I was watching a show called Future Weapons. There is this company called Pinnacle Armor developing body armor called Dragon Skin that is constructed like fish scales – a bunch of overlapping discs. It works because the discs are about indestructible and because they overlap and spread out the force.

This shit is mighty-serious. The guy was testing it by shooting it repeatedly with 5.56mm and 7.62mm steel-core rifle rounds. Zero penetration. So they put the test dummy on top of a grenade and blew it up. It tore up the rig and made a mess of the armor – butzero penetration. Of course, your brain would be liquid. Regardless, technology has finally given us actual personal armor again. It’s actual bullet proof.

After seeing this show I thought: Why isn’t the military using this armor? Right now we use heavy steel plates and brittle ceramic stuff. Well, of course, it’s bureaucratic political bullshit. First, Dec 20,2006, the National Institute of Justice certified the armor. Then, in August 3, 2007, for some reason, someone reviewed the tests and declared it wasn’t enough data to support Pinnacle Armor’s 6-year warranty. August 20, 2007 the US Test Laboratory tested nine six-year-old Dragon Skin vests. All the ballistics tests passed. Pinnacle resubmitted their vest for certification, but the application was rejected because the tests had not been properly documented. WTF?

I also read hear-say about problems with the armor in hot weather – the scales don’t rebound quickly enough when multiple pieces of shrapnel or bullets are hitting them. FFS though, Uncle Sam, give these assholes some money and stop jerking them around. In the next decade I want to see actual bulletproof coveralls with climate control – talk about saving money on healthcare.

Did anyone catch Obama’s Libya speech? I just watched it. He spent the first third tidying up on political points. Then he made his single valid point – that allowing Gadhafi to regain control of the country with outright military force against the citizens would have prescribed to all the other dictators losing power what to do.

Then he made a bogus comparison between this non-war-war-making and the invasion of Iraq, in an attempt to show that this is different from Iraq, specifically because the goal of the Iraq invasion was (naughty word) regiem change. Bill O’Reilly agreed with him on that point. I think they’re both full of shit…

The problem with the Iraq invasion wasn’t the goal of regime change, or the actual change. It was that the goal was reach far easier than we expected and were ready for. The damn country collapsed in on itself and insurgents pored in from every America-hatting hole in the world. From there fear and complacency came over the Iraqi people, waiting for the US to fix it.

Libya is a totally different situation. The Libyan people are a different kind of people. They formed an army out of their neighborhoods – and without social networking. FFS, the rebels have already set up a new national bank and are trying to sell oil from fields they recently captured. WTF?!?!? How smooth would Iraq have gone if a couple a couple dozen of these guys lived there??? They sure can’t fight for shit, and shoot way too much ammo into the air – but they’re industrious.

Like I said, we should have let the Enterprise savage Gadhafi’s aircraft that first day when he unleashed them on the rebels. Without Gadhafi’s fire power, the rebel’s momentum would have continued, and anyone sane would have dropped loyalty to Moe Crazy.

Of course that was never a possibility. We can’t have anything that politically looks like our unilateral Iraq expedition. But if the goal of all this business doesn’t include regime change, I don’t know what the hell is going on, and I doubt the sanity and/or honesty of everyone involved. What scenario worth our military intervention could possibly include Gadhafi still ruling Libya???

Oh shit, I’ve got to change a fuse in the bull-shit detector again…

Ron Paul and Denis Cousinage both agree on something again: Bombing Libya is wrong. lol

What in the hell are they doing over there anyway??? Does anyone have any idea? So ambiguous. I think we’re seeing a war prosecuted by committee. This should be terrible.

No one is in charge it seems. I understand what Obama is trying to do. It’s similar to how he handled the healthcare debate. He looked at history and decided the reason Clinton’s reform didn’t pass was because people associated him (or ratherher) with it. Likewise, we doesn’t want America associated with another war in a Muslim country. It makes perfect political sense. But strategically, I think we’re going to see a demonstration of a text-book fluster-fuck.

