September 9, 2006
Ideal, acceptable, disastrous. CrossFit Journal Issue 36 examines the geometry and mechanics of the overhead squat.
Greg Amundson, "Jackie" - 5:52 [video]
Bombing Nazi Germany
Post thoughts to comments.
Posted by lauren at September 9, 2006 7:44 PM
Loved the video! He's one tough guy!
Bombing Nazi Germany? Should I even bother to read this? Will it insight a thought-provoking discussion or just some more inane finger pointing? How about an article called "Baby slapping, forgotten pastime or all around bad idea?" Now THAT, would get some tongues wagging...
Oh my god, who would write such a thing!!!!
Greg, that was a blistering pace, dude, I'd be so rotted if I pinged off with 3 chins left but well done, regardless. The speed of the row was coo-coo! Nice jaab!
#3 - A very short and worthwhile read. A few random thoughts on the subject.
1 - I have often pointed to Dresden and the concepts of total war in discussions about what we've done wrong in parts of Afghanistan and Iraq. I happen to believe there is something to this.
2 - When I was at law school, I read an interesting article by a Marine attorney at TJAGSA questioning if the prevalence of Precision Guided Munitions (PGM's) during the Gulf War had changed the international legal standard for how we conduct aerial campaigns. Our own attempt at humanity and lessening of collateral damage has lessened the psychological impact of war.
3 - A friend of mine who served in both theaters argued convincingly to me that the reason the Iraqis "rose up" in the aftermath of Gulf II was that the ordinary Iraqi did not know they had been defeated. He would joke about it, mimicing an Iraqi accent - "the US beat us? Beat who? Didn't beat me."
4 - Look at how much was left intact. I remember seeing pictures of people driving to work and ordinary traffic while the US was in full war mode streaming toward Baghdad. I'll bet the people in Dresden and Hamburg weren't driving to work while the US planes were flying. We have removed the psychological impact of war from the populace - hell, if i were a third world country, I might goad the US into invading so i could get "regime change" and then the inevitable rebuilding and assistance on the back side.
Great video. What's even better is the singer for Survivor is now the voice for all the "real Men of Genius" Bud Lite commercials.
i'll keep this short and sweet.
three days ago, in response to one of my posts, coach said: "The Iraq/Hussein link to terrorism is rock solid. Liberal politicians' and their journalist allies' strategic choice to deny the nexus, in chorus, until a quorum of fools sufficient to win elections accepts it as common knowledge doesn't alter the facts."
today, the Senate intelligence committee released a report concluding there is no evidence of pre-war ties between Hussein and terrorists.
end of story.
Marcus - you might want to re-state that. I think you mean something else and are overstating your case, perhaps unintentionally. The Senate report was looking into the state of intelligence AT THE TIME the decision was made to go to war. A conclusion that "there is no evidence [currently] of prewar ties" is only marginally helpful, but I can see why you would want to post that -- although it is absolutely irrelevant to today's topic. Maybe an email to Coach would have been more a propos.
There are interesting points about the Administration's over-reliance on the INC (headed by Chalabi) despite warnings from DIA and CIA that the INC was penetrated by the Iranians and other intel services. But, we're way OT here.
does anyone know what damper setting he was using on the C2 ?????
dale, perhaps you're correct. admittedly i haven't fully vetted the report (it IS 400+ pages!). therefore, i defer to the following excerpt from today's Associated Press article on the report:
"There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none."
-- quoted from article by JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer, Friday, September 8, 2006, 13:33 PDT)
p.s. coach, politics aside, thanks for the workouts, they've been immensely beneficial.
Haha, I always feel weird about posting on off days, since I've been doing Coach Rut's WODs and haven't posted times lately. But whatever. It's fun. This one is a pretty easy one too. The fact that something brutal and terrible can accomplish some things doesn't make it conscienable. You'd be amazed how much of the clutter disappears when you burn your house down... McNamara has said it probably would've been called a war crime had the tides turned- so did LeMay. Maybe it was the best choice-maybe it was unethical and inappropriate. My next door neighbor was a WWII bomber pilot (and an incredible human being,) and all my time growing up was steeped in the pilots, and as often as I could, the planes that did the deeds, and it's a hard question- but the point is, in order to advance as ethical persons, it's one we need to ask.
Marcus, I get your point, I think you may be missing mine. It's a linguistic difference that makes a difference - the important point isn't what we KNOW (or believe) we know NOW; it's what we thought (or the prez was informed) AT THAT TIME. To me anyway, that's the important question and essentially what the report is getting at, for 2 reasons.
1 - How f'ed up were we from an intel perspective at the time?
2 - Are we any better now?
I think your point is important and I was not a supporter of invading Iraq. Former SecNav James Webb has best stated my view of matters in the article he wrote LONG before Dems and the left decided Iraq was a bad idea. (Confession - Webb is a personal hero and, in my mind, a genius.) But, before we start announcing conclucions about what the case IS NOW, we need to be sure we're clear about what we thought it was at the time.
That's my only point.
It's classic Monday Morning quarterbacking and I hate that.
You do the best you can with the info you have available at the time when you have to make a decision - and then live with the consequences with a clean conscience.
MWU...that is Al-Zarquawi...not "terrorists"
...Saddam still funded the families of Hamas' suicide bombers. Saddam WAS a terrorist. I do not understand how you dismiss such a despot who gassed the Kurds and killed thousands of his own people and tried to assasinate the Iraqi president as a youth. He seized power. Just because he was the "President", does not mean he gets a pass for previous actions and future intentions. He and his boys need/needed to be dispatched from our planet. The Iraqis failed to clean house in the 60's and 70's so it had to be done by us. They will come around and get their crap together if we don't backout and end up looking like pansies for once again turning our back on our allies on a leftist whim.
Veitnam, Bay of Pigs, Lebenon...all had a chance but leftist cold feet led to the decision to tuck our balls between our legs. Are we going to do it in Iraq too, where the people are gaining by leaps and bounds the where-with-all to keep their country above water. Elections, resources, police, an Army...they are on the right track but they need our support as they go throught this puberty. We must foster connectedness with the Iraqis and get them involved in the world...give'em satellite dishes and internet as far as I am concerned...the more they get to know the outside world the more they will see the opportunity to turn that desert into a garden...it is working for the Kurds in the north.
As far as bang for the buck is concerned I think Iraq was a great choice to create a stable platform in the middle east. Nestled right in the hornets nest.
I keep hearing about how long we have been Iraq as compared to WWII. I would like to remind everyone that after 4 years of fighting in WWII we were actively trying to peice back germany for over 5 years and loosing several hundred troops a month doing it, plus all we lost to defeat it. Iraq essentially took weeks and within 2 years most of the country was good to go.
Here is a veiw of the Kurdistan Region from the Kurds themselves...
I suggest you watch the videos....this is what happens when our country honors a promise and lends a hand to take the yolk of oppression off a people.
I wonder how the Kurds thought of Saddam...if he was a terrorist or not? If it was a smart idea to topple that regime.
Whether we want to or not we are going to be toppling regimes for some time to come. Hopefully most will not need to be done directly with the military, but it will need to be done.
In order to defeat these clowns we have to get their people connected into the rest of the world. Europe will be along shortly to help. After two world wars on their turf, they are tired of fighting...they don't have the stomach for it...enough plots foiled that see the light of day or plots that succeed will bring them into the arena. The french want to speak french more than they want a "peace" with the Islamo-facists that are moving into their countries and starting to bully their governments by playing their own liberalism against them.
Bin Laden is a symptom of the lack of connectivity much of the middle east has with the world....establish connectivity with security. Once people can exchange ideas, they can establish a safe enviroment to do commerce which fueled by laws and rule sets creates interdependence which creates the need for continued security. We have to be there until they can maintain security and get there laws and rule sets worked out enough to promote investment, which will establish a positive wealth cycle. Once they own it...they will defend it.
I can't fathom how impressive 27 unbroken pullups after 1000k of rowing and 45 thrusters is. Awesome job, Greg.
So what's the difference between the U.S. firebombing Germany in WWII and Saddam gasing Kurds in order to make them more obedient, or Osama crashing planes into towers in order to scare the American public into political changes. The difference is in the ends of the actions, not the means. For this reason I disagree with the notion that the U.S. should name the current conflict as a "war on terror," and claim to oppose all uses of terrorism worldwide. Using this language the U.S. vilifies a tactic that it may have to use in the future (in Iran or N. Korea most likely) and has used in the past. Isn't terrorism just attacking the masses in order to scare them into political changes. Or must it be performed by non-state actors, in which case Saddam Hussein would not count, as a leader of a sovereign country? I also think that pursuing political changes in a region or country requires a strong understanding of the culture and historical background of the area as well as a significant presence of intelligence operators on the ground. This is an aspect of the struggle against Islamic fascism that the U.S. has not pursued very well in the Islamic world so far. There are around 2000 Arabic speakers in the Army. There should be more. The CIA has also drastically decreased its capabilities for on-the-ground human intelligence since the end of the Cold War. This is a problem. An overreliance on signal intelligence, for example phone conversations which the NSA obtains, is foolish, as signal intelligence is basically human intelligence removed from its context.
We are fighting an enemy that understands the power of a small, extremely motivated, creative, and well-trained group. There was a member of Zawahiri's previous Egyptian terrorist group, Al Jihad, at the JFK Center for Special Operations in the mid to late 80's, Ali Muhammed, who took many of the spec ops manuals off base to the local kinkos, and ended up greatly influencing the future of terrorism with the knowledge he obtained. Contrast the terrorist model of low cost, incredibly efficient tactics which use its enemies strengths against it, with the apparatus that the U.S. has constructed to fight against it. It is commonly acknowledged that bureacracies are incredibly inefficient, self-promoting, and bound by intertia. A look into the conflicts between the FBI and CIA over intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 illustrates that point clearly. The CIA knew that two of the future 9/11 terrorists, Hamzi and Midhar, had entered the country and settled in California, but didn't tell the FBI, who had compiled evidence against them and could have arrested them, because of inter-agency rivalry. Does it make sense for national security, which is obviously such a high priority, to be entirely in the hands of bureacrats and politicians? There has been a move towards private security and private intelligence gathering agencies since 9/11. Rita Katz's private SITE institute of cyber-intelligence analysts, which has contributed mightily to the fight against terrorism, is a prime example. This trend needs to continue much further for the five years of peace since 9/11 to continue into the future.
