| April 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
From World Net Daily:
The largest local union of Border Patrol agents in the country has declared its support for the Minuteman Project in Arizona, while at the same time slamming both the American Civil Liberties Union and President Bush.
According to its website, the U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544, which covers the Tucson sector of the agency, the volunteers involved in the border-monitoring Minuteman Project have been nothing but supportive.
“We want to make it clear – because we’ve had a lot of questions about this – we have not had one single complaint from a rank-and-file agent in this sector about the Minutemen,” says a statement on the site. “Every report we’ve received indicates these people are very supportive of the rank-and-file agents; they’re courteous. Many of them are retired firefighters, cops, and other professionals, and they’re not causing us any problems whatsoever.”
The group blames the ACLU for setting off ground sensors in the area of the Minutemen activities:
“Reports of [Minutemen] causing ‘ground sensors’ to go off are exaggerated because most of those are being set off by the ACLU sneaking around trying to find the Minutemen doing something wrong.”
This is part three in a series of three articles. Part one of the series is here.
Earlier today I speculated:
...by 2105 the world may change again so much as to make the whole current question of terrorism utterly irrelevant. I even think that it’s likely to change so much.
Currently we face a potentially deadly threat from terrorists who want to destroy our country and our way of life. Until about 40 years ago, any people in history with the power to do so would have responded by devastating the nation or nations from which such a threat originated. But we forbear to do so. In democracies there have always been appeasers and those reluctant to go to war, but this is different. When America was attacked at Pearl Harbor, we quickly united. In today’s case, the country has been similarly attacked, but did not fully unite to defend the safety of this nation and remove the ability of the attackers to do further harm.
Certainly mainstream media has a great responsibility for this, by suppressing so much of the news that supports Conservative views.
But I will speculate that there’s a bigger reason. Specifically, that Western nations are trying to evolve so as to be part of a world that is free of warfare. “War is wrong,” goes the Liberal refrain. And in that pursuit we are risking destruction by the people who haven’t signed onto the “war is wrong” program.
We’re in a very unusual situation in the history of the human race, in which a society is directly attacked, tremendous damage is done, and yet many members of that very society oppose removing the enemy’s ability to do further harm.
From Victor Davis Hanson:
Modern Western man is faced with this awful dilemma, from which he recoils: real peace and successful reconstruction are in direct proportion to the degree that an enemy is humiliatingly defeated and so acknowledges it—the aim being that he will come to feel that he cannot go on being what he has been. To that end, absolute victory may encompass everything from Hiroshima to bombing downtown Belgrade as the price for tranquillity and a democratic and humane postbellum Japan and the Balkans. Not finishing off a defeated Republican Guard in 1991 or sparing looters in April 2003 or breaking off the siege of Fallujah in April 2004 only ensures that more corpses will pile up later. President Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil in 2002—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—all had in common unfinished business with the U.S. military that had led to a bellum interruptum of sorts. In contrast, the Grenada communists, Noriega, Milošević , and the Taliban were all defeated, and only after that were their societies rebuilt—and thus Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan now do not belong to the axis of anything. Perhaps for all the debate over how to fight irregular wars in an age of global terrorism, we would do best to recall the realistic, if inelegant, words of the owner of the Oakland Raiders, the infamous Al Davis: “Just win, baby.”
In terms of human history, we’re in a rare circumstance, in which many in our society would rather risk continued attacks, rather than to respond decisively so as to remove the enemy’s ability to do more harm. I believe this is an anomaly, a bubble, that will not last. I have no doubt that in 100 years, and probably far sooner, society will reach a consensus that war is wrong, except when the alternative to war is far worse—in which case some devastation of those who are trying to kill you, goes a long way.
Terrorists depend on the current willingness of Western nations to respond with great restraint. But as Victor Davis Hanson notes, in some cases some lack of such restraint is just what is needed to protect society.
This is part two in a series of three articles. Part one of the series is here.