I was surprised and pleased that the UN at least voted to take military action. But after I thought about it, I was still pleased, but less surprised. I think the free world knows that America is broke, already fighting two wars, and has a pansy President. This means they can’t just argue against everything, knowing that in the end the US will take care of business – do all the hard stuff while the European leaders focus on politicking.

But the problem is, Europe can’t do anything, not even all together. They’ve been so reliant on the US military they can barely put on a fireworks display two days in a row. Right now the US is doing 99% of the heavy lifting in Libya – no one else can take that over.

Add to that the apparent fact that these rebels aren’t worth shit on the battle field… I mean, three weeks ago when they were rolling up the country, and the Libyan military was defecting out the front and back door, a long weekend of carrier-based strategic bombing would have no doubt maintained the rebels momentum and scared the loyalty out of any Gadhafi friends. We’d probably be talking about elections right now…

But what happened instead – Gadhafi stopped the rebel’s momentum, and pushed back - hard, recapturing stuff, and now has his tanks parked in urban areas, all the while the UN bickered and the White House stayed silent, not even supporting a no-fly-zone. Now, as long as Gadhafi has cash for mercenaries and loyalists, he can stay dug in for quite some time, all the while the country as a whole suffers like hell, remembering the kinder days under Papa Gadhafi.

At least the Arab World won’t see this as yet another American military action in a Muslim country – will they????

Pass the pragmatism please…

Is anyone else annoyed with our slow efforts in Libya? I understand we’re trying to be hip and cool to the world, but the tide is turning over there while we sit testing the political winds and make naive diplomatic efforts. Those glorious sons-of-bitches are fighting hard, begging for our help, while we sit – concerned – weighing our options.

Only now is the Obama brigade in support of a no-fly zone, just in time for the vote todayin the UN to authorizestrikes in Libya. Anyone think Russia and China will let it pass????

I heard part of an interview with Hillary Clinton yesterday. She was talking about needing to involve the national community, mainly the UN. Why are we pretending like this? And she also made the point that we can’t save everyone. Shit – I know that. People are dieing all over, and tyranny abounds – but this was a rare opportunity where we could have saved someone.

Obama wasn’t even behind the Libyan rebels until he thought they were winning. Now they’re losing. We don’t even have a carrier in striking rang, only some destroyers and a submarine. The Enterprise [carrier] was in the Red Sea, perfect striking position, but recently steamed off to the Arab see, out of range.

It’s times like this I miss having a cowboy in office, someone who would have dumped an aircraft carrier on Gadhafi’s big fuzzy head. Overnight we could have shut down his military, turning everyone against him. Now I see two probable outcomes: 1. Gadhafi’s inner circle kill him, and put another strong man in place. 2. This thing grinds down into a long bloody civil war.

Enterprise could have solved this weeks ago…

If this idiot was genuinely for transparency, he’d leave the US alone and go after the governments governing the majority of the planet who are actually corrupt and non-transparent “big guys’ using their power to kick around the little guys. He also wouldn’t harm the free countries’ abilities to have effective diplomatic dialogue with each other, and especially with the less-than-free countries. Wars occur and millions die for lack of diplomacy!

“Diplomacy not war!” …. Well shit….

This wanker is obviously after something else. Not any pure idealism. If he is, he’s just plain stupid, which might be the case. He did, after all, place himself at the center of a world wide controversy while he had rape allegations floating about. Not too bright. My prognosis for Assange is grim.

There is a desperate need for what Assange is doing, but not here, not in the free world where he can get his fame on for it. There are places that need light shined in their dungeons. But, of course, if he were actually part of an extended society that was as unfair as he likes to pretend, we wouldn’t be talking about him right now, would we.

I’m interested to see this story develop. Assange already for sure ruined the guy’s life who stole the cables. Last I heard, that’s where the Obama admin is targeting the case – conspiracy to commit espionage.

They need to prove Assange encouraged or promoted the act of stealing the info. Prosecuting him for putting the info online would be a tough one, because he’s already primed his defense against that by calling himself a journalist, and there’s precedence for journalists legally disseminating classified information they happened upon legally.

