H&I* Fires 8 Aug 2006

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

************************

Here's a brief challenge for some of you - identify the tank in this picture over at Kilabe's place.

Over at My Pet Jawa, they're soliciting your portfolio to become the new Reuter's stringer in Beirut. Best part is - you don't even have to be in Beirut! You just have to be able to use Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or fill-in-the-blank pixel manipulation software! Wheeee! H/t, Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

The mockery of Adnan Hajj/Reuters continues. -the Armorer

************************

I can relate to Stanley Kurtz's "Gloomy Hawk" piece. Owen, Alan, Jack - what would the response be from your side of the fence? -the Armorer

************************

Kansas City, Houston, St. Louis, Memphis and Knoxville are among 14 cities no longer on the original schedule released in May, according to a revised itinerary posted Thursday on the Dixie Chick's Web site.

Bummer. We fly-overs don't wanna listen to the Chix. Snerk! C'mon, ladies, Germany beckons - it's been good to Hasselhoff! -the Armorer

************************

Gee? People from the political extremes are... hateful and bigoted? They suppress dissent and free speech? It must be true. Lanny Davis sez so.

And in recent years--with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage--I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Welcome to the world of DU and the Kossacks, Lanny! -the Armorer

*********************

New reports on logistics issues in the Mideast caused by high fuel prices!

And Reuters has replaced Hajj's doctored photograph with one they swear is authentic...

-the Armorer

**************************

In my humble opinion, Riverdance is downright abusive; 'Zily there is close to Reuter's reality, but me thinks that THIS and THAT is closer to The Castle's Reality. CASTLE ARGGHHH!- BOQ

**************************

This is a waste of breath, I know, but for what it's worth, here's something I sent to John at Powerline. Subject: How not holding the opposition accountable for how they label issues sort of puts reasonable people off balance in the war of ideas...- Instapilot

In virtually every discussion I hear or read about obscene oil company "profits," I get the distinct impression everyone is talking past the problem (limited supply vs. insatiable and growing demand) and instead focusing on the gee-whiz factor that lots of money is being spent by those who want it...and taken in by those who produce it.

As I understand the word "profit," it is the difference between costs and revenues, i.e., what's left over after you spend all the money necessary to bring your product to market and maintain your business as a viable, surviving concern. Has that changed appreciably for the Big Oil companies, or have revenues simply grown thanks to the increase in the product's acquisition and production costs (and all the other expenses) that are simply reflected in its final retail value? In other words, it takes more money to get it to the customer, ergo the customer pays more money so the raw numbers are just bigger. What's so sinister about simple market forces? Or have the oil companies figured out a way to spend just as much money getting the oil, refining it, transporting it to market and dispensing it as they were 6 months ago and are pocketing the difference between what a gallon of gas costs the consumer today? Somehow I doubt it.

This is my long way of saying Big Oil profits have probably not changed a tenth of a percentage point over the past several months, much less years, and so profits are flat (or relatively so). But I guess that little truism (if I'm correct in my theory) would go against the prejudices of the MSM and the Democrat politicians around the country. "Profits" are, sadly, a bad thing to half our political classes ever though or entire economic system (to say nothing of our breathtaking standard of living) depends upon them.

Yet conservatives and free-market economists cede the battle of words to the Left by using the p-word in talking "record" anything, at least when it comes to oil, casting the producers in a bad light and forcing them to burn yet more brain bytes and marketing revenue to explain that they aren't the rapacious, top-hatted, spats-wearing capitalist parasites John Kerry and the usual suspects would have you think they are. Am I wrong?

___________________________

As a side note, as a 26-year military veteran, I get REALLY nuts when the conservative commentators also cede the battle over national defense by labeling the Michael Moores, Cindy Sheehans, John Murthas, Jimmy Carters and the more bilious members of that, uh, Demographic (the capital "D" is intentional) as "anti-war." They are nothing of the sort...war is fine for them as long as America is losing or her enemies are winning. After all, the terrorist thugs responsible for Iraq's misery are "Minutemen," are they not? I would be remiss also in not at least giving a nod to Markos "Screw 'Em" Moulitsas in making my point.

I would dearly love someone on the Right to start calling these people "anti-defense" or "pro-enemy" or something more accurate. And no, I'm not talking about reasonable people (or even true pacifists) who just don't "see war as the answer" (although a few old, retired European Jews, Frenchmen, Brits, Russians, et al., may disagree), or even honest liberals and conservatives who think Iraq wasn't our battle to fight.

The most anti-war people in the US are warriors. We fight them, we get hurt in them and we die in them so the best "anti-war" position possible is to, once the Commander-in-Chief decides to engage, bring maximum force to bear, doing great violence to the enemy and his will to resist and make it short, if at all possible. Trust me, I want to get in, pound the bad guy to powder and get out before I get my a$$ killed. It saves lives on both sides, makes for a more lasting peace (the winners and losers have no doubts as to who they are), and minimizes the time spent engaging in the carnage and waste of battle. The "anti-war" label drips with irony--their lack of resolve only prolongs the situation they so loudly lament.

I agree with CDR Salamander: I like Ace. -the Armorer

**************************

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to that particular topic. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".