pleases? I cannot recall anyone being brought to book for illegal ARCLIGHT operations over Cambodia and Laos.

"Whose morals are we talking about then?" etc.
Wow! Where did _that_ come from?

It came from someone calling themselves "|"? Who was that?

You are now advocating qualities of "good" and "bad" and effectively prejudging moral sets and assuming a consensus?

“Don’t do unto others what you don’t want done back to you”. Sounds like you wouldn't mind if we invaded your country? Is the US following this cited "good"? Or merely "projecting" this "good" and breaking a few other "goods" because it is "justified" by other "goods"?

This all seems to have started from your accusation that Party C misrepresented its powers to Party B about Party A. Which under the 10 Commandments you could probably stretch the "bearing false witness" one around with a bit of leverage. Pop up a few levels and we find good ol' "thou shalt not kill". Which has been stretched and wrestled around so many issues it's hard to read the writing anymore.

We live in an imperfect world and one running high on emotional "righteousness". Islamic terrorists are on Jihad - they too are running on moral adrenaline. So who is to judge? God? Ultimately religeous people will say yes. We will all be judged. As an atheist this rather leaves me on the doorstep wondering what on earth is going on?

Here we have an issue in which He is a common factor amazingly enough. The Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God (Bush Nov 20)? They just have different Prophets? Different interpretations of His Will? Sorry, I am straying too far into territory I said I would avoid.

The basic problem is that us jogging mortals have to resolve these issues as they seem to be different. Sometime in the past someone decided that Crusades were "good" just as now some advocate that "Jihad" is "good". We also (as a species) have to accept that some religeons do not worship the same God. And some do not worship at all.

So who is to decide?

We still come back to that question I asked, the one about "might is right" or "consensus".

Your statement
If you can’t tell which of those is “good” and which is “bad” then, Houston, we have a Problem.

Now you see it. Yes. If you hadn't already noticed We (the world) do have a problem. Strange thing is - some believe that the US is that problem? Amazing? Not really.

So who is to decide?

The man with the biggest gun? Is reasoned debate not also a solution?

"Men with Guns" on your streets are governed by Laws your people have derived by consensus. I may be wrong but I'd guess that the Law against murder doesn't let him off because he he says he thought he was doing a "good" thing? No - you go to trial and get a consensus about whether he was doing a "good" thing. Law.

"Good" and "bad" changes. Both our nations (or parts of them) believed that slavery was "good" - or at least not "bad". Consensus didn't work for the US and you fought about it. Was that "good"? The Ten Commandments has no obvious law about slavery? "Not stealing" might count - but it doesn't define "ownwership". They do say "not kill" - yet the ACW was one of the worst killing sprees the US ever had.

"Good" and "bad" don't work without consensus.

So who is to decide?

In leiu of an answer to my "might is right" or "consensus" question - I'd guess that I'd have to assume you favour the former? The question wasn't entirely fair - I know, because I suspect you actually favour a "consensus of like thinking minds" as a sort of middle ground? Yes/No?

The problem with that - to my mind - is that this sort of consensus is "created". Hitler created one with the Nazis.

If we decide to do the same sort of thing now we merely polarise world issues and potentially plant the seeds of WWIII. That is what we learn from history...

Why not try a new path. Dialogue?

The right to declare war was given to Congress in our">http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html">our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). However, historically, minor actions do not require to consent of Congress. And a few times the President ignored this by not declaring war and a wimpy Congress allowed this. The War Powers Act (or War Powers Resolution) was a response to Vietnam, where a wimpy Congress refused to either buck the president or declare war, attempts to specify exactly how the President could use his authority as commander in chief.
Before starting the war to liberate Iraq, President Bush obtained Congressional approval. If you followed our democratic primary, you may have noticed Kerry taking some flack for voting for the war. He tries to have it both ways, but his defense is "I voted for war to send a message to Saddam, I never thought Bush was serious."

One last thing, then I'm going offline for a while (this is fun, but the real-world calls). Americans are not for anarchy, we are firm believers in the rule of law. But we differentiate between laws that are seen as legitimate and laws that are not. For example, our domestic laws are created by our representatives through a democratic process. A few activists judges are trying to impose their own laws on us outside the democratic process and this is a big internal issue for us (most of us don’t respect these judges either and see these imposed laws as illegitimate).