I attended a speech by Michael Chertoff, head of the DHS yesterday morning, on how U.S. security has improved since 9/11. He focused on the larger issues like border control and port security. Ultimately the terrorists will find ways around whatever obstacles we lay in their paths. A 3000 mile wide country of nearly 300 million people just has too many holes. The true key to success lies in devoting more time to studying the terrorists ideology, background, and ultimate goals, penetrating their groups, provoking distrust among their members, killing, arresting, and tracking as many of them as possible. In addition we should focus on improving the U.S.'s image in the Islamic world to the furthest extent possible without falling into the trap of appeasement, so as to limit support for the terrorists and promote further Muslim informants such as the unidentified Muslim man in London whose contact with a member of Britain's MI5 prevented those planes from being blown out of the sky last month. Islamic fascism is ultimately an idea, and you can't kill an idea solely with bullets. Israel's struggle against Hazballah illustrated that point. In order for Hazballah to be defeated, it must lose the support of the Lebanese people, and thus be taken down by the Lebanese central government. Israel cannot do it by itself, for it would require an extended occupation of the entire country, and even then would probably not work. They tried the occupation route in southern Lebanon in the 80's and 90's, and Hazballah persevered. Military strikes on Hazballah, though temporarily painful, are ineffective in the long run as any weapons and terrorists they destroy can be replaced, the weapons by Iran and Syria and the terrorists by the seeminly endless supply of people who hate Israel in the Middle East. Political change in south Lebanon will not be effected through this avenue. The fight against Islamic extremism will not be won through over-reliance on large armies and intelligence bureacracies.
Oh, and good work Greg. That is a ridiculously fast row time, considering you still had 50 thrusters and 30 pullups to get through.
Fantastic work Greg.
As for the discussion a bit of de ja vous creeping in here.
I wonder given another seventy years what we will make of our current efforts in various locations?
I'm waiting on the video to download...
What were the splits on that Jackie?
Of course the residents of Dresden weren't driving to work when the bombs fell. They were far too busy burning to death.
John Mosier wrote a thought-provoking criticism of the terror bombings of WWII in "The Blitzkrieg Myth". Speaking as a taxpayer and citizen, I'm thankful that such strategies have been cast on the ash-heap. Burning 16 square miles of Tokyo killed a lot of people and burned a lot of factories, but it was the mining of Tokyo Bay that scared the commanders. It's been said that if the mining had been done sooner, it might have ended by itself.
Part of the reason I support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so wholeheartedly is the effort to make sure our men and women are busy killing the right people. In a war like this, a single sniper can do far more good than an entire air wing.
Wow, a 3:16.3 1k row. to start.
That was inspiring.
Russ, #16, very thoughtful post, I agree with much of what you said, but the point you made about there being no difference between modern terrorists and Allied bombers in their means, only their ends or intentions is troubling. There is certainly similarity in means, but they are not the same. Terrorists are analogous to spies in conventional warfare, who have traditionally been shot rather than held prisoner. Terrorists do not put on uniforms. They pose as ordinary people in order to kill ordinary people, and I think that makes a worthwhile distinction as to means as well as ends.
The author's point, as Dale #3 observes, is that our modern precision weapons together with all the efforts we make to avoid "collateral damage" can end up denying us ultimate victory because the enemy's support system, the nation's citizens, never feel the effects of being at war or being defeated. This same point applies as well to Japan as to Nazi Germany, and here's an argument that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the most moral and humane acts of WWII precisely because Japan was forced to question and reject the philosophy and culture that led them into the war.
"The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima
by John Lewis (April 29, 2006)
"On August 6, 1945 the American Air Force incinerated Hiroshima, Japan with an atomic bomb. On August 9 Nagasaki was obliterated. The fireballs killed some 175,000 people. They followed months of horror, when American airplanes firebombed civilians and reduced cities to rubble. Facing extermination, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. The invasion of Japan was cancelled, and countless American lives were saved. The Japanese accepted military occupation, embraced a constitutional government, and renounced war permanently. The effects were so beneficent, so wide-ranging and so long-term, that the bombings must be ranked among the most moral acts ever committed."
"Among the most moral acts ever committed"
He wasn't serious was he?
If that was a moral act why wasn't it targetted at the command and control structures of the Japanese infrastructure.
It just reinforces the point that history is written by the victors.
I'm sure had the Nazi's won the war our 'war crimes' such as those bombings would have been vilified ad infinitum.
"Saddam still funded the families of Hamas' suicide bombers. Saddam WAS a terrorist"
Iran funds Hezzbolah. Why haven't we invaded Iran?
The "GREAT BALLS OF FIRE" article was about fighting terrorism with terrorism. That's an effective strategy to fight terrorism but I don't think that is why we invaded Iraq. We invaded Iraq because the exectutive branch wanted to grab more power. The executive branch is most powerful during war time. Too bad Bush administration has been so incompetant because that power grab has turned the country against the Republican party and Republicans will lose both the House and Senate in November.
Iraq war will turn out to be nothing more than a failed power grab and the country will return to being gun shy and soft on terrorists.
Hey, here's an idea! How about a post about exercise!?!... in the pic it says Ideal, Acceptable, Disastrous..... I assume the pics are not in that order...? because it sure looks to me that the middle pic is the worst by far. Is it meant to teach folks how to do it right.....? And what about vertical shins?
Let me give you my “German perspective” on this article.
The author makes some assumptions that are worth reconsidering.
He states that the bombings of the civil German population “bore two lessons for the generations to come”: First, it taught them to take responsibility and second, it stopped romantic heroism amongst young German men.
The assumption behind this statement is that there was a lack of responsibility and some sort of romantic heroism that mainly contributed to the rise of Nacism. And furthermore the bombings considerably contributed to eradicating these two causes long lastingly.
Was it a typical German trait not to take responsibility? And if yes, did the bombings change that by teaching Germans a lesson?
How could Germans empower Hitler in the first place? Well, sadly they liked him – at least in the beginning. Unemployment was high, people weren’t happy at all with the current government and there came this young, dynamic man who promised a brighter future. He knew how to brainwash people. And it worked.
Many fell for him and most people couldn’t see the devil he actually was. Pretty much like politics work today. Politics is a dirty business and America, Russia, England, the Netherlands, they all were doing very profitable business with Nazi Germany at first – until they got attacked themselves which (fortunately) forced them to “take responsibility”.
Maybe we should also bring to our minds, that it was common practice of the Nazis to control their people. Not only by brainwashing but also by brute force. If you said something bad about the government some night a big truck would stop in front of your house and a group of SS-guys would kindly ask you to get your tired ass out of bed and to go for a ride. People hardly ever were seen again after this. No chance for any kind of “make love not war” demonstrations here.
And even though adversaries were quickly being killed, there still were quite a few individuals and groups who tried to stand up against the regime. Some we still know about today, but most of them just perished.
Have we learned our lesson?
Germans tend to be quite pacifistic nowadays – but was it the bombing that did the teaching?
After the war Germans were confronted with their past and especially the TRUTH of Nazism. They started to take a look behind the ideology, realising what no healthy brain even in its worst nightmares could ever have dreamed of. The aftermath of war revealed all the things that had been covered, and people had looked away from. For most people this was shocking, embarrassing and deeply hurting.
Were the Germans ignorant? Yes. Did they learn their lesson? I hope so. Did the bombing do the enlightenment part of it by giving women and children a very bad time? You decide.
Now lets finally be honest to ourselves (and forget about terrorists for a while).
We might not realise – we might not even want to realise – but there is some modern form of Nazism going on right here and right now. We don’t need to point our fingers to the terrorists. Interestingly these modern "leaders" also brainwash us. We call it advertising, marketing or public relations nowadays.
How many of us are actively fighting against pharma industry that secretly test drugs on people in third world countries and also killing our own people with drugs based on pseudo-scientific studies? Who is fighting against Coca Cola, that is contributing to many deaths by stealing ground water in India or poisoning rivers and lakes? Who is fighting against Nestlé that make Africans dependant on their products only to sell “luxury items” like water for outrageously high prices to the poor population (many of those who can’t afford it dying of thirst or from drinking contaminated water)?
Maybe we will being held accountable for this one day too. Someone might ask why we did not try to stop this although we knew about it. Maybe the bombing of Dresden has neither remedied Germany nor anyone else from the human tendency to mostly care for their own business.
Can I suggest we send Mel Gibson over to the mid east to offer some diplomatic support?
He is good to go with a bottle of vodka, some cancer sticks and a busty blonde under each arm.
I think a few more hollywood movies realistically depicting scenarios of arnie and jamie-lee wiping out hordes of stupid bottle swilling, cheering, evil, middle eastern AK firing terrorists, with a wink, a few good one-line jokes, a bad lapdance and a chaingun with an enhanced muzzle flash.
In all seriousness though, the only thing stopping the dresden example recurring from a western viewpoint, is the same high-level technology that makes precision warfare possible. The reality is, the more tech you have, the more visible and broadly accoutable decision makers are as wealthy countries have a business/legal set - the media/politics/money are the hinderance.
The perishable book club dudes rocking back and forth chanting and slapping fresh water fish over each others heads are far better positioned to employ the tactic of broadly obiterating innocent people to get a result - so they do (along with themselves thankfully).
Seriously, can't we all just have a green tea and enjoy a nice walk?
Go Greg - you are a freakin beast man from hell
I think it is in the correct order and the key is in the vertival line you see going from the weight bar to the ground. It shows where the weight is centered. The "disaterous" example has the weight over the toes, tough on the knees. The "exceptable" pic has the weight slightly behind and the "ideal" pic shows the weight on the heels.
First, your assumption is wrong. In the first picture the load sits over Brendan's base. In the second picture it is behind his base. This actually reduces the moment about the hip and along the torso, but complicates his balance, especially with larger loads and with dynamic arrivals to that posture, i.e., snatching or rapid squatting. In the third picture the load is in front of his base and this increases the moment about the hip and along his torso dramatically and presages a house of cards like collapse. The third posture is never effective - even with small loads.
As for "vertical shins" that's something made up by a half-witted aerobics instructor or perhaps a physician but has no basis in mechanics or orthopedics.
Drop me an email and I'll gift you the CrossFit Journal on the overhead squat.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there's a fair chance that most of what you've learned or heard about fitness (and nutrition, and politics) is wrong.
Finally, yes it's "meant to teach folks how to do it right". The picture that is.