If you’re paying even mild attention to this, you either have to be a fool – or wantonly ignorant – to think Assange is doing anything good, or has genuine intentions.

As for ramifications, this was damaging to the progress of freedom and democracy in the world. Mainly, it’s shown that you can’t be frank with our diplomats. You might be interested in stopping Iran’s nuke program, you might be will to stand against the Talliban under the right circumstances – but what can you do? Apparently, diplomacy with these Liberal Democracies is way too risky, how they willy-nilly protect their classified information, some 104 pound 2-inch Norse prick can steal it in between date-rapes.

It’s legal to drink mild poison. It’s legal to smoke mild poison. It’s legal to eat mild poison. But not this mild poison???

Seriously, we have a war going on in Mexico fueled mainly by US pot consumption. Mexican police have to dress like combat-ninjas so they won’t be recognized by what are basically insurgents! With our best law enforcement efforts, pot is still cheap and everyone who wants to consume it – apparently – has no trouble finding it readily. Desperate people freely mule the stuff across our sieve of a border.

Just for possessing a larger than minute supply of marijuana, we send people – professional law-abiding people – to jail for years, fine them tens of thousands of dollars, and confiscate their property. Why???

Pot is no worse than alcohol or tobacco. It’s not a hard drug unless other chemicals are added – which can happen in the nefarious supply rout marijuana takes. It’s not a weapon!

Let’s put the drug gangs out of business! Let people grow high quality marijuana on their own property, here in the US! Let them sell it, or at the very least use it! License farmers and dispensaries! Tax sales! Take the billions we spend enforcing pot laws and spend it enforcing vital laws! Us the tax money to finance anti-drug education and rehabilitation! The Liberals say money is more effective in rehabilitation than enforcement anyway…

For the record, I don’t smoke pot – never have, not even once. But our society needs to get past this uninformed obsession we have. Keep space in the jails for actual criminals who ruin people’s lives. Not misguided entrepreneurs who are doing no more social ‘damage’ than the local liquor store or doughnut shop. Or at least let the States decide, thus allowing people to move to where they are allowed to live as they see fit – harming no one.

–Better arguments for Professor Dove’s article, “Buy Ameri-mexi-nadian”–

1. The best thing to do for the economy is to buy what you think is the best value. If an American company isn’t building the car you want, or if the American car of your type – say a Focus – costs $50 more a month than its foreign competition, what else will you do? Lower your personal standard of living in an effort to ‘patriotically’ support a corporation? Ford doesn’t do that. Neither does GM or Chrysler. They buy their shit where ever it’s cheapest – usually foreign. And they move production to where ever it’s cheapest whenever they have the chance. Do you think a new factory will ever be built in UAW territory again???

2. Foreign companies have low labor costs, resulting in higher value cars. American companies have some of the highest labor costs. Although the American workers are more productive than their foreign competition – those gains are nullified by their incredibly high – low skill wage. Unions in the US have functioned like a power syndicate taxing the auto companies – resulting in far-above market wages for their members. An auto worker is doing basic manual labor for what is equivalent to $50 an hour while his non-union neighbor is willing to do the job for $15 or $20, even less in this economy. If the auto companies can get a reasonable hold on their labor costs – they’ll add more value tot heir cars and be more competitive.

3. Besides the history of bad quality, US car companies also have a history of bad service – and that’s a recent history. It’s been over a decade since most foreign car companies have offered the 100,000 mile power train warranty.  Domestic manufacturers still only offer the 30,000 mile with an expensive extension – and often don’t cover problems when they do occur during the 30k miles. That kind of thing really sticks in a person’s craw.

