The Information Whore

Obama and Afghanistan

gumbyender — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:08:52 +0000

President Obama has now enjoyed 9 months in power as the leader of the most powerful country in the world. He was elected on the premise of being anti-Iraq and accused the previous administration of not focusing properly on the war in Afghanistan even going so far as to call it the true center of the “war on terror”. With that, he promised to shift resources early on from Iraq to Afghanistan to stabilize and “win” the true “war on terror”.

It has been 9 months and one would assume that Afghanistan would have gotten more attention by now. Certainly, the man’s been a little distracted with all of the economic “doom and gloom” going on back home in the United States. Still, he hasn’t apparently backed down from his campaign promises (which would never be a surprise if he had). To the contrary, he appears to be seriously considering the suggestions that the US Commander (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) is making – sending 30,000-40,000 more troops. This number would put total NATO presence in the country to just over the former USSR’s commitment in the early 1980’s at 120,000 troops – a war that ended in failure. The US Commander’s strategy is vastly different then the Soviet strategy, his being to build havens for the Afghan people to rebuild and not the total defeat of the Taliban insurgency. The issue with this strategy is that the Taliban is in it for the long haul while NATO’s commitment for a similar time table is highly circumspect.

Obama has been told flat out by his commanders that the current strategy in Afghanistan is failure. He can now do one of three things;

Continue as is – prolonging the inevitable failure in hopes of a shift in regional politics or other miraculous changes
Take McChrystal’s advice and shift forces
Close shop and get out of Afghanistan

The Taliban are watching and waiting. They have seen the British come.. and fail. They watched the Soviets come.. and fail. They expect the same to happen to the United States and NATO.

All the while, Obama has to contemplate Iran and what to do there. Any decision made regarding Afghanistan has to take serious consideration in what he might do with Iran. To strike Iran hard and stay in Afghanistan – where a prolonged war he supported and has not taken on as his own in this Presidency will be his trophy.

I’ll talk about Iran in a later post – and God forgive me for making this suggestion because I was for our initial entrance into Afghanistan – but I suggest we pull out of Afghanistan and shift our focus on closing out Iraq and neutralizing the Iranian nuclear threat. We can maintain a minor presence in Afghanistan and advocate for the rights of the Afghanistan people.

Global Warming? Myth or Truth? – Who cares?

gumbyender — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:44:20 +0000

Original Post April 24, 2007

My concern is for my envoronment and my children’s children’s environment. What I don’t care for or have a concern for is the general media outcry over ‘Global Warming’. Any and all expectations towards this serious issue are blow – way – out of proportion of reality. But this is what sells the news and the marketing/advertising budgets that feed news cycles.

What do you mean, Shane?

Airborne pollutants are a problem – no questions from me regarding this. Acid Rain. Smog. These are obvious and things we can – observe with our own eyes -. The United States has done wonders in the past 30 years to reduce the SO2 pollutants that cause Acid Rain (according to the EPA 2005, reducing Acid Rain pollutants and events by over 90% since 1972.).

Smog is still a problem and it will remain a problem until our cars pump out cleaner air and our industries do the same. But still, in the past 30 years air-borne particulate pollutants from cars have been reduced -40%- and industrial airborne particulate pollution by 85%.

The average car gets 30% better gas mileage then it did in the 1970’s. Sadly, we have nearly double the amount of cars on the highway which results in higher C02 pollution.

But why don’t I care?

No – realistic – plan of action is proposed by any ‘green organization’. Any and all plans to drastically reduce pollutants in the modernized world would result in a serious depression in our economies, reduction of services, and a general and very serious loss of quality of life. I’m a selfish American. I like my air conditioning. I like refrigerated foods. I like my Honda Accord that gets about 30MPG. I have no interest in seeing these things go away. And they will go away, if we were to sign on to treaties like Kyoto.

Additionally, if we WERE to commit economic suicide and jump on the current plans, the impact would be negated by a ever growing and ever more polluting Malaysia, China, and India. With almost 50% of the worlds population in these 3 countries, less regulated industries, more concern with economic growth then industrial pollutants – they are well on their way of doing DOUBLE the pollution that all of Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US can do.

So – what do you suggest, Shane?

Let the market continue to drive to cleaner and more efficient processes with a little kick-in-the-pants from our governments. Our government can help drive the car companies to increase fuel economy, promote ethanol production (which is only a modicum of value to pollutants, but has a much larger political effect), push nuclear energy, push the use of more hybrid vehicle development. Push for more organic farming, push for more biogenetic farming that needs less fertilizers to grow. But in the end, its up to – us – to want to buy the cool Hybrid vehicle, to vote with our pocketbooks, etc.

Al Gore says we dump 70 million tons (140,000,000,000 pounds) of atmospheric pollutants every – day – . This is an incredibly high number.. right?

What are we dumping today?

Daily dump rate is equal to .0000012% of the atmospheric total. Say this another way, 12/10,000,000 is the daily fraction in contrast to the total atmospheric content. Still don’t understand this number?

To dump as much content, at our current rate of dumping, into the atmosphere to reach – 1% of the total atmospheric concentration will take 8,334 days or 22 years.

