Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
Some questions/comments: d.brin wrote: Baloney. We needed one thing. Basra. We needed to go in there with sudden, overwhelming force and free the people quickly, so they would be seen worldwide cheering us in the streets. Do you really think we could have been *sure* of taking Basra that quickly, easily, and bloodlessly, right on day 1? Taking Basra that way certainly would have been a political coup for the Coalition. Personally, though, I think the British forces alone were/are more than capable of taking the city at will, and the only thing holding them back is concern for civilian casualties. What if the sudden all-out attack on Basra got bogged down in street fighting (due to that need to avoid civilian deaths), which would start mounting in any case? This would give Iraq a propaganda victory, time to organize more defense, send in support, and start lobbing missiles at Israel and Jordan. Also, from what I've been reading, the cheering in the streets where we have taken towns, has been somewhat minimal. The Iraqis don't quite trust us (somewhat deservedly as you've said), and aren't sure if we're going to follow through and eliminate Saddam. It may take the actual end of the regime before people begin to stop fearing. Then gently capture a few regular army divisions, cull out the bad officers and send those divisions marching to Baghdad. Would the US Army ever really consider doing this? Arming POW's and asking them to fight on our side? We might expect/count on Iraqis fleeing/surrendering, but I think expecting that we'd be able to arm a few divisions worth of POW's and get them to fight against their government in short order is a whole vastly different thing. That would have sufficed. Taking away Saddam's victims and his oil wells - north and south. Charging to Baghdad was the stupidest imaginable plan. If it works (and I now hope it does) it will be thanks to toweringly skillful US Arrmy Marine noncoms, saving the generals' hash I don't think charging to Bagdad was all that stupid an idea, and in fact, I think it was rather clever. The benefits I see of going straight for Bagdad: - we quickly gain control of a majority of Iraq for ourselves, making it easier to prevent a repeat of the Peekaboo scud attacks on Israel during the Gulf War. - the direct threat against Bagdad was more likely to keep Saddam's forces stationed there to defend that threat, rather than allowing him to use them more strategically. - we avoid getting bogged down in city street fighting in all the towns and cities along the way. As I see it. there's little to be gained by taking all these smaller cities first, risking the civilian and military casualites, when it's quite likely they won't fight at all once Bagdad falls. -I do agree that it left our rear and supply lines exposed to the guerilla-type stuff we've seen, but that was never any real strategic threat to us, and I think the above benefits outweighed those risks. -Bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think charging to Bagdad was all that stupid an idea, and in fact, I think it was rather clever. The benefits I see of going straight for Bagdad: -Bryon So far, I'd have to say that they will be studying this plan in textbooks. But part of going to Baghdad can also be explained this way. What was our objective? To topple the regime. What is the single most important support of the regime? The Republican Guard. Where were the Republican Guards arrayed? Well, around Baghdad, unsurprisingly enough. Thus to destroy the Republican Guards, you have to go to Baghdad. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
At 06:45 AM 4/2/2003 +0100 Andrew Crystall wrote: To try and answer your question, I see the US as being the preeminent superpower for at least the next 100 years. *raises an eyebrow* I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. I've got $100 2003 US dollars (adjusted using the US CPI) for payment on 4/1/2003 if the US is no longer the world's superpower in that date for you Andrew. Nick - can we put this in your prediction's registry? The idea is absurd even 50 or 40 years from now. At the rate China is growing, we should be ready for trouble in 15. I don;t know what economic projections you are using, but even assuming that China's official growth figures are accurate and sustainable over the course of the next century, China will not be able to rival the US for a good 100 years or so. There's one problem. It doesn't assume China turns expansionist. And China's internal problems seem to me all to be pointing to that being a neat soloution for China. Pretty tough on everyone ELSE, but with Taiwan, well... China turning expansionist should have no effect. China will definitely not be able to conquer the Republic of Korea nor Japan nor India nor Taiwan in the next 20 years. China simply has no amphibious capabilities to speak of, and the US is strongly committed to the defense of those nations. They might be able to handle Mongolia or some of the Central Asia countries, but those areas are so resource poor as to have little effect in the 20-year time frame. The same is true for Southeast Asia. The greatest worry would be a Chinese-Russian conflict, where China could grab a sizable slice of Siberia. Even so China is just too big and way too poor to truly emerge from poverty in only 20 years.If you want to remind me in a couple weeks, I can run some numers on US and Chinese GDP per head and how long it would take China to get within the US's ballpark at various possible growth rates. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