So, how does an article on bombing Germany relate to our current world? In my view, the initial reaction of many is either horror and revulsion (as evidenced by several posts), or as a point of discussion at which to say, "would this strategy work if applied in the current war and just how many casualties are we willing to accept?"
My take on it is that in the concept of total war, indiscriminate bombing of the terrorists, no matter where they hide, would be acceptable; however, that won't work against transnational terrorism and under any conditions in which we fight less than a total war (like we are now). Another lesson of the bombing of Germany and Japan throughout WWII, not evident from the article, is that strategic bombing alone was not enough to bring about the surrender of either nation or to cause a revolt of the civilian population. We still had to defeat their armies in the field, destroying an element of their national power, in order to achieve victory. Sure there might have been a post-war psychological effect on the population, but my guess is that strategic bombing probably made the citizenry more determined to defeat the enemy rather than to surrender.
When it comes to the terrorists, we simply can't employ the same type of strategic bombing campaign a la WWII, because there is no national power to defeat. Transnational terrorism is far more dangerous than traditional norms of warfare that pit the national will of one nation against another's. What we're doing in this war on terror is an attempt to impose our national will on a philosophical/ideological movement. No matter what, our "way of war" isn't going to work against theirs until we act like them and wage war like them.
Our "way of war" does not have a model for dealing with this dilemma. Instead, we (Americans) view warfare in terms of strategic, operational, and tactical levels of warfare aimed at an opposing force controlled by a nationally recognized government. In such conflicts, America and its allies will always win - hands down. In today's era of modern warfare, unlike WWII, we rely upon concepts that leverage the levels of warfare and the elements of national power (diplomatic, information, military, economic) against the enemies' by putting the enemy into untenable situations that reduce the strength of their centers of gravity by attacking their critical vulnerabilities. We call this maneuver warfare. Strategic bombing like we did in WWII isn't a maneuver warfare concept, so we don't even consider it as part of our concepts in warfighting. So, the article and its application to the terrorists today is non sequitur. (One may argue that our special operations forces wage unconventional warfare like the terrorists, but this isn't the case at all.)
Unfortunately, maneuver warfare doesn't work in the context of imposing our national will on a transnational terrorist threat veiled as a religious fundamentalist movement. The only way we can overcome this threat, in my opinion, is to truly win the hearts and minds of those who have yet to side with the terrorists while at the same time killing each and every one of the terrorists we can - from their top leadership on down. No prisoners. We should view the war on terror the same as we would treat cancer in the body - stop feeding it (from any source - read funding), and then kill all of the cells before the cancer kills you (i.e. each and every terrorist we encounter). I advocate that there are no rights for anyone who is a terrorist (regardless of nationality, race, or claimed religion). I don't understand why so many out there want to give them rights under our laws when the terrorists wouldn't think twice about killing any of us given the chance. We should have a policy of extermination of any and all terrorists, as that is the only justice I see for all who have suffered at the hands of these monsters.
For those who think my solution is maniacal, think about the differences in how we fought the Japanese and how we fought the Germans. Since the Germans actually valued human life, we captured a large number of the German army. The Japanese were fanatics and, much like the terrorists we face today, were more willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of the emperor than to surrender. Thus, very, very few Japanese prisoners. In fact, of the 22,000 Japanese defenders of Iwo Jima, less than two dozen were captured and less than 100 Japanese survived. They, like the terrorists, wanted to fight to the death and would often fake death or wounds in order to kill, up-close, Marines who sought to render assistance. We lost 7,000+ Marines in that battle alone.
Let's take another look at casualties and compare to what we're facing today to gain some perspective on my view of how to fight the terrorists. The US lost over 300,000 killed in WWII. The Brits - 400,000. Germany lost 3.5 million and Japan 1.75 million. The greatest losses were encountered by the Russians, who lost 9 million killed. (Figures confirmed by CUNY research center. http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob62.html)
Are we as a nation willing to make these same sacrifices today to defeat the terrorists? We have those in leadership positions today who advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq because we've lost 2,600 killed. Was the invasion of Iraq the right thing to do? In my opinion, no. But we're there now and we are in the best position to exterminate the terrorists on their home turf. The trouble is, we need to alter our thinking and go after these terrorists with a vengence if we truly want to stop terrorism and win. This means killing them at the cyclic rate until their leaders are dead and there are no more followers. If we have to cross international lines (i.e. into Syria, Iran, and elsewhere) to achieve our goals, then so be it. If we kill civilians in the process, well that's just part of war. Why is it okay for us to bomb suspected terrorists from 15,000 feet and kill a few innocent bystanders, but we want to crucify a squad of Marines who, in the heat of battle, went house to house in search of terrorists who has just ambushed them and accidentally killed civilians in the process. Collateral damage in both scenarios. Right?
Either we compete to win the match, or go home losers and await the inevitable fight that will come again to our homeland. Unfortunately, it will probably take another major terror attack at home for us to wake up and realize this.
Just by the facial expressions alone..you can see him relaxed in the first pic....and well giving a strained effort face is the last 2..or as they say in Office Space, his "Oh face"...showing which is more natural. The 2nd pic looks like he is about to dumb the weights behind him or land on his ***.
As for the vid, impressive...noticed at the end he went to a alternating grip for pullups...how come I never thought of that?
That Weekly Standard article about a connection between Hussein and terrorist groups was a total joke. I did not bother reading past the first few sentences of the author stating his source was a top secret memo from Douglas Feith. Feith is basically a worthless lawyer, liar, propagandist, and a hopelessly specious shill for Israel, and he is so bad the administration sh_t-canned his sorry butt out of the job. It is one of Feith's high level political appointees who is going on trial for high treason for passing classified DoD policy planning documents to that Israeli lobbying PAC which is really a field office for Mossad. Of course most people in the US support Israel and want to see a peaceful means of establishing their longterm security, but they are still a foreign entity and US government officials should not actively work for their intelligence service. By definition, documents are classified in accordance with the severity of harm their disclosure would bring to the national security.
Terrific post! You are obviously a very objective thinker. As for the WWII incendiary bombings of Germany and Japan, these acts were a military necessity. Both of those countries had unleashed extreme horrors on the civilian populations of the areas they had invaded. We needed to show them that we would spare no quarter and be bound by no limits in seeking their total destruction, and total destruction was exactly what we gave them. They would have done the same to us if given the opportunity. I have read that the firestorm we created at Dresden was so severe that post-war German records showed the air velocity at the outskirts of the city to be 150MPH! Unfortunately, there is no similar means by which we can extinguish modern terrorism, and ruthless without limits is going to have to enter the equation eventually.
awesome job, greg. jackie is definitely my favorite girl...currently 11:17, looking to break 10 minutes (or at least 10:30) next time!
Will you please clarify what you mean by "moment about the hip"? I'm not 100% confident in my squat technique.
Greg, Truly inspirational...you kick ass :) That WOD knocked me on my ass.
Way to predict what will happen if the Democrats regain power with your last sentence.
To CoachHmmm. Funny, but I got the vertical shin/weight almost totally on the heels concept from recent squat therapy and deadlift videos from this site. Puts more of the load on the glutes and hamstrings according to those vids, but I guess I'll have to consider my sources more carefully from now on....
Not begging for a journal, but I would always love more info on the OHS, (my fav. exercise, which is why I posted on it in the first place) I am now up to triples with bodyweight (175) and I'm no "hard hitter" by any stretch. I just thought that second pic looked like way too much torso lean and shoulders-back... seemed like dropping the weight forward (as is likely in the third pic) is better than having a shoulder crumple, drop the weight on oneself and faceplant (disastrous) as looks likely in the second pic.
As to the political info, yes, most of what is out there is leftist crap. But that doesn't apply to my post, and definitely not to my views at all - Just because I have a technique concern on a lift doesn't mean I'm a clintonista...
(Schwarz and Latch are gonna ride me so bad about these posts!)
Great Job!! An inspiration to us all.
Unbelievable work Greg! I was inspired to cash in my rest day for a shot at "Jackie" tried it over a year ago around 12 min.
3:54 row, a little slow for me
33/17 thrusters, don't know why I stopped
18/6/6 pull-ups, not so good, don't know why I stopped
Regarding the morality of the bombings, both in Germany and Japan; when there is no absolute right thing to do, sometimes the "most" moral thing to do it to is that which benefits the most number of people, or inversely hurts the least number. While hundreds of thousands of people dead is certainly a horrible act, we still see the benefits of it today as both Germany of Japan are two countries where civil liberties are protected and both are peaceful economic power houses. In short "war is hell" and both bombings in Germany and Japan are cases where Machiavelli was right, the ends have justified the means.
In the squat, weight on the heels and vertical shins are different concepts entirely. Keeping weight on the heels is the only way to engage the posterior chain. The angle of the shins depends on the relative length of the levers (dimensions of the body), and thus varies from athlete to athlete. In a deadlift, clean, and snatch, the shins have to become vertical only to get the knees out of the way of the bar.
The rest day link isn't to an article per se, but to a pair of letters to the editor in response to a Christopher Hitchen's review of, "Among the Dead Cities - The History and Moral Legacy of the World War II Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan" by A.C. Grayling:
The Hitchens piece is outstanding. This rest day discussion should have started from that point of reference. Of the two letters, Michael McDaniel's on "war shortening" versus "preemption" points to the more topical debate--certainly from a policy perspective as we confront the terror sponsoring states of Iran, Syria and North Korea along with Saudi and Pakistani elements supporting Islamic terror. The context is Hitchen's description of Britain's lack of moral courage in failing to sanction even minimal violence to preempt WWII combined with a policy of delivering it catastrophically against civillians later in the war:
"In 1938, the British government was contacted by emissaries from the Kreisau Circle, a group of courageous German oppositionists led by Count Helmuth von Moltke. They told Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax that if Great Britain would stand adamantly by its guarantees to Czechoslovakia, and promise to make a stand against fascist irredentism, they could put Hitler under arrest. Their aim would be the restoration of German democracy, but their pretext would be that they had averted a war. This could only be done if the British maintained a belligerent policy instead of a capitulationist one.
"Who knows if this would have succeeded? We only know that officers as highly placed as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of German military intelligence, and many influential politicians and diplomats, were part of the plan. We also know that Chamberlain and Halifax refused to talk to them. There is something unbearable in the idea of a British regime, that would not fire or risk a shot against Hitler in 1938, later deploying horrific violence against German civilians instead. There is also something intolerable about the Munich deal with Hitler, a sellout of Prague which led inexorably to the Nazi-Soviet pact, resulting shortly in the destruction of magnificent German cities in order to bring a smile to the face of Stalin. I will never be one of those Englishmen who can complacently regard the years between 1940 and 1945 as a "finest hour."