International law is created by might and enforced (or not enforced) by might (or the lack thereof). So we have much less respect for it than we do for laws based on representation. In theory, this seems like your own attitude toward law vs. might.

I would cheerfully support the creation of an international body with representatives from democracies that would tackle international law. Until then, nothing will really change. Big powers will follow the traditional of international law until it gets in the way of something they feel strongly about. Then they will ignore it.

Don, hi!

Grenada again. OK - follow the US Govt's "Truth". Your right to do so is not disputed. I was merely expressing a view that it is not the only "Truth" out there? I don't "know" if Zunes is correct or not, but the issues are still there and I would suggest that dismissing them summarily is not the right approach either?

Drew did indeed bring up a source who was there. Am I to dismiss it all because of one voice?

I will move on though.

What do we learn from History events like this? If at all? "Pre-emptive action" is sometimes "suspect"? Or "always correct"? Or "always wrong"?

Who decides?

As part of a Nation working under a consensus system I effectively elect and pay people to decide things like this for me on the international scene. I don't always agree with them but that's the system we operate.

OK. The US, the UN.
As yet I have tried to avoid involving either party politics (left/right) or UN specific mechanisms. I have, I hope, been argueing in favour of "dialogue" and "consensus" over "might is right". I don't have solutions to what changes should be made to the UN, I just believe that it is better to talk than to kill, and that assessments of past history are what created it in the first place. We should never have a WWIII.

I'm getting a "mixed message" about the "American Perspective" here.
"Europeans – as a whole – were responsible for much of the death in the twentieth century"
On the face of it - True. It does seem a curious stance to promote though? Were we wrong to fight two world wars? Are we wrong to try and learn from them? Now we are "filled with appeasers"? I took a moment to reflect on that one.
I don't see myself or any of us really in that light. We have tried to learn from our wars. Now we prefer to talk about things more and act on decisions formed from those discussions. Gulf 1/Kuwait is an example

The UN SC piled loads of resolutions against Iraq-list

The US ended up leading an interesting coalition of Nations to free Kuwait -

Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.

Is a list I found. That's an interesting list!!!? (agreed - not all were keen about it)

At the same time some US (and other nations') citizens were waving "No Blood For Oil" banners. It's a funny old world! 8)

So we come back to the same old questions. A minority (?) in the US objected to Gulf 1, but under a "consensus" system (Congress etc) the US supplied around 74% of the forces involved.
I'd argue that the UN "sanctioned" it. potted history

The UN is basically powerless, but it seems to have to pick up the pieces too.

"As long as we are governed by human beings, it will not happen."
Hmmmn. Prejudicial or what? I mean in the basic form of "judgement before... ".

My poor little brain is hurting from slamming it against a wall of "this is this - period" type statements like this. "the UN (one of the biggest wastes of US taxpayer monies in existence)."

Oh well. Grenada was OK - because despite any argument to the contrary - " barring someone finding a better source, I'll stick with the US government statement on this. I suspect I can never find a "better source" whatever I do? The world is not grey - it is black and white now. Ho hum.

Call me an "idealist" or an "idiot" if you wish - I am not clever, and I certainly do not "know" all the answers.

I support ideas like the UN because I believe it (or something similar) is the only rational way for the world to operate. Anything else is just "might is right"?
Down that path lies WWIII.

We have seen arguments about "good" and "bad" - is the UN "bad"? Are it's aims "bad". Sure - I'll happily jump on board with the argument that it isn't perfect. Then again, neither is Democracy.
You seem to support the latter, and may even want to perfect it. What precisely is the difference?

I have not at any time tried to suggest how the UN should be improved, I hope - nor have I advocated a "global proportional representation system" for it. I don't have answers to what should be done to improve it, but I still believe that it should be part of the Evolution of humankind just as the US Democratic System was part of the Evolution of the "United States".

The irony (in my view) is the acceptance of a "United States" and the fervent mistrust of a "United Nations". Curious? Is the USA _really_ that "United"?

Are the opinions being offered here the full and agreed opinions of the entire US population?

So who decides?