On 2 Apr 2003 at 7:06, John D. Giorgis wrote: The idea is absurd even 50 or 40 years from now. At the rate China is growing, we should be ready for trouble in 15. I don;t know what economic projections you are using, but even assuming that China's official growth figures are accurate and sustainable over the course of the next century, China will not be able to rival the US for a good 100 years or so. There's one problem. It doesn't assume China turns expansionist. And China's internal problems seem to me all to be pointing to that being a neat soloution for China. Pretty tough on everyone ELSE, but with Taiwan, well... China turning expansionist should have no effect. China will definitely not be able to conquer the Republic of Korea nor Japan nor India nor Taiwan in the next 20 years. China simply has no amphibious capabilities to speak of, and the US is strongly committed to the defense of those nations. They can build it, and I don't count on the US Naby being able to stop them. Kursk. Shkval supercavitating torpedo. They might be able to handle Mongolia or some of the Central Asia countries, but those areas are so resource poor as to have little effect in the 20-year time frame. The same is true for Southeast Asia. The greatest worry would be a Chinese-Russian conflict, where China could grab a sizable slice of Siberia. Even so China is just too big and way too poor to truly emerge from poverty in only 20 years.If you want to remind me in a couple weeks, I can run some numers on US and Chinese GDP per head and how long it would take China to get within the US's ballpark at various possible growth rates. As I said, they can take Taiwan. Unless and until the Americans come up with the supercav machine gun they're working on, the Shkval is basically unstopable. And while it's possible the Chinese only have the first generation and not the second generation Shkval, even the first has no American answer. Taiwan...would be an immense boost for the Chinese. Add in all the infrastructure companies are building in China now... They don't need to match the USA 1:1 for GDP either...just production where it counts (military, etc.) - they'll be prefectly willing to sacrifice civilian standards of life for tactical advantage. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. Andy Taken. How much, and what are the conditions? I never turn down free money. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:06 AM Subject: Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings At 06:45 AM 4/2/2003 +0100 Andrew Crystall wrote: To try and answer your question, I see the US as being the preeminent superpower for at least the next 100 years. *raises an eyebrow* I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. I've got $100 2003 US dollars (adjusted using the US CPI) for payment on 4/1/2003 if the US is no longer the world's superpower in that date for you Andrew. John, maybe you meant 4/1/2023? or was it April Fools? Anyways, even though you were challanged since I responded before you, I'd appreciate a piece of the action. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 06:45 AM 4/2/2003 +0100 Andrew Crystall wrote: To try and answer your question, I see the US as being the preeminent superpower for at least the next 100 years. *raises an eyebrow* I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. I've got $100 2003 US dollars (adjusted using the US CPI) for payment on 4/1/2003 if the US is no longer the world's superpower in that date for you Andrew. Don't you mean 4/1/2103? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
They don't need to match the USA 1:1 for GDP either...just production where it counts (military, etc.) - they'll be prefectly willing to sacrifice civilian standards of life for tactical advantage. They'll be perfectly willing to TRY. I'm not sure they'll be able to get away with it for as long as they would need to in order to mount a serious worldwide challenge. Now, a serious regional challenge (incl., unfortunately, Taiwan) is another matter. Of course, by that point they might be bumping heads with India... Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
On 2 Apr 2003 at 13:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They don't need to match the USA 1:1 for GDP either...just production where it counts (military, etc.) - they'll be prefectly willing to sacrifice civilian standards of life for tactical advantage. They'll be perfectly willing to TRY. I'm not sure they'll be able to get away with it for as long as they would need to in order to mount a serious worldwide challenge. Now, a serious regional challenge (incl., unfortunately, Taiwan) is another matter. Of course, by that point they might be bumping heads with India... Yeah, India is the potential stumbling block. But, there are certainly concessions (terratorial and political) which could be made to India in return for it looking the other way. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