As the Hitchen's piece makes clear the debate over the utility and morality of total war is endless and likely irresolvable. With regard to the Nazis, Hitchen's personal belief is that the mythology had to be comprehensively destroyed:
"The Nazis had claimed to be invincible and invulnerable: Very well, then, they must be visited by utter humiliation. No more nonsense and delusion, as with the German Right after 1918 and its myth of a stab in the back. Here comes a verdict with which you cannot argue. "
This raises a dilemma when confronting Islamic fascism: how much defeat must you inflict on an enemy whose ideology sees defeat as victory?
(Russ #15: Hitchens disposes of your argument concerning fire bombing German cites, gassing Kurds and bringing down the WTC as, "a null and tedious tautology". You'd get a "C" in his philosophy 101 class.)
Greg's video - wow, amazing.
Article - strong disagree. Indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations is wrong given today's technology and I don't agree that it taught lessons to the Germans. As others have posted, I agree that being ruthless with terrorists while winning hearts and minds of the population is the way to reduce terrorism today and improve the situation in the Middle East for all parties.
Coach - Completely sold on crossfit and your expertise in fitness. It's very likely you have the same level of expertise in nutrition. However, based on your few short posts, it's very unlikely that you are an expert on "right from wrong" in politics. Politics is an even more complex system than the human body and your views rarely seem to acknowledge the nuances involved. Thanks for all you do for this community though. The site is an incredible resource and the rest day posts always make me think.
If only I was as eloquent.
I will answer your last question...violence (leading to their defeat) is needed for security only...connectivity will render these guys as cockroaches.
It is not the violence that will render them ineffective...it will be when the people of the world become indifferent to philosophy and adgitated by their actions. Security will breed the necessary market mechanisms to bring about the connectivity and rule-sets for large chunks of populace to own a stake in their civilization.
Since it is exactly the connectivity withe the outside world these scumbags do not want (they want to maintain power by keeping people isolated) we give the people of that part of the world a chance to realize the sky is not falling.
Satellite dishes and internet all around!!
Let them watch Al-Jazera...they will tune into other media as well. They will move in droves to freedom like the Kurds. However, we have to foster an enviroment where the people get a chance to do this. That takes a secure environment where people's thoughts get past survival and avoiding suffering.
This will lead to their defeat. Isolate Islamo-fascists through connectedness.
For the photo: I had shoulder surgery when I was 20 years old (my left arm kept popping out of socket months after a boot camp injury). That's prevented me full mobility in my left shoulder. Say I'm in front of a clock, my right arm can reach back to the 11, but my left arm is at 12:30. Just doing the broomstick squats, I'm doing the "very bad" pose. Does that sort of disqualify me from this type of squat no matter the weight?
For the article: There's the school of thought that population centers have little say individually with who's in power. Look at the US elections, those areas that voted largely for George Bush are not likely targets of retaliation by any government or terrorist organization. Liberal, urban areas are targets due to being densely populated with nearby industry.
I like the theory that you take out the command structure (leadership, officers). Heck, wasn't one of the concepts of invading Iraq was that the population was "imprisoned" and in need of being free. So to free them, you incinerate them to make sure they don't want to be "imprisoned" again? You kill the captors, not the captives in the hostage situation. Kill enough dictators and their officers then soon enough being a dictator starts looking like a bad career move.
Germany and Japan had a nationalistic government, so perhaps the article had validity there. There was enourmous support of the population for the government. Making those countries hate war may have been a great thing.
Great article that gets you thinking. Don't forget, you still have to defeat the armies and navies.
re: #42 - ok, maybe call it "shins TEND toward vertical." they can't stay perfectly upright all the time, but if the hips are above the heels, then the knees are way out front and most of the force is from the quads. pull the butt back, the shins go closer to vertical and the butt does more of the work.
If the shins/heels is totally separate, let me see someone put their knees way forward like the pics and still wiggle the front of the foot from the ground.
Also, it's not some "half-witted aerobics instructor" that preaches verticle shins, it is plain as day on every picture of elite oly lifter performances: One thing that is very consistent with them all is very upright shins from start to finish. Experts are everywhere but it is hard to argue with world champions.
Damn!!! Greg's the man! I agree with the article. If we're going to win we need to take the gloves off.
5:52:81=5:53 not 5:52. I can do 5:53. 5:52...no way ;-)
Seriously, great effort!
RTC -- if they take the House and Senate (fat chance, thanks to gerrymandering), the Democrats will lessen the damage that BushCo is able to inflict upon the economy and our civil liberties by creating governmental gridlock. The government that governs best, governs least, and there's been entirely too much governing under the present regime.
Maybe if the administration had faced a little opposition on Iraq, we could have concentrated enough on Afghanistan that Pakistan did not have to cave in and surrender Waziristan to the Taliban, putting us right back where we started, but with the Taliban possibly having access to live nuclear warheads. Oops. Funny how we don't hear much from the Right about that total failure. Osama bin Laden is most likely dancing a jig with his harem in the new Talibanistan right about now.
Iraq was an expensive, fatuous invasion that empowered the Iranians, a mullahcracy which poses a very real threat. Drawing off troops from Afghanistan amid the buildup for Iraq likely contributed to a failure to catch major players at Tora Bora, n'est pas? The least Bush could have done is wait an additional year and finish up in Afghanistan. History will not judge him kindly.
Coach -- if you're a Libertarian at heart, you should be cheering the Dems on in November. Nothing is worse for America than a government which is undivided and of a singular purpose.
Don't sell your country short. I am not pro-government by any stretch of the imagination. I agree with your premise that President Bush has grown the government alot, perhaps more than any other President.
I really don't want to agrue back and forth about how right or wrong the Iraq War was.
You say Bush won't be judged favorably. So what! Worrying about a legacy is partially what got us attacked on 9/11. bin laden could be dead right now if a President wasn't so worried about being "Judged."
I make critical decisions almost everyday that affect peoples lives. Reading yours and other Monday Morning critiques reminds me of the people I battle with when we finish the job and trust me they count least.
The Dems. probably won't win back both seats and the reason is they do not have an original thought. All they do is "Judge". It makes me sick.
President Bush acted. Bush had the same intel the Dems had. If you don't like Bush you should have won the election. If you don't like Republicans then vote them out of office. Be very careful when you do that. The base of the Dem. party has no plan and they attack any member of their party who is in favor of acting. I'm all for hearing a better way, but by going back and slamming the past actions and saying what should have been done is counter-productive and shameful.
"The critic never counts."
A beautiful, very instructional series of pictures. Note the fact that picture #1 is taken from slightly in front, at about a 10 degree angle. With your enormous brains, rotate the pic until the plumb line drops at 90 degrees, and note that this will have the line intersect the back at EXACTLY the place the bar sits for a back squat. This system is in balance because the load is directly over the base, i.e. the middle of the foot (yes, even with the rotation).
Now note that there is absolutely no way to get in this position with vertical shins. Look at the angle the back makes with the ground, the femur/torso angle, and the tibia/femur angle. If we want full range of motion (and I dare anybody to explain logically why we don't), then the angles you see here are pretty much going to be the angles you always see when a correct squat is performed. These will vary individually with segment lengths (a guy with a short torso and long legs is going to have a less steep back angle than a guy with the opposite proportions), but you guys can figure that out yourselves.
My job here is to point out that everybody with any sense agrees with us and disagrees with AFAA or ACE or any other bunch of people who believe that knees should never be in front of the toes. If they were right, toilets would have been redesigned long ago so you couldn't get up without calling an ambulance.
My father, Francis M. Needham Sr., flew left seat in a B-17. Penemunde, Dresden, and wherever else he was sent along with his trusted fellow crew members. We just buried him at Arlington this summer. He was awarded the DFC for having brought his crew home safely through 30+ missions, one of which resulted in the ditching of his plane, Nobody's Darling, on the coast of England.
He, and the others like him who served then and now, have made it possible for the rest of us to sit and tap away at our keyboards and critique what was done. It seems from the comments that this point has been lost by several of the posters. They did their duty and did lose sight of the bigger picture, that those who began the war wanted to make slaves of all.
Pontificate all you like on the subject but please remember him, and all who did what they were asked, in honor and respect. They did not do their jobs in vain. Observe the life you have today.
Just started doing crossfit. Love the WOD's especially the benchmark Girls. Is there somewhere I can get some benchmark times to compare mine too...not sure how they rank.
Did Cindy today, posted ystd.
In the midst of a very angry couple of days. There is a thread on the board that touches on this. Anger, unfocused, is as indescriminate and destructive as an atomic blast; everything in its wake is obliterated. Anger that is harnessed and focused is more like a laser;it can be aimed at a target, for ill or for good.
Today I focused my anger within Cindy and performed as well as I ever have.
Thoughts that may or may not apply to our Rest Day discussion.
Hold the politics talk for a second..
Anyone got an idea for a workout for me today? I feel great and I don't feel like resting, get creative and make up a workout for me.. Let's see if we can make something up good.
I asked my (liberal) dad who grew up in Nazi Germany and was 13 when the war ended what his view was. I though his response was interesting. It is a bit long and there is some ramble and I haven't done any editing so apologies to him.
This one I have to digest a bit. Very provocative. An issue I hadn't approached quite from this angle.
In this case, I'm not sure I can separate the messenger from the message—or from the heavy-duty agenda of the Weekly Standard: let's bomb the bejeesus out of the effing muslims. It's the only way to stop jihadism--a lesson we have learned from the bombing of Germany. Whooa, not so fast, Torsten! (leaving side for a moment the implicit and false analogy of "Islamo-fascism).