Don said, "Americans are not for anarchy, we are firm believers in the rule of law. But we differentiate between laws that are seen as legitimate and laws that are not."
Something puzzles me about law in the USA. From 8000 kilometres away it seems that almost everything can be overturned by one court or another. New business competitor? Simple, bogus lawsuit. City govt does something you don't like? Simple, lawsuit in higher (District?) court. Election going badly? Simple, stop counting and start a suit to freeze the result. Patents cost too much to examine? Simple, file 'em all and let the courts sort out the mess.
It is like there is no final authority. A perpetual game of "scissors, paper, stone" with the deepest pockets winning due to lawyers fees. In Britain Parliament is Sovereign (on behalf of the people) and gives Ministers powers and so down the pyramid.
I am sure that I cannot have understood the US law properly. Perhaps you could explain. But your media give this impression about suits and countersuits. This gives an impression that Americans do what they please and pay lawyers to clear up the paperwork later.
Do you declare laws you do not like as not legitimate?

"But we differentiate between laws that are seen as legitimate and laws that are not."

Crikey. What can I say? Is this an new definition of the word "legitimate"? My dictionary does not contain that one I suspect.

I must assume you meant something else - but it isn't clear what?

"...most of us don’t respect these judges either and see these imposed laws as illegitimate"

Most? You've had a referendum then? What were the results?

An illegitimate law? Paradoxical? I don't really understand the issues here but it seems something "imperfect" is happening in your consensus system?

What I am reading, "between the lines", perhaps, is that you do not believe in your own consensus systems for law and such? I might agree with you... I have always discussed these issues here from a perspective that existing consensus mechanisms are imperfect. These mechanisms "evolve". If it is imperfect are you going to chuck out the whole thing - or work out a better way to do it? What mechanism will you use to do that?

The world is a world of compromise. It's the best way I can think of. I do not have a perfect solution for you either.

International Law.
I'm really pleased you have admitted support for the concept of International Law. Hooray! OK - there was a subclause - "democracies" only? Hmmn. Another "club", more polarisation? Who gets excluded and why? Also - didn't I read somewhere that the US had "unsigned" itself from the Rome Statute on the ICC?

Who decides?

A body like that might well decline into a "nodding shop" of "like thinking people" - arguably like NATO. Except France is part of NATO and the UN and is a Democracy. Are you now willing to sit at the table with them again?

Where do we draw the line? Britain is technically a Constitutional Monarchy, and by association so are Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of others. Do we/they qualify? Non-Royalist View?

A consensus based on "like thinking people" has a different name. That's an "Alliance". And is not a "world consensus" - in that not all "voices" are heard.

I mentioned before IIRC. There's not much point in a selective consensus. It defeats the object. It's a bit like the Democrats using a majority verdict to mandate that the Republicans are no longer allowed to vote? A bit?

A dialogue and consensus approach is pretty pointless if the "opposition" is excluded. I'd agree that it might sound odd, but if we don't invite the "non-democracies" we are effectively invalidating our own consensus approach?

This approach could be seen as an "invitational" stance as opposed to a "oppositional" stance. Whilst contentious discussion may be the result - membership of the forum should be "seen" as advantageous to the individual nations - not a disadvantage.

I'm no expert on these things - but I believe the UN is a "move" in the right direction.

Imperfect as it is, and our own legal and governmental systems are - what is there that is better?

On Pre-emptiveness have you guys looked at this site ?
Probably another bunch of "bleeding heart liberals" (pre-Iraq 2 analyses..)

On the subject of intervention. I saw a rather boasting view of the (then upcoming) Gulf War when visiting Singapore in '02. I read a re-print in the Straits Times of a William Safire NYT article (registration required)(caution: apparently NYT is a hotbed of leftism).
This article had some choice bits like: After our victory in the second gulf war, Britain would replace France as the chief European dealer in Iraqi oil and equipment. Woo hoo! We get France's old share.
At the time I thought he was selling the lion skin before killing the beast. But on reflection it sounded like a mouthpiece, spreaking through a clown, to tell us all what the deal was and get the chips on the table. I predicted a March 1 start date for Iraqi Freedom, based on the GW1 timetable. I was 17 days off, probably due to Blair and the UN stuff.
In retrospect this is war by IPO. You estimate the gain, subtract the overheads and divvy the action amongst the players you invite. Of course you need an underwriter...how about the taxpayer?

"caution: apparently NYT is a hotbed of leftism"

Yeah. They put Safire there as their "token right winger" as a trap for the unwary.