China turning expansionist should have no effect. China will definitely not be able to conquer the Republic of Korea nor Japan nor India nor Taiwan Utter silliness. Old fashioned conquest is the simpleminded scenario that one WOULD imagine, if one felt compelled to imagine the foe being stupid. But that's why things are hard right now. We went into Iraq imagining that they would fight us conventionally, like in 91. Dig it, the underdogs re-evaluate. LAw of nature. It is unnecessary for China to conquer. Our worry must be that a large enough group of nations will get so pissed at us that you'll see a coalition stretching from Paris to Berlin to Moscow to Beijing, then down to Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, all dedicated to bringing us down a peg. If we were so stupid as to piss off the entire muslim world too. (Duh? Never!) you would include Indonesia, Pakistan (soon) and all the arab oil states. If we stupidly yowl You're next! at Iran -- as most of the right wing talkjocks are now doing, we can guarantee they'll be a part too. Yes, that leaves a lot of the Earth we have not yet offended. We stand a chance of holding several European friends and in the Americas. Staunch Poland could keep the anti-America axis from being contiguous, though Turkey certainly has an impulse to join. No, I don't expect the present love-us/hate-us alignment to be permanent. But the present trend, driven by incessant flag waving and utterly arrogant behavior, shows an utter unwillingness to extrapolate the danger. The coalition I described above is totally plausible, incorporates half the people on the globe and many centers of high technology. It needn't match out economy, or even wage war. It need only have a strong desire to bring our arrogant imperium down a peg. The arrogance you express is not a survival trait. It is tribal macho and feels good. But it is not a way for intelligent, calm leaders to behave. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
Gautam wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. Andy Taken. How much, and what are the conditions? I never turn down free money. Same here - I'd be a fool not to help part a sucker from his hard earned money. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
On 2 Apr 2003 at 17:40, Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: Gautam wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. Andy Taken. How much, and what are the conditions? I never turn down free money. Same here - I'd be a fool not to help part a sucker from his hard earned money. Well, think about the bet. I'm NOT about to bet US$ am I... Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:06 AM Subject: Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings At 06:45 AM 4/2/2003 +0100 Andrew Crystall wrote: To try and answer your question, I see the US as being the preeminent superpower for at least the next 100 years. *raises an eyebrow* I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. I've got $100 2003 US dollars (adjusted using the US CPI) for payment on 4/1/2003 if the US is no longer the world's superpower in that date for you Andrew. John, maybe you meant 4/1/2023? or was it April Fools? Yes, I met 2023. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
Dr. Brin: Glad to see you are doing well and thriving. though it is disappointing that you aren't supporting the liberation of perhaps one of the world's most oppressed peoples - the Iraqis. At 05:20 PM 4/1/2003 -0800 d.brin wrote: What the rightwing never, ever does is ask itself the sci fi question. What will humanity/Earth be like in the future? DO you honestly expect to see a loose 'international' system of sovereign states, with America striding about as the sole superpower, indefinitely deciding for itself what's to be done for everybody's own good? How about a billion years from now? To try and answer your question, I see the US as being the preeminent superpower for at least the next 100 years. I do not see a serious supranational infrastructure encompassing the US and Europe, let alone including Russia, China, or much of Africa in that timeframe either. Now, while this is not going to last forever - I don't jump from this to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to save ourselves from a slide into barbarism is for the US to covince France of the merits of liberating Iraq. Indeed, Robert Kagan has recently been pushing a thesis that mid-tier powers, who lack the ability to unilaterally provide their own security, tend to favor supra-national international systems of rules and regulations that protect themsevles. I think that you are right in arguing that the US at some point must prepare for its sunset by creating such a system that will protect it in its older, less-powerful days. In the meantime, however, the US is a hyperpower, and as Kagan predicts, tends to resist international rules and regulations that might tie it down and limit its course of action. Where I part company with Kagan is noting that hyperpowers don't just fear