Historical studies of the Strategic Bombing Survey seem to be in agreement that SB not only was ineffectual in destroying the war economy, but did not achieve the intended psychological effect of demoralizing the civilian population. On the contrary, it strengthened their resolve to hold out. Loyalty to the regime was increased. Until the surrender on May 8. Actually, loyalty started to unravel in the last weeks, sort of. I recall that sometime in March, our Hitler Youth Leader (a young soldier who had been badly wounded on the Russian Front, needed to have some messages delivered to some villages up on the high plateau (no doubt orders of mobilizing youth for the resistance). My brother and I were willing to go without hesitation. But my mother insisted on going with us, wanting to be sure we were safe, and took proper precaution from strafing American P-51 Mustangs (who strafed anything that moved). Later they strafed and bombed our town while we huddled in the potato cellar. Of course, by then our home in Kiel had been bombed-out, though we had been safely evacuated. Nevertheless, the air war was never far away. Nuremburg was only about thirty miles southwest of our town, and we heard the bombs and saw the night sky light up. We also worried that a stray bomber might drop a load indiscriminately, as sometimes happened. I also watched the American formations on the way to Dresden, following up on the Britsh raid the following night. The Americans captured our town in April, about a month before the surrender. I believe I told you how we "fraternized" with them, contrary to strict orders from an edict by Eisenhower himself. Later, a contingent of "flyboys" from the Eights Air Force was billetted in town for the summer. They taught us to play baseball, gave us equipment. They were waiting for orders to bomb Japan. One day I remember lounging around at their quarters--they would give us food, candy bars--listening to the radio announcing the surrender of Japan after a couple of atomic bombs had been dropped. Of course nobody really knew much about these bombs, except that they were awsome--and that the war was finally over.
Oops--why am I rattling on like this. To sort out my own emerging feelings. I don't recall hating the Nazis (I was 13 when the war ended). Neither do I recall hating those who bombed us. I don't believe my feelings could have changed to quickly.
What is remarkable about the defeat of Germany is that there was no insurgency, no resistance, nothing. The Bush/Rumsfeld analogy of Nazi Germany and Iran was utterly wrong. So is Torsten's. I don't believe he himself lived through the war. Of course, his theory that the suffering of the women had a great deal to do with eliminating militarism makes some sense (he might have mentioned the children as well). But he should be aware that during the war it was the women who held Germany together while the men were on the front. Perhaps it was a bit like waking up from a nightmare. In the light of day, even a terrible day, Nazism may have looked like a spook. I still marvel and wonder at how suddenly and completely Nazism was wiped out of the German consciousness. For me, the bombing just doesn't suffice as an explanation. It is here that for me an analogy to Islam makes some sense. Islam is a world religion that has a history of ca. 1,400 years. It is a complex religion with numerous sects (like Christianity). Jihadism can be traced back to the Prophet himself, even if the majority of Muslims don't buy it today. But it does not come out of a fly-by-night ideology like Nazism. Islamo-fascism is a fly-by-night invention to suit the political agenda of the Bush administration--a delusion they will believe in at their peril. Of course, most of the young jihadists have themselves no clue about Islam. But whether they know it or not they buy into a tradition that will prevail against conventional bombs. The deafening silence of the world-wide muslim community vis-a-vis jihadism should be a matter of concern. So far the bombs, like those of the Allies against Germany in World War II, have only served to alienate moderate muslims from the West, and stiffened the resistance of the fanatics.
#54 - Frank,
I truly honor men like your father who, day after day, climbed into a flying hulk and flew through flak and fighters on 12 - 14 hour round trips to drop bombs. While the Marines lost many men in the Pacific, most don't realize that it was the 8th Air Force who sacrificed far more in the skies over Europe. While WWII called for strategic bombing with missions flown by thousands of incredible men like your father, we're fortunate that today's warfighting doctrine doesn't require such sacrifices. I could care less how the enemy feels about it, it just isn't how we should sacrifice our men (and women) warriors today.
A war on “terrorism worldwide”? Russ Green #15. Not so. Here lies a Bush error: failure to state the scope of what he meant by terror. He obviously did not include the IRA. In fact, his pronouncements at the time seemed to exclude the terror routinely suffered by the Arabs on Israel. Only lately has he stepped up to that plate. A definition was needed for the War on Terror, but he just left it to experiment.
Philosophical and moralistic musings are generally a justification to assert some moral superiority and to attack one’s enemy of choice. Today, that choice is often America, and for a quarter of the US (i.e., half the Democrats), GW Bush.
We won WWII, destroyed Nazism and the Japanese Empire, and with it Mussolini Fascism, and eventually Soviet Communism. These were done to the highest standards of Western thought and morality. Did some troops commit immoral acts in the process? Probably. But not that’s not relevant to the strategic bombing question raised in the papers.
Few opportunities in life exist to do things several different ways (capitalism being a notable exception). “What if I hadn’t married her?” War, though, is not a what-if game. “Let’s try it again, attacking this time from the left flank.” Absent the destruction of cities and civilians, would the war have turned out quite differently? Grotesquely prolonged? US cities attacked? Defeats in the fields. Couldn’t the Battle of the Bulge easily gone the other way? All more than just possible.
Why did we bomb the cities in Japan and Germany? Because that was all we could do. Of course, it was moral. Not in any hindsight, for that is never the moral question. How did it turn out? We won. Bombing was moral, win or loose.
In 1943 to 1945, with the greatest urgency, we sought to develop the atomic bomb. We would have used it on Germany if we could – that is, if we could have developed it faster or if Germany had held out longer. Very likely, the strategic bombing saved Germany from having Hamburg, Dresden, or Nuremburg take the place of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now there was some moral confusion among the physicists engaged in the Manhattan project. They thought the war was just against the enemies of Judaism, and once Germany succombed, several wanted the project ended. They opposed the Bomb’s use on Japan.
Meanwhile, Japan unleashed its un-Western weapon of suicide. It took a small toll on the Pacific islands, where Japanese held out to nearly the last man. But in the Kamikaze’s, Japan was able to quintuple the rate of US Navy losses. The prospects for the invasion of Japan was indeed grim.
Kamikaze’s were finally defeated by the Atomic bomb. That is, by strategic bombing. It was not that the Atomic bomb killed so many (the Tokyo fire bombing took a greater toll than one Atomic bomb), it was just that the A-Bomb was so bloody efficient. Morality in war seems to boil down to killing efficiency, doesn’t it?
There is a lesson for the War on Terror here. Islamic terrorism is sponsored, now mainly by Iran. Terrorism is controlled, as evidenced by the recent 34 day war between Israel and the Hezbollah. Time will show that Israel pummeled Hezbollah into submission. Through its sponsors and anti-Israel force, Hezbollah sued for peace. Once the ceasefire was in place, Hezbollah managed to stop firing rockets into Israel -- totally.
The victory of Israel would have been recognized but for stupid proclamations of Israel and the US. Another Bush error. One should publicize his terms for surrender with the greatest of caution. Unconditional surrender for Japan and Germany was fine. It was feasible. But the return of the captured soldiers and the total disarming of Hezbollah may have been impossible and impractical, respectively. Rendering Hezbollah impotent would have been sufficient, and so far that has been achieved.
The Lebanon victory shows that Hezbollah could be turned off, whether by Syria or Iran. It also brought to the surface that much of the terrorist problem in Baghdad is also controlled by Syria and Iran. We should now flip that switch.
Let’s pick some high value targets. For example, the two dozen nuclear facilities in Iran. Give Iran a list with a time table, and let’s reduce each to rubble on schedule. If we can’t be effective with precision guided munitions, Bunker Busters, and Daisy Cutters, let’s just glassify the targets.
Our terms? Surrender of selected Imams and Mullahs, and a cessation of terrorism and insurgency action in Iraq. We won’t get 100% effectiveness, but at least we could reduce the problem to a police action suitable for the new Iraqi government.
The rest day papers raised the question of what strategic bombing did to the hearts and minds of the Germans. Debatable. The hearts and minds that seem really affected were those of 52% of the Democrats and about 5% of the Republicans – all adversely.
You're getting warmer. We counsel you to delay the knees forward travel, but travel forward they absolutely, positively, must.
Brendan can for sure wiggle his toes from that position, and his weight, in the first picture is almost entirely on his heels.
You've conflated, it seems to me, what you've heard from sources unfamiliar with the squat, with what we're queuing.
Duncan, you've never seen anyone squat with vertical shins in a picture, video, or live.
To repeat, keeping the toes behind the knees (nearly identical physical requirement as keeping the shins vertical) originates from the uninitiated, not any CrossFit staff.
I read alot about the Americans bombing Dresden etc. It was the British under 'Bomber' Harris' command that did the most damage. Still a contentious subject today, it also cost him dearly and he was much maligned about it after it happened.
Jeff (#61), wonderful post.
Some quibbles and bigger fish.
#1 - EVERY stinking rest day, some neophyte kicks down with some flawed logic 101 that sounds like it came from an undergrad professor with an axe to grind that can be boiled to this: "We're no better than they are, no matter how bad they are." It's either always some trite aporism - "the victors write the histories"; "we'll be judged as terrorists in 70 years"; or some other moral equivalency claptrap. Particularly in the area of war, which many of the aformentioned philosophers seem to have absolutely no (a) historical, or (b) doctinal, or (c) philosophical understanding of at either the macro or micro level.
Sorry, but that just chaps my ass and gives me a rash worthy of desitin.
So to set this aright - we're NOT the same as THEM, whether it's terrorist groups like AQ or state sponsors like Syria or Iran. Think I'm kidding? GO LIVE THERE FOR A MONTH OR SIX AND THEN COME BACK AND TELL ME HOW WE'RE "THE SAME".
#2 - Agree with the post that large scale bombing won't work now against elements of national power, in most cases. The evidence that it did or didn't break the national will is anecdotal when you get down to it. It was NOT terror, however. By any stretch. Some of the uninstructed seem to forget that we didn't have PGM's, hellfires, TOW II's, Mevericks, or Tomohawks in WWII -- all we had were iron bombs and we had to drop a sh*tload to get effect on target. Period. As for the morality of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, I once had a discussion about this with two old Marines in a nursing home who were in Australia preparing for the invasion of Japan when the two big ones were dropped. They understood the moral issues, but they were unequivocal that had Harry S. not done it, the US and Japanese losses would have been mind-boggling. As we got closer and closer to fortress Japan, the Japanese got more and more fanatical in their defenses. We would have had to virtually eradicate the entire island, one inch at a time. For those who haven't been there, Japan's topography would have made it just horrific fighting.