On a more serious note, there is the editorial opinions of the NY Times (on the editorial page) and the "news" on the front page. The problem with the NY Times is the "news" is also editorial opinion. They not only slant the stories as much as possible, they even publish stories that are flat made up.

Just like the BBC.

I realize all this is hard to follow because of the names involved:

"Blair Lied" when the NY Times says it means the PM of Britain.

"Blair Lied" when Fox says it means Jayson Blair, the NY Times writer who admits he just plain made up his stories.

"Gilligan Lied" when Fox says it means Andrew (Andrew Gilligan is the guy who Tony Blair, not Jayson Blair, bribed Lord Hutton to disparage in the Hutton Report)

"Gilligan Lied" when the BBC says it means he didn't tell the Professor, the Captain nor the Howells about the lion on the other side of the island.

You just need to keep your players straight.

This US media thing is very complicated.
So Safire is a "token right-winger". Sure fooled these good old boys over at the Daily Pundit.
The NYT seems simple compared to the layout of the rabid Daily Mail over here. They have the news (Blair lied about X), three (count them) opinion pages by gossip mongers, editorial (Blair concealed his lies about X) and also a daily essay (why being good is nice).
There is also the Daily Mirror which is the opposite. If you bring a copy of each together they disappear in a flash of gamma rays!

However it seems sad that the Straits Times was sold that rubbish. The good people of Singapore probably think we intervened in Iraq to take all of the French supply business. Of course this is not true - Blair is too much the trusting Boy Scout and probably did not get anything in writing.

By "token right winger" I am not implying Safire is not on the Right. I think he is. By "token" I mean he is the one Right Winger the NY Times hired, so they could say "See, we have all sorts of views here."

BTW, was the Daily Mail talking about Tony or Jayson?

UN as ulitmate world authority:

I don't know how closely you are all following this, but there may be (i.e. they say they will do it, now let's see if they do) an investigation of the UN Oil for Food program.

See for example:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&ncid=1504&e=4&u=/afp/20040421/ts_afp/un_iraq_oil_annan_040421174044

or

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110004968

or (for those of Celtic persuasion)

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=447892004

(If you think I have a low opinion of the UN read how the guy in The Scotsman article describes them. He makes me sound as middle of the road as AQ).

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. One of the problems with "The UN is higher than any other authority" is obviously "Then how do you 'arrest and imprison' the UN when it does something wrong"

I wonder if Kofi and his son have private assurances of protection from members of the Security Council.

You know, like the assurances Manuel Noriega, Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein all had.

I enjoyed the first few books in the series, not only for the fictional expression of the end times, but also for the glimpse inside the minds of new believers. I look foward to completing the series.

I would caution anyone who enjoyed the books to skip the movies.

Let me understand: You put a stamp on your tax return and then drop it in the mail? You don't send it return-receipt requested?

What do you do when they claim you didn't file? Doesn't this happen to you regularly, or is that just me?

Heck, I sent one return in return receipt requested. Two years later I got a letter saying I hadn't filed that year (Federal) and I had incurred a penalty.

So I sent them a copy of the return-receipt showing the IRS had received it 2 years before AND sent them a copy of the cancelled check that had cleared 2 years before.

The IRS informed me that the return reciept only proved I had mailed them something, not that a tax return was actually in the envelope. They agreed they probably got the check, but maybe that was all that was in the envelope.

So I sent them a copy of the return (my spacious estate is filled mostly with boxes of old records) and a notarized statement that I had actually mailed this to them 2 years before and had not just mailed an envelope containing a check but nothing else.

That was 3 years ago and I haven't heard back from them, but I am not jumping to any conclusions.

(This year my main problem was a company in South Carolina I had never heard of who mailed the IRS a W-2 with my name and social security number on it, claiming they had paid me about $1500. Not a lot, just enough to mess things up. They don't claim that I actually worked for them on site. (They are an insurer). They just state they paid a claim for me to do some professional work somewhere for somebody they insured. So now I need to figure some way to prove all the people I did NOT work for last tax year).

This sort of thing happens to all the rest of you all the time too, right?

What do you mean "next time"? No more carnivals for you!

Words of wisdom right there that you would have to become a denzien of my kingdom, were you to ignore it.