4. US companies have unappealing entry-level options - still. Each US manufacturer has it’s small economy car, the type first-time car buyers often get. But they don’t offer the value of other models – like the Honda Civic. And how could they offer value? US auto companies loose money on the little cars, and only keep them so they can compete in the first-time buyer market. That reason for having a first-rate high-value first-time-buyer car is to start a tradition with young people. If a person buys a Honda and has a great experience, they are likely to buy a Honda the next time around. And foreign manufacturers like Honda excel in this market because all they make are small cars and they do it profitably – that’s where their energy is focused.

5. We no longer need large scale manufacturing for national security. The Great War was certainly the war to end all wars. Who, after enduring the destruction and loss of life of that great global conflict, could ever wage large-scale war again? Our modern weapons simply make it too horrific.

[edit: 1948] Now that we have the bomb, large scale war is something we’ll only experience in history books. No one will wage large scale war because it would eventually end in nuclear warfare, which would be catastrophic and in no one’s interest.

[edit: 1953] Oh shit, we might need that heavy production, or some counter to the Soviet mechanized forces, which are growing at a rate that will soon threaten all of Western Europe with an unstoppable swooping invasion.

[edit: 2003] Large scale warfare is a thing of the past. Modern wars are small, requiring light and fast military forces and air power. Heavy equipment is obsolete when a hand full of Ranger teams with eye’s in the sky and bombs from heaven can do in a month what the Soviet Army couldn’t accomplish in 7 years – or when such a modest force can topple a military regime over night, such as Sadam’s.

[edit: 2009] Modern wars require many troops, but only a fraction of them are combat focused, because the main goal is protecting and appeasing the civilians of the area. Domestic production of military equipment can be small because we don’t loose it – we just wear it out. Sudden large-scale war production is as unnecessary as fighter planes and manned air power.:-)

Noisy Dove, where is the logic in refusing troops to secure the border when the risk to citizens in the homeland is so great? Why does the White House keep waiting? On one of the JFK tapes, then-president Kennedy discusses with an aide a proposal sent to him by the state of Texas. “They only got us how many votes?” he asks. “Yeah, I don’t see why we’d do anything for them.” Is this a similar spat?  Related article and video:  Fox News story: Uptick in Violence Forces Closing of Parkland Along Mexico Border to Americans

This is no spat. This is ideology. What else, besides ideology, could cause anyone to ignore clear essential logic? And I’m not taking a headline view of the border problem. Indeed, no one wants to ‘militarize’ the border with a good ally.

But here are the facts: The purpose of the National Guard is to – well – guard the blessed nation!!! And the border – it’s already militarized – with heavily armed drug cartel soldiers freely holding United States soil. These are the same guys breaking the Mexican government.

We only have a couple choices here. One – we can accept the costs of freedom and stoically endure a couple small terror attacks per year, a major one every ten, close off the sections of America that any neighboring militant factions would like to take, and hope Pelosi’s rehab-instead-of-prevention anti-drug policy works as well on our plane of reality as it does on hers. That’s what we’re trying now.

Or two – we can secure the border tight enough so that we at least know who is entering the country, especially the border with a country that’s having an internal war, and across which all manner of contraband and persons freely flows.

Only ideology can complicate this kind of thing. Serious Leftists don’t even believe in borders. Workers of the world unite – isn’t a figure of speech. They mean it. The National Socialist Party explains explicitly that they don’t believe in national borders. Obama’s not all the way over there – I don’t think – but that the way he points.

The Leftists in the US are dead set against enforcing immigration law or securing the border because they don’t agree with keeping people out. Indeed – this seems to seriously contradict the economic feasibility of all the entitlements the Left has planned for America – but again – ideology trumps logic.

Congress, you’re discussing a bill that would, after an evaluation by the Joint Chiefs as to how, do away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – essentially making it no longer grounds for discharge to be openly gay.

Listen people, this is going to happen. Even if this particular bill doesn’t do it, and even if this bill is held up, it’s going to happen. And the current attitude toward the subject is generally rational – surprisingly. Sure, there are a number of activists waving the rainbow flag trying to kill Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in order to fulfill their gay-rights agenda. But look at the bill’s focus. Before implementation, it required evaluation by the Joint Chiefs in deciding how to make the change. You’re not going to get better than that until Palin is sworn into the Presidency.