iinternatinoal rules and regulations of selfishness to use their power as they please, but also because of the asymetric threats from the non-powers and rogue states and terrorists, that have little conventional military power, but have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and other weapons of terror that can cause great destrucion. The problem is that these non-powers/rogue states end to bypass the mid-tiers and target the top dogs. Thus, the US while the most powerful state, is also the most threatened, a point that is often missed by mid-tiers like France. The ironic thing is, as you often note, that the US is perhaps the superpower most willing in human history to be constrained by an international system and to do things for the general self-itnerest. Heck, we FOUNDED the United Nations and NATO and even to a degree the European Union (the only other mid-term threat to our hyperpower status besides China) as well as any other number of regional organizations. More recently, we conceived the idea of an International Criminal Court and a Landmine Ban, before we had a falling out with our allies whom we gave such a voice in shaping those structures that we eventually felt compelled to leave. Still, the point remains, the US is clearly willing to support an international system. What needs to happen though, is that the US needs to be convinced that the mid-tiers are serious about making the international system WORK.Unfortuantely, every single piece of evidence from the past twleve years indicates that France is fundamentally not serious about preventing Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and then potentially using them to monopolize the world's oil reserves. France has been a consistent opponent of sanctions on Ira and inspections in the mid-1990's, and just recently opposed every measure of coercion to ensure Iraq's disarmament. Thus, the US is very rationally concluding that any international system, particularly one that grants significant power to France, cannot be trusted to guarantee our security. Until that changes, the US will be forced to make some tough decisions of course, even now we can hardly e said to be ducking internationalism and going it alone (see below.) The idea is absurd even 50 or 40 years from now. At the rate China is growing, we should be ready for trouble in 15. I don;t know what economic projections you are using, but even assuming that China's official growth figures are accurate and sustainable over the course of the next century, China will not be able to rival the US for a good 100 years or so. ANd make no mistake, we need the French. I think that there is a huge difference between needing the French and having the French would be a very good idea. Nevertheless, off the top of my head, let me run a tally of a Western Civilization Democracies and their position on the US-led liberation of Iraq: Support: US UK Australia Japan Spain Italy Poland the Netherlands Hungary the Czech Republic Slovenia Denmark Norway Iceland Portugal Opposed: France Germany Belgium New Zealand Luxembourg Brazil This kind of puts it in perspective doesn't it? This is
Re: Brin: Re: Peter Arnett has negative effect on ratings
On 1 Apr 2003 at 22:58, John D. Giorgis wrote: Dr. Brin: Glad to see you are doing well and thriving. though it is disappointing that you aren't supporting the liberation of perhaps one of the world's most oppressed peoples - the Iraqis. At 05:20 PM 4/1/2003 -0800 d.brin wrote: What the rightwing never, ever does is ask itself the sci fi question. What will humanity/Earth be like in the future? DO you honestly expect to see a loose 'international' system of sovereign states, with America striding about as the sole superpower, indefinitely deciding for itself what's to be done for everybody's own good? How about a billion years from now? To try and answer your question, I see the US as being the preeminent superpower for at least the next 100 years. *raises an eyebrow* I give you less than 20 to crash and burn. In spectacular fashion. I'll bet cash. I do not see a serious supranational infrastructure encompassing the US and Europe, let alone including Russia, China, or much of Africa in that timeframe either. Russia...well. China, I think it's a question of WHEN it retakes Taiwan. Not IF. The idea is absurd even 50 or 40 years from now. At the rate China is growing, we should be ready for trouble in 15. I don;t know what economic projections you are using, but even assuming that China's official growth figures are accurate and sustainable over the course of the next century, China will not be able to rival the US for a good 100 years or so. There's one problem. It doesn't assume China turns expansionist. And China's internal problems seem to me all to be pointing to that being a neat soloution for China. Pretty tough on everyone ELSE, but with Taiwan, well... Also, how does releasing millions of barrells of cheap Iraqi oil onto the market benefit Bush's golf buddies who own very marginal oilfields (producing expensive oil() in Texas and off the Gulf Coast? I agree on the oil . 100%. It's France and Russia who want the Iraqi oil...sigh. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