Earlier today I posted:
There is a reasonable question regarding how civilization is supposed to survive a century or two from now, when weapons like this will be much smaller and could fall into the hands of terrorists. On the plus side, things could easily change so much by then that such a question could be irrelevant.
After all, things have changed quite that much in the past 100 years.
Imagine Orville and Wilbur at Kitty Hawk in 1903, waiting for a break in the weather to try out their plane.
Wilbur: Orville?
Orville: Yes, old sport.
Wilbur: Supposing this works, all right?
Orville: Yes, right right. Well?
Wilbur: Well, supposing 100 years from now, there are super-powered planes, and someone flies them into a giant building and destroys it.
Orville: Seems quite absurd.
Wilbur: Well, but why do you say that, old man?
Orville: Well, it’s just so damned inefficient, isn’t it? I mean, why a plane? I suppose by that time if they have super-planes, they’ll have super-weapons of all sorts. I mean to say, if someone did that to us, we’d just blast their whole country to bits, wouldn’t we?
Wilbur: I suppose you’ve got something there, old bean.
The point being that 100 years ago, the notion that we’d be attacked as we were on 9-11, and wouldn’t respond by devastating the country or countries that threatened further such attacks, if it were in our power to do so, would have been unthinkable. All the way through World War II, war always included devastation of civilian populations. Today’s thinking in Western nations, that civilian casualties are to be avoided wherever possible, is surely to our credit.
If the world can change that much in 100 years, by 2105 the world may change again so much as to make the whole current question of terrorism utterly irrelevant. I even think that it’s likely to change so much. For the reason why, tune in to part three of this series, posting later today.
For a video of the Wright Brother’s first glider flight, click here.
For Orville Wright’s article, “How We Made the First Flight,” click here.
Bad guys do not want one of these pointed at them:
(CBS) U.S. scientists are on the verge of creating a laser weapon that could give American forces an awesome advantage on the battlefield, but would also raise tough questions for Pentagon war planners, a newspaper reports.
After 40 years of work, the Pentagon may have a solid-state laser in its arsenal within a decade, reports the Oakland Tribune.
...Once fully developed, the Tribune reports, solid-state lasers could shoot down mortars and artillery shells, explode ordnance in enemy depots and even wipe out ballistic missiles 500 miles away. They would strike with incredible speed and could be retargeted instantly.
...Nor will lasers be holster-sized — the smallest to date is the size of a commercial jetliner.
...How will U.S. doctrine accommodate a weapon that can strike without detection possibly hundreds of miles away at relatively little cost? Since no other country is anywhere near developing a militarized solid-state laser, under what circumstances would the U.S. use it in a war?
It appears to me that such a weapon would change the balance of power still further in favor of the U.S. Terrorist facilities could be targeted and wiped out at low financial and political cost. The accuracy and speed of these lasers would be far greater even than existing cruise missiles. A weapon such as this would, it appears to me, be devastating to Islamofascists.
There is a reasonable question regarding how civilization is supposed to survive a century or two from now, when weapons like this will be much smaller and could fall into the hands of terrorists. On the plus side, things could easily change so much by then that such a question could be irrelevant.
After all, things have changed quite that much in the past 100 years. For more, check back for part two of this series, posting later today.
This is part one in a series of three articles.
Peace ‘Irreversible’, India, Pakistan Soften Kashmir
NEW DELHI (Reuters) – Declaring their peace process irreversible, nuclear rivals India and Pakistan agreed Monday to open up the heavily militarized frontier dividing Kashmir, capping a successful visit by President Pervez Musharraf.
I would just like to brag that in early February I blogged regarding an oil pipeline running from Iran to India, through Pakistan, and noted:
Just last year there was great concern about the possibility of a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. Yet here, India and Iraq are both relying on Pakistan not to destroy this pipeline. Surely this is a favorable indication regarding the possibility of peace between India and Pakistan.