#3 - Terror simply doesn't care for what happens to its intended victims. It is about instilling fear. Dresden and Hamburg were about trying to break the national resolve of a nation, as were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
#4 - Remember that one of the conditions of the surrender of Japan (reluctantly accepted by the way) was that the Emperor had to renounce his divine status to his people - we weren't going to allow a continued mythology to exist around a militaristic religion. Hmmmm, sound familiar? Today, the multiculturalists would HAVE A FIT IF WE EVEN MENTIONED SUCH AN IDEA!! How dare we consider destroying some other (equally virtuous) culture's religion?! Who do we think we are? No one batted an eye at the time. Those on the left who forget this lesson are going to get many more innocent people killed before we finally decide that we have to force the capitulation of a state-sponsoring terror like Syria or Iran and make their public renouncement of jihad as a legitimate way of doing business a condition of surrender. THAT'S ANOTHER WAY BREAKING THE NATIONAL WILL. And for those who doubt, it can be done from the end of the sword. You make the mullah council for a state like Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran (or one Shia and one Sunni, take a pick) step forward and renounce jihad as a way of living in the modoern world for the Ummah. You don't think that would have a HUGE IMPACT?
Rant over. Going to do some work.
Jeff A. #44,
I would recommend you begin your analysis of fitness, nutrition, or politics by disavowing the opinions of "experts".
As for your suspicion that I do not recognize the complexities and nuances of politics (clearly implying that you do), could it be that the granularity of your keen focus has you blind to realities more obvious and critical?
I'm heartened by your kind words and support. Thanks!
Greetings from Bogota, Columbia
I did "Cindy" today to get back on track, but the elevation or some other element kicked my butt and after 5 rounds in 5 mins I was ready to meet pukie. I completed 20 rounds but it took approx 35 mins. Way off course.
Duncan, I have no problem wiggling my toes in that position. B
Let’s ignore your botched reading of the Senate Intelligence report for just a moment. (Thanks Dale.)
How could any Senate Intelligence report be the definitive and final word on any subject other than the report itself?
This peculiar resolution of issue by weight of authority seems to be a signature intellectual flaw of the left where sources don’t support thesis but mark the termination of thought. Is this the religiosity of the left?
Last rest day one of our lefty friends shared a website that offered proof of Valerie Plame’s covert agent status via an opinion of a judge who decided that Ms. Plame was a covert agent and in that decision admitted to not having any evidence for this conclusion. Our lefty friend thought the issue now settled. Same weird intellectual failing: fiat in lieu of analysis.
It's a little hard to tell in the picture. How wide apart are your feet? Are your knees a little wider out than your feet?
I want to try to mimic the "ideal" stance as much as possible, and I'm pretty sure that foot position plays a really big role.
Anybodys quads burning like crazy after Cindy?
My feet are just barely outside shoulder width and my knees are tracking right along my toes, although I am applying pressure on them towards the outside.
I give my clients the opportunity to use a slightly wider stance when they are first learning the movement but coach them along to be able to perform them with any. Good luck Bro
coach, #69, so now we should doubt the senate intelligence report's conclusion there was no link between hussein and al queda?
let's see -- here's the choice you're giving me -- either believe the senate report or the weekly standard article you cited that was written by an author whose veracity has since been discredited.
i think i'll go with the report.
Rippetoe, comment #53
Thank you for the post, an excellent example of how the squat occurrs naturally. Thanks for the tour today, we all had a great time and learned something while we were there.
Rippetoe, comment #53
Thank you for the post, an excellent example of how the squat occurrs naturally. Thanks for the tour today, we all had a great time and learned something while we were there.
"Let’s pick some high value targets. For example, the two dozen nuclear facilities in Iran. Give Iran a list with a time table, and let’s reduce each to rubble on schedule. If we can’t be effective with precision guided munitions, Bunker Busters, and Daisy Cutters, let’s just glassify the targets.
Our terms? Surrender of selected Imams and Mullahs, and a cessation of terrorism and insurgency action in Iraq. We won’t get 100% effectiveness, but at least we could reduce the problem to a police action suitable for the new Iraqi government."
Here is my concern:
Aliens come from outer space with superior military technology. They tell the US to get out of Iraq and surrender the president plus some other high-ranking politicans. The the US doesn't comply they will start destroying various things in the US.
Would people in the US simply accept this, do what the aliens wanted and move on? I suspect not. There would be a lot of (futile) resistance. Why assume that the US can use its military might to get better results?
Travis # 57; clean my house, cook me dinner and rock me to sleep. That's a good workout if I ever did see one.
Laurion #76 got me on that one. I hadn't thought of the Alien Attack Model.
In that Model, the people (some people?) are asked to surrender the President and other high officials. This reminds me of John Kerry's idea of how politics works in the US. On September 30, 2004 in the presidential debate, he said,
>>Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq -- $200 billion. It's not what the American people thought
they were getting when they voted.>>
My model did not involve the people of Iran somehow voting out Ahmadinejad and the ranking Ayatollah.
Joined the United States Army today. Combat Infantryman MOS. Shipping out on Nov. 16th.
Just want to say thanks to those that make this site available and to all those that make positive contributions. Thank you.
Were we, in your model, directly threatening half of the galaxy and directedly aiming to dismantle a whole planet because we did not think it had a right to exist. Did we actively support operatives that went through out the galaxy terrorizing and killing innocent beings. If so they would have the right...no the duty to use force to bring about stability and security.
If the Aliens were like us they not destroy "Various" things...they would destroy what is a danger to the rest of the galaxy based off of past and recent behavior, then help us rebuild once the cancer had been removed and leave us be to prosper as a functioning inter-galactic member.
(#78 and #80)
I just want to explain again -- I think it is very hard to use military force to stop terrorist actions. If people believe that they are right in their actions and justified in their means then destroying 'things' (buildings, weapons, infrastructure) or killing some people won't change their minds. (Would that work on you?) Killing all or most of the people will and while the US military certainly has that capability it it is an extremely unappealing action from the political level.
That is what the article about bombing Germany got me thinking about.
rested yesterday (Fri), inspired by Greg's video attempted Jackie, completed it w/ some ring plp, some jumping plp all broken w/ broken thrusters and 800 m. run for a time of 11:37 which makes me a pretty happy middle aged (48 y/o) guy.
I hear ya. I don't see any other options. Who else is going to do it? At some point you got to call a spade... a spade. There will be a tipping point where politics losses out to safety and security. What the people of that country that is causing the problem think becomes irrelevant. They should have been more deligent to keep their government under control. Now other have to do their dirty work so their opinion does not get a whole lot of consideration. Drop fliers and unleash the dogs of war. Rebuild what you can. Stay connected and watch them prosper.
I hope that nobody was hurt in the making of that photograph.
True, true. There does come a time where blowing up your enemy is better than doing nothing at all...
Couple thoughts: the most humane use of force is the one in which as few people die as possible, in accomplishing an objective. I honestly lack the detailed historical knowledge to assess if the bombing of Germany cost or saved lives. I do agree in theory with the idea behind it. I'm just not sure we had a congruence between theory and reality.
In Japan, I think it's very clear that many, many, many lives were saved through the use of the atomic bomb. That makes it humane.
To take a limit case, I remember in the first Iraq War, a Special Forces hide-out was discovered by a little girl. They, understandably, didn't want to shoot her. Maybe some or all them had little girls of their own. In any event, she ran back to the village, a bunch of men came running out, and a major firefight ensued, in which quite a few Iraqi men were killed.
Those men were the fathers of children of their own, who left their mothers to fend for themselves. If the little girl had been killed, a lot of bloodshed would have been averted. My question: did those men do the right thing?
There is nothing beautiful about war. It is a horrible, horrible thing.
For those unfamiliar with Japanese cinema, this is a recurring theme: making peace with the extreme violence sometimes necessary to make peace. One movie I would recommend is "Heaven and Earth". I think that's the name. Yes: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6302390656?v=glance
I don't recall if the movie as a whole is great, but there are several specific scenes that are entirely appropo.
While I'm on it (just a second, Roger, I'm reviewing), I would suggest "The Man who shot Liberty Valance". Without giving away the plot, you can see that movie as a symbolic rendering of the dynamic--and necessary--interplay between the rule of law, and ruthless violence.
With respect to the larger picture, we need ordinary Iraqis on our side. We are way past bombing cities in Iraq. That point, I'm sure, is obvious enough.
More subtly, though, as someone above suggested, we CAN and SHOULD be as relentless and ruthless with identified terrorists and terrorist sympathizers as possible. As many detractors as Guantanamo Bay has, I think it's an act of mercy keeping them alive at all.
If you study American history, we have done a better job of adhering to universal standards of ethical behavior than any nation of our size and power in history, in my view. However, that doesn't mean we haven't had bouts of utter brutality, such as Sherman's (who said something close to "War is Hell") March to the Sea, and our treatment of American Indians.
It's a rough world, and it is a measure of the success of our system that we are able to forget that. We forget the routine violence that used to be commonplace, and acceptable. Before the British colonized India, the practice of suttee--a man's widow throwing herself on his cremation pyre, alive, was common. It was expected. Seminole Indians tortured their captives. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Men routinely beat their wives. Still do, in many, many countries.
We are not perfect, but the ideals we aspire to are unique in human history, and the facts on the ground determine what we need to do to survive and thrive--to the betterment of all humanity.
Sorry, wasn't intending a sermon, but it IS Patriot Day. God Bless America.
Just read Erica's response from the last rest day. I knew there was a reason I discontinued my graduate studies at the University of Chicago.
It is interesting, to me, to read the rants of extreme leftists. There is no question they do us ordinary Republicans a lot of good because no person in their right (pun partly intended) mind wants to be within 20 miles of that sort of nonsense. If I wanted to control the masses, I would send donation checks to her and her ilk.
It is also intellectually gratifying, too, to read these things, and untangle the threads of twisted logic, and sort them back into order. It's almost like a jigsaw puzzle, where all the pieces have been separated from one another, in an Alice in Wonderland sort of way.
We find out there is no right or wrong, but we--America--are still somehow wrong. This is an interesting conclusion.
We find out that a nation which has been under attack for its' whole existence is an aggressor because it has developed effective defenses against persistent attacks.
We find out that we are wrong to have invaded Iraq because we should have invaded Iran, but we shouldn't invade Iran either, because that would be wrong. (See point #1).
A lot of this stuff reminds me a lot of the sort of bull I would pull out of my hindquarters when I was in college and didn't have the time or energy to actually do the research, so you just put in all kinds of touchy-feely puff words that sound like you said something, but you really didn't.
I blame the French.
Thanks Barry...somethings need to be repeated:
We find out there is no right or wrong, but we--America--are still somehow wrong. This is an interesting conclusion.
