We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Very interesting… Here is a fascinating comment from Sunday Fox News by DefSec Rumsfeld:
Rumsfeld: It — it certainly is not an act of peace or an act of cooperation. The coalition forces our — U.K. planes and our aircrews are constantly subjected to being fired at by the Iraqis. It’s been going on for some years now. It’s the only place in the world where we’re being fired at, as a matter of fact, on a regular basis, except for Afghanistan.
Snow: So, we’re already at war?
Rumsfeld: Well, technically, the state of war that began in —
Snow: Was never —
Rumsfeld: — 1980 — 91 — has never ended. I mean, the — that has still — there is currently a state of war with Iraq that has not ended.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
1980?
Lucas, the transcript seems to me to read as “1980- 91” — that is, he said “eighty” then corrected himself to “ninety.”
Pointing out the bleedin’ obvious…
I assumed that there had to be something of some interest in these comments other than the incredibly obvious statements that Rumsfeld made. It seems that I was wrong.
So Iraq fires on coalition forces? Gosh, this comes as quite a shock to me. I had no idea…
It IS obvious, Lucas, but I find myself all too often having to make the same points Rummy makes here. A view frequently held by otherwise intelligent people is that an invasion of Iraq is somehow an unprovoked act of aggression against another sovereign nation and contrary to international law.
Rumsfeld forgot to mention that the planes in question are military aircraft flying over Iraqi airspace and dropping bombs. Sure, the war never ended. That’s because the US has been bombing them around once a week or so for ten years, and more when the President needs to distract attention from the latest scandal.
The bleeding obvious point which everyone should note is that he has said that a state of war currently exists between the United States of America and Iraq and is basically only in a cease-fire. Therefore when our troops go across the border in 2-8 weeks, it is not a new war but the end of a ceasefire on a war which did not end in 1991.
Rumsfeld forgot to mention that the planes in question are military aircraft flying over Iraqi airspace and dropping bombs.
Because, Ken, they’re in violation of the cease-fire agreement. We’re not just dropping bombs on them because we need the target practice. We’re dropping bombs on their AAA radars because they’re attempting to lock on to our aircraft, which under the cease-fire have the right to fly where they’re flying. If Iraq had adhered to its cease-fire agreements, there wouldn’t be any bombs dropped.
Of course, that’s what AAA is for. If military aircraft from a hostile foreign power were flying over Los Angeles, I’d sure as heck want our AAA to shoot at them. Of course, Los Angeles doesn’t actually have any AAA, since the US military’s political masters have for decades believed that defending US cities is not a priority. (Except for Washington, of course… there is AAA there.)
If the US, unprovoked, invaded that foreign power first, then lost the war to them, then agreed to a cease-fire whose terms created a no-fly zone over LA in return for that foreign power not invading all the way to DC, would you still want the LA AAA taking pot-shots at the patrolling foreign aircraft, in violation of the cease-fire? It’s an obvious tradeoff – no-fly zone in return for not invading your capital. You breach your side of the agreement, we’ll breach ours and invade your capital.
As for US cities not having AAA, that’s incorrect. It’s called Carrier Battle Groups, the US Air Force, and Air National Guard. The US govt. has spent quite a lot of money on AAA to protect US cities.
You’d better believe I’d want shooting at foreign aircraft, and if any helicopters strayed low enough I’d be taking shots at them myself.
AAA means “Anti-Aircraft Artillery,” and refers to guns and surface-to-air missles. LA used to have SAM batteries back in the 50’s, but they’re long gone now. The fighter defenses (which were much reduced during the 90’s) don’t do much good when some lunatic hijacks and airliner…