So let’s not act ridiculous and make contrived and theoretical arguments against allowing gays in the military. Save your energy for the more serious lunacy coming down the Congressional grey-water pipe. Seriously, you’re doing more harm than good. The more you make the standard arguments the more riled up the gay activists get and the less combat-effectiveness oriented this whole discussion gets.

You don’t think making such a change while we are fighting 2+ wars is the best time? Bull shit! If you think this all volunteer army will miss a beat letting their gays proclaim what their buddies already know – you’re dead wrong. No fighting force throughout history is even comparable to our current military in organization and effectiveness. They could make this change on a Sunday morning standing on their head pissing a rainbow and be on time for church.

You think open gayness will harm moral? Hell, maybe it will. Personally, I doubt it – kids don’t care about that crap anymore. The only fear in that respect the brass seem to have is of problems with the enlisted men. But that’s only natural – kids will be kids. They like to give each other a hard time about anything.  And those kids will learn proper behavior post-haste after their first General Issue ass-wringing.

You worry about the type of characters that will appear in uniform? Come on… That stereotypical Will and Jack (From the show Will and Grace) aren’t the type of fine human being who accepts the honor of military service. Will and Jack are gay-pride groupies. There are plenty of people – hard core red blooded Americans – regular in every way, except that they are blessed with an honor-bound adventure-craving spirit, and find sexual release with the same sax.

Bottom line, if a young man or woman is willing to put their mind and body in harm’s way to protect this country, you should support that effort – regardless of their open romantic involvements, assuming those involvements won’t deteriorate combat effectiveness. And this bill makes that effort. Don’t miss a chance to not be a jackass. Save it up for this Cap n’ Trade nonsense.

The military suicide rate has always been lower than the civilian rate. Only until recently and I think during part of the Vietnam war has it been greater. As of February 4, 2009 the military rate was 20.2 per 100k and the civilian rate was 19.5 per 100k. LOL And I got that from World Socialist Web Site wsws.org. Wow hu? What’s the military doing to people that makes them .0007% more likely to kill themselves during two controversial wars?????? Such a crisis!!! Whoa is us – whoa – is – us!!!

The thing about the military is you are part of a team – it’s like a big extended family. You’re part of a much larger and greater system, which is fulfilling generally. Yeah, one in 14 in a shooter and they have to deal with killing. That’s their job and honor. Others give up as much freedom in becoming a doctor and other professions. These professions don’t require a legal contract to serve but you don’t have the support system either – and you have a SHIT LOAD of debt (student loans).

The reason the Fort Hood shooting was so bazaar, besides the whole Islam possibility, is that a primary part of training is working together regardless of color and creed in one cohesive unit. In other words, you have to be a real ass-wrinkle to not get along socially in the military, because you have to. When you’re forced to rely on the character of your team mates you start to forget about everything else.

And half the offensive stuff we get away with in civilian life ends a military career. Take part in discrimination, show racism? Boom – permanent current rank. Have sex with a co-worker? Crack – permanent current rank. And that’s at best. You very well might be discharged. Regardless, when someone needs to be promoted, and there’s a complaint on your record about you calling someone a camel-jockey, you’ll likely get passed over. So the frat-house idea of the military is just one more of those hippy ideas people tend to propagate.

I love the media’s excuse they were making up for this asshole at the time though: Contagious PTSD. LOL

Some were saying when this happened that if there were more Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks in the military, that they would start baring Muslims. I disagree with this. More Islamic Fundamentalist Terror attacks within the military won’t mean baring Muslims. That’s ridiculous. We need the type of people that are usually Muslim now more than ever. We’ll just have to stop being so damn shy about screening people’s backgrounds. And well have to go about those screens in an unobtrusive enough was as to not discourage Arabic and Farsi speaking Muslims from joining our all volunteer army and defending their home from enemies not only trying to destroy their society, but who are also destroying the image of Islam in the world’s eyes.