We find out that a nation which has been under attack for its' whole existence is an aggressor because it has developed effective defenses against persistent attacks.
We find out that we are wrong to have invaded Iraq because we should have invaded Iran, but we shouldn't invade Iran either, because that would be wrong. (See point #1).
I would recommend doubting both the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, AND the series of articles by Stephen Hayes.
I’d also recommend reading both before making up your mind, and remaining open to the possibility that either or both are correct, or wrong, or only partially correct.
I’ve not read the Senate report, but I have read the series of articles by Hayes, heard him interviewed, and found them and him compelling. But…the case for Saddam’s support of terrorists extends far beyond the Hayes reporting and in sum presents a solid case for Saddam being in league with terrorists.
What struck me as bizarre is that a 400+ page report that you’ve not read would carry such weight as to be the final word on the subject of Saddam and terror. It seems to me that your commitment to DNC/liberal party lines is not amenable to investigation or analysis, but is, for you, religion.
Barry Cooper>>"It is interesting, to me, to read the rants of extreme leftists. There is no question they do us ordinary Republicans a lot of good because no person in their right (pun partly intended) mind wants to be within 20 miles of that sort of nonsense. If I wanted to control the masses, I would send donation checks to her and her ilk.
It is also intellectually gratifying, too, to read these things, and untangle the threads of twisted logic, and sort them back into order. It's almost like a jigsaw puzzle, where all the pieces have been separated from one another, in an Alice in Wonderland sort of way."
Extreme in what way? Did you chek out even one link I sent you? Twisted logic? Twisted logic and outright deception seems to be the domain of those you cheerlead for (U.S. Government officials)
Let's start with the topic at hand 'Bombing Nazi Germany'
Did you know that the benevolent U.S. Government that exists inside your imagination rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America?
"After WWII ended in 1945, victorious Russian and American intelligence teams began a treasure hunt throughout occupied Germany for military and scientific booty. They were looking for things like new rocket and aircraft designs, medicines, and electronics. But they were also hunting down the most precious "spoils" of all: the scientists whose work had nearly won the war for Germany. The engineers and intelligence officers of the Nazi War Machine.
The U.S. Military rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America. It had originally intended merely to debrief them and send them back to Germany. But when it realized the extent of the scientists knowledge and expertise, the War Department decided it would be a waste to send the scientists home. Following the discovery of flying discs (foo fighters), particle/laser beam weaponry in German military bases, the War Department decided that NASA and the CIA must control this technology, and the Nazi engineers that had worked on this technology.
There was only one problem: it was illegal. U.S. law explicitly prohibited Nazi officials from immigrating to America--and as many as three-quarters of the scientists in question had been committed Nazis.
Here are a few of the 700 suspicious characters who were allowed to immigrate through Project Paperclip.
ARTHUR RUDOLPH; During the war, Rudolph was operations director of the Mittelwerk factory at the Dora-Nordhausen concentration camps, where 20,000 workers died from beatings, hangings, and starvation. Rudolph had been a member of the Nazi party since 1931; a 1945 military file on him said simply: "100% Nazi, dangerous type, security threat..!! Suggest internment."
But the JIOA's final dossier on him said there was "nothing in his records indicating that he was a war criminal or and ardent Nazi or otherwise objectionable." Rudolph became a US citizen and later designed the Saturn 5 rocket used in the Apollo moon landings. In 1984, when his war record was finally investigated, he fled to West Germany.
WERNHER VON BRAUN; From 1937 to 1945, von Braun was the technical director of the Peenemunde rocket research center, where the V-2 rocket --which devasted England--was developed. As noted previously, his dossier was rewritten so he didn't appear to have been an enthusiastic Nazi.
Von Braun worked on guided missles for the U.S. Army and was later director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. He became a celebrity in the 1950s and early 1960s, as one of Walt Disney's experts on the "World of Tomorrow." In 1970, he became NASA's associate administrator.
KURT BLOME; A high-ranking Nazi scientist, Blome told U.S. military interrogators in 1945 that he had been ordered 1943 to experiment with plague vaccines on concentration camp prisoners. He was tried at Nuremberg in 1947 on charges of practicing euthanasia (extermination of sick prisoners), and conducting experiments on humans. Although acquitted, his earlier admissions were well known, and it was generally accepted that he had indeed participated in the gruesome experiments.
Two months after his Nuremberg acquittal, Blome was interviewed at Camp David, Maryland, about biological warfare. In 1951, he was hired by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to work on chemical warfare. His file neglected to mention Nuremberg.
MAJOR GENERAL WALTER SCHREIBER; According to Linda Hunt's article, the US military tribunal at Nuremberg heard evidence that "Schreiber had assigned doctors to experiment on concentration camp prisoners and had made funds available for such experimentation." The assistant prosecutor said the evidence would have convicted Schreiber if the Soviets, who held him from 1945 to 1948, had made him available for trial.
Again, Schreiber's Paperclip file made no mention of this evidence; the project found work for him at the Air Force School of Medicine at Randolph Field in Texas. When columnist Drew Pearson publicized the Nuremberg evidence in 1952, the negative publicity led the JIOA, says Hunt, to arrange "a visa and a job for Schreiber in Argentina, where his daughter was living." On May 22, 1952, he was flown to Buenos Aires.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSING and SIEGFRIED RUFF; These two, along with Blome, were amoung the 23 defendants in the Nuremberg War Trials "Medical Case." Becker-Freysing was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for conducting experiments on Dachau inamtes, such as starving them, then force-feeding them seawater that had been chemically altered to make it drinkable. Ruff was acquitted (in a close decision) on charges that he had killed as many as 80 Dachau inmates in a low-pressure chamber designed to simulate altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet. Before their trial, Becker-Freysing and Ruff were paid by the Army Air Force to write reports about their grotesque experiments.
GENERAL REINHARD GEHLEN; It was five years after the end of WW2 but one of Hitler's chief intelligence officers was still on the job. From a walled-in compound in Bavaria, General Reinhard Gehlen oversaw a vast network of intelligence agents spying on Russia. His top aides were Nazi zealots who had committed some of the most notorious crimes of the war. Gehlen and his SS united were hired, and swiftly became agents of the CIA when they revealed their massive records on the Soviet Union to the US.
Gehlen derived much of his information from his role in one of the most terrible atrocities of the war: the torture, interrogation and murder by starvation of some four million Soviet prisoners. Prisoners who refused to cooperate were often tortured or summarily executed. May were executed even after they had given information, while others were simply left to starve to death. As a result, Gehlend and members of his organization maneuvered to make sure they were captured by advancing American troops rather than Russians, who would have executed them immediatly.
Two months before Germany surrendered in 1945, the Gehlen organization made its move. "Gehlen and a small group of his most senior officers carefully microfilmed the vast holding on the USSR in the military section of the German army's general staff. They packed the film in watertight steel drums and secretly buried it in a remote mountain meadow scattered throughout the Austrian Alps."
But hey Barry,keep the faith, the government of the United States of Aggression has the world's best interests at heart. The message is clear in places like Iraq where democracy is being imposed. The U.S. seems to say 'We bomb you because we care.'
by the way,here is the bibliography just in case anyone wants to check Operation Paperclip for themselves (not you Barry,I know you are'nt into reading the research references of "Extremists" like myself.)
Operation Paperclip, Clare Lasby, Athenaeum 1975
U.S. Coverup of Nazi Scientists, Linda Hunt, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Blowback, America's Recruitment of Nazis and its Effects on the Cold War, by Christopher Simpson
The Nazi Legacy by Magnus Linklater, Isabel Hilton, Neal Ascherson
The P-2 Time Bomb Goes Off, May 1984 The Economist
By the way,as far as the bloody so-called "war on terror" goes the new figure on civilian deaths from Iraq Body Count, a group of British and US academics, is especially telling.
Iraq Body Count’s careful methodology – of recording a death only when it appears in two independent media reports – almost certainly produces a substantial underestimate. Even the Iraqi Health Ministry reports a slightly higher figure, and President Bush’s much-quoted figure of 30,000 civilian dead dates from December 2005, when it tallied with the then IBC figure. Insurgent deaths are not included in the IBC figures, and neither are those of Iraqi police when engaged in combat-style operations.
"The “war on terror” – and by terrorists – has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth."
" Beyond the blood price, there is a dollar and sterling cost. In July it was reported that the US Congress had approved $437bn (£254bn) for costs related to the "war on terror". This, a sum greater than those spent on the Korean and Vietnam wars, compares to the $375bn that Make Poverty History says is needed to clear the debts of the world's poorest nations. The British Government has spent £4.5bn on Iraq and Afghanistan."
Might I add,in regards to modern day events here at home, as the ACLU recently pointed out,
"The hallmark of the past five years has been the administration's stunning dismissal of the rule of law and its willingness to trample on our Constitution," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This is our democracy, our America. We must not stand on the sidelines while the president abuses his power and diminishes American values."
Since 9/11, the government has broadened its powers to allow law enforcement to secretly search our homes, monitor what we read and collect personal information on all of us such as medical, financial and phone records, even if it has nothing to do with terrorism -- and all without a court warrant.
"But we have had successes in these years," Romero noted, pointing to the Supreme Court's rejection of the military commission system established by President Bush to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay, and the recent federal court ruling rejecting warrantless wiretapping of Americans.
"There is much more to do -- and Congress must now do its part and put an end to these abuses of power by demanding that the president uphold the Constitution and our tested system of checks and balances," he said.
Looking back on the past five years, the ACLU has compiled a list of the "top ten" abuses of power since 2001, as well as the top civil liberties victories in response to those abuses. The abuses include:
Wiretapping of innocent Americans without court approval or Congressional authority;
Torture, kidnapping and unlawful detention of prisoners;
The growing "surveillance society" -- a combination of new technologies, expanded government powers and expanded private-sector data collection efforts;
Spying on peaceful, law-abiding Americans who are exercising their First Amendment rights;
Creation of the Guantánamo Bay camp, where hundreds of prisoners have been held indefinitely, without charges or access to attorneys.
Victories for the rule of law and civil liberties include:
Congress' adoption of the "McCain Amendment" which helped bolster the rule of law in military interrogations;
The dismantling of the massive "Total Information Awareness" spying program which sought to monitor, among other things, innocent Americans' financial, health, travel and credit card transactions;
Prominent conservatives and conservative organizations joining the ACLU's fight to keep America safe and free;
The Supreme Court's landmark June 2006 ruling that the military commissions system established by President Bush to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay is unfair and illegal;
Recent court rulings rejecting government spying without a warrant.
The ACLU has posted its review online at www.aclu.org/september11. The website includes audio podcasts from ACLU leaders and staff on the events of 2001 and the fight for freedom in a changed world.
Oh man, nothing like a good laugh at 7:00 in the morning! Whew, that was good.
ACLU is a subersive oganization that has its roots in promoting, supporting, and defending (legally) socialist ideals and communist practices. From its founders to its agents (lawyers,) it is using the US courts and tax payer's dollars to reshape our constitution and weaken our soverenty. All this in the name of civil liberties. They have defended poligamists, pedifiles, perverts, and terrorists in route to their stated goal of communism.
I find it sad that anyone would use a ranking system of "abuses" charged by this organization as proof of anything. They side with known terrorists and despots to ensure they have more rights than our own military members.
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.
Thomas Paine, The Crisis
German War Criminals: Relevance? I've already pointed out this country--like every other country in human history--isn't perfect. The fact of the matter is if we hadn't grabbed them the Soviets would have. Their own rocket program depended heavily on Germans THEY got. Our development of ballistic nuclear warheads prevented the outbreak of a conventional WW3 in Europe. The last 60 years has likely been the most peaceful globally in the last 2,000 years. In my view, we can tie that directly to the development of nukes and their associated delivery vehicles.
It's always puzzling to me how a certain type of liberal will read a story which can be summarized "an American human acted in a way which could be viewed as imperfectly congruent with radical idealist philosophy". A decision, in other words, that was based on pragmatism, and not idealism.
An unspoken correlate to that is that we failed the test of perfection, as measured by a measuring stick which that liberal usually doesn't believe in anyway, such as Christianity, or Judaism. They take a radical interpretation of values the rest of us are trying to live up to, then use that as a stick to attempt to beat us with, without themselves actually offering up alternative values which would actually work in the real world.
You have to do the best you can with what you have. It is hopefully obvious that a prerequisite to a Bill of Rights is the very existence of America, which has been threatened--and successfully defended--a number of times. There are times when we need to associate with unsavory people and nations to create the conditions for the continuation of ourselves as a nation, and an idea.
In this respect, some level of opposition is useful, in order to prevent a swing too far in the direction of pure cynicism, but the type of opposition I see you offering is not constructive. As far as I can tell, it is nothing but a thinly veiled expression of a self-loathing originating with a hatred of being American, coupled with a presumed desire to be something else (German? French? Iranian?). What is it you want? I asked that in the last Rest Day. I want a vital, healthy America that is working for the liberalization, and enrichment of the rest of the planet. I do not view it as realistic to expect all Americans everywhere, without exception anywhere, to act like saints, and be perfectly self-effacing and sacrificing.
With respect to civil liberties, if you read history--which you likely don't--Lincoln suspended the right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus IN THE UNITED STATES. He did what he had to do.
It's a fact that planning and executing attacks in a liberal democracy like the US is much easier than in a totalitarian state like Iran. We are fully open. It's likely an impossible task to fully seal our borders, or to know about every possible bad person there could be. There is a need for balance between our right to privacy, and our desire to not be blown to kingdom come by random whack jobs, or forced into deep poverty by an economic depression brought about by successful nuclear detonations in our country.
People talk about the costs of war. They pale beside the costs of losing the war. How much productivity was lost following 9/11? Multiply it by 20.
With respect to casualties in Iraq, as I've shown on other days, the civilian death rate plummeted following our occupation, because we ended the wide-spread starvation Hussein created by refusing to actually spend money he was given on food, not to mention his widespread state-based terror.
Your post relies on your claim that
>>There was only one problem: it was illegal. U.S. law explicitly prohibited Nazi officials from immigrating to America--and as many as three-quarters of the scientists in question had been committed Nazis.>>
Do you have a Public Law reference for that law? Or do you have a cite to the applicable U.S. Code for 1945? I searched for it without luck.
How does the law define a "Nazi official"? How would it include scientists?
You rely on the ACLU top ten list, beginning with
>>Wiretapping of innocent Americans without court approval or Congressional authority;
Torture, kidnapping and unlawful detention of prisoners;>>
The other items you show seem to be spin-offs of these two. I have two questions for you:
1. How did the alleged wiretapping violate FISA at 50 USC §1802 that (a) explicitly authorizes warrantless surveillance, and (b) denies the FISA court jurisdiction to consider such activity?
2. What is the definition of torture on which you and the ACLU rely?
Or do you simply rely on fuzzy definitions?
Coach #89 et al,
The congressional reports, including
>>(1) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence [SSCI], Pat Roberts, Chair, “REPORT ON THE US. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY’S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ, 7/7/04,
>>(2) The 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas H. Kean, Chair, “Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States”, 7/22/04,
>>(3) Select Committee on Intelligence, United States Senate, Pat Roberts, Chair, “Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, together with Additional Views”, 9/8/06>>
merge into one incompetent, political blur. If you haven’t read these, I recommend starting with the Republican minority report at pp. 145-148 on 9/8/06. This is the Phase II chapter of the 7/7/04 report. I say minority because it was signed only by Republican Senators Bond, Hatch, Lott, and Chambliss.
Pat Roberts didn’t sign. Maybe that is because the four criticize his leadership. Olympia Snow and Chuck Hagel didn’t sign, probably because they are poster children for the RINOs. The Phase II report shows the Democrats bloc voting, joined from time to time by Snow or Hagel. The four Republicans charge that the Report is political and irresponsible.
The Republican minority statement is hard to criticize. It points out that the Senate Select Committee failed to respond to its primary duty, oversight of intelligence, by showing how the errors in intelligence gathering and reporting might provide lessons for the future. The criticism is obvious in reading the reports.
In Part II, IRAQ’S WMD CAPABILITIES, the Phase II presents 10 conclusions alleging errors in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). P. 52. Then in Part III, IRAQI LINKS TO Al-QA’IDA, it presents 9 conclusions about alleged prewar ties between the two. The Report is fatally deficient here in several ways.
The Report does not show what the NIE got right! It cherry picks 10 alleged errors, and then castigates the entire intelligence community for a task less certain than climate forecasting. The Report provides no sense of the statistics, no score card. It leaves the impression that the NIE was 100% wrong.
Next, the President clearly did not disagree with the NIE findings, and indeed may have relied on errors in it. However, his feelings were not terribly relevant. He didn't convince the UN, and certain of his ideas were not adopted into law.
Bush was thrice given authority to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It inherited the Public Law from the Clinton Administration to overthrow Saddam and replace him with a democratic government. Next, the Congress gave him permission to use force following 9/11, starting in Afghanistan, but extending wherever the President might deem it appropriate against anyone that he believed did no more than support terrorism. Third, the Congress again gave him permission to use military force in Iraq, as a part of the War on Terror, and enumerated the reasons.
The latest, the SSIC Report, makes no connection between the Laws as documented by Congress and the President, and the committee’s 19 conclusions.
In fact, the Congress appears to have seen through the NIE errors and did not rely on its erroneous findings in any significant way. As to the links between Al Qa’ida and Iraq, the Administration denied there were any operative links between Iraq and 9/11. Congress found as a matter of fact that Al Qa’ida was present in Iraq before the war, but went no further than that to support for the Iraq campaign it was authorizing.
Of the three Reports, none considered the tightened FAA regulations on airlines and airports from July, 2001. This omission left open the question of culpability of airlines and airport operators in letting terrorists board planes. It also omitted the credit due to the Bush’43 Administration for taking these anti-terror actions before 9/11.
Of the three Reports, none considered the necessity of integrating information from baggage handling, ticketing, and personal screening into a single terrorist profile -- point of origin, nationality, religion, racial features, appropriate screened luggage, round trip ticket, credit, travel purpose. This has left open even today the need to invoke an efficient, full screen. Nine-eleven wouldn't have happened on El Al.
One of the casualties of the War on Terror should be Political Correctness.
The Reports, and especially the 9/11 Report, recognize the wall between the FBI and CIA that likely prevented the terrorists from being stopped before 9/11. None recommended repeal of the Clinton era law that explicitly erected that wall. Chairman Tom Kean allowed Representative Corelick, who wrote the letter to enforce the wall, to sit on his committee. The Commission did not recommend sharing access to the intelligence data bases. Instead, the Commission recommended the super bureaucracy to oversee all domestic and foreign intelligence gathering. This is now John Negroponte’s assignment. Bush was reluctant to layer on more bureaucracy and spend more money to solve the problem, which the Democrats now characterize as a failure to implement the 9/11 Commission Report.
Thanks for the reply Brendan! It's helpful!
U.S. Coverup of Nazi Scientists, Linda Hunt, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
"In a 1985 expose in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Linda Hunt wrote that she had examined more than 130 reports on Project Paperclip subjects--and every one "had been changed to eliminate the security threat classification."
"These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval.Their service for Hitler's Third Reich, NSDAP and SS memberships as well as the classification of many as war criminals or security threats would have disqualified them from officially obtaining visas."
As for Barry Cooper,let me sum it up like this,
The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against terrorism.
Most Americans find it difficult in the extreme to accept the proposition that terrorist acts against the United States can be viewed as revenge for Washington,s policies abroad. They believe that the US is targeted because of its freedom, its democracy, its modernity, its wealth, or just being part of the West.
But government officials know better. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded that: "Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." Former president Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his concordance with such a sentiment: "We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful."
Jeff Glassman wrote "1. How did the alleged wiretapping violate FISA at 50 USC §1802 that (a) explicitly authorizes warrantless surveillance, and (b) denies the FISA court jurisdiction to consider such activity?
2. What is the definition of torture on which you and the ACLU rely?"
1."A federal judge ruled on August 17, 2006 (in the case of ACLU v. NSA), that the program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) enacted by Congress as well as the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. She ordered a stop to the eavesdropping without warrants."
Also the Supreme Court has already addressed this issue fully and completely, in the case of Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) -- a case that I have yet to hear a single Bush defender even acknowledge. And understandably so, since that case expressly said that the President does not have the right to exercise his "inherent executive authority" in contravention of Congressional law.
2.They rely on this
"United Nations Convention Against Torture
The "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"(UNCAT) came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are articles 1, 2, 3 and the first paragraph of article 16
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Jeff Glassman wrote"How does the law define a "Nazi official"? How would it include scientists?"
"Truman expressly excluded anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Naziism or militarism."