Obvious Question: “But haven’t we been dumping for hundreds of years? Or atleast since the industrial revolution started in the early 1800’s? ”
Obvious Answer: “Absolutely – but the rate of dumping 100 years ago when the population was 1/5 of what it is today was less then 1% of our rate of polution today.”

Next obvious question: “Isn’t our rate of polution increasing exponentially and we will fill our atmosphere faster with these pollutants?”
Next obvious answer: “Absolutely.. but now for the next set of important numbers. ”

Of the reported 70 million tons that we dump into the atmoshphere every year, we can only find / report 30 million tons in atmospheric studies. Where is the carbon pollutants going? The rainforests, ocean phytoplanktons, the great swaths of North American sub-tropical and temperate forests are absorbing over 1/2 of all of the carbon we dump.

One more way to understand this is – all human carbon emmissions deposit 6ppm (6 parts per million) yearly. The rainforests, oceans, forests, actively absorb 3.7ppm. Therefore, man is increasing the pollutant level by 2.3 parts per million yearly. Over the next 50 years, we’ll increase the level of pollutants from 350ppm to 465ppm at current rates.

Sources of polution in developed countries: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (acid rain)

Other Facts:

Highest Per capita polution (re: per individual)
1st : United States
2nd : Canada

By 2015 China will be the worlds largest polluter of CO2 and SO2.
Russia is the only industrialized country to – reduce – their pollutants in the past 15 years. Of course, there population has shrunk 8%, their economy has failed, etc all of which resulted in less polluting activity.

The United States is the first modern nation to establish conservation areas, starting in 1872 with the worlds first National Park system (Yellowstone).

The United States, by – far -, reserves for wildlife conversation the largest area of land within its boundries then any other 1st world nation. By percentage as well as over-all land mass. 28.8% of the USA is reserved for conservation. That is over 1Million square miles.

Under the Kyoto Treaty amendment for carbon sinks, taking into consideration of land mass available per person in their respective countries, the United States, Canada, and Australia are the – lease – polluting of the 1st world countries. Because of the availability of land (tree’d and otherwise), the availability of carbon sinks within their confines neutralizes a large portion of their total pollutants.

The earth has warmed by .5 degree celcius in the past 100 years. The earth has cooled off by .1 degree celcius in the past 5 years.

Atmospheric carbon is at 350 parts per million. In the past 200 million years, these levels have naturally reached as high as 6,300 parts per million.

Atmospheric weight is 11,240,447,193,548,091,000. This is based on a scientific estimate with the assumption of a general atmospheric pressure of 14.7 PSI at sea level aggragated across the whole of the earth. In reality, the difference is probably plus or minus 5×10^2 difference.

Numbers I used:
11,240,447,193,548,091,000
140,000,000,000
.00012% 100,000 / 12

Defining “Real Politik”

gumbyender — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:42:06 +0000

Original Post June 29, 2007

If you are reading the various blog posts by this author, there are a few certain things you should know in order to appreciate the proper context of my language.

The use of God in discussion
The author of this blog is not an overly ‘religious’ being. Ceremony and ritual are not valued above rational thought and reason. My calls in my writing to serving the purpose of God should not be interpretted to directly espouse the benefits of Christianity over others, nor am I particularly implying Christianity. Still, my calls to the service of God are intended as much to follow the tenants of the Golden Rule as well as the teachings of a loving and forgiving God as found in the Christian gospels. Any faith that preaches the message of hope and self-determination are as equal in my mind as any other in regards to my own writings.

The use of REAL POLITIK in discussion
The author of this blog finds a constant battle to identify the balance.. the Yin and Yang.. between practical governance and idealogy. Real Politik is the practice of the practical and cold-hard facts in politics. There are times in my discussions when I reference Real Politik – please understand, that this is usually the preface for an arguement based purely on the immediate needs of the state versus the idealogical desires of the state.

The use of Idealogy in discussion
The author of this blog is a fervent patriot and a citizen of the United States. There are very few arguements that can sway me that the United States is not the single greatest power for – good – in the world. Good is loosely defined though, of course, with its many nuances and shades of grey. Nevertheless, Ideology is as powerful (if not more so) of a philosophy regarding governance as Real Politik. The balance between these two philosophies is my constant goal in my writing and I will oft take both sides of any issue as I talk thru the arguement.

Application of US Power

gumbyender — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:41:09 +0000

Original Post – June 24, 2007

The application of US Power, in all of its represented forms, has a net value serving as a stabilizing force to the rest of the world. This stabilizing force gives an opportunity to the people around the world to provide for their most basic needs; food, shelter, education, and hope [opportunity]. What we have learned over the past 2 centuries is that Democracy cannot come to the ignorant. It cannot come to the people starving, cold, or hopeless. It must be the express purpose of a more enlightened people with the largesse and education to recognize what they do have and where they might wish to grow. It must be the purpose of every government to raise their people up. It must be the responsibility of every government to raise their people to a level of God, to humanity, and to respect. Only to that end can Democracy hope to flourish and survive.

To serve the purpose of God and the people of God is to say that this is the very same purpose of the United States. By extension, providing a light and spilling its treasure in the the service of other peoples by spreading the good-will of God and his people, the US serves the world. In service to the world, by paying the many costs, the US can enrich itself.

In the act of this service, choosing the sometimes more difficult and costly path, any people will recieve the vitrol and anger of others in opposition. Though it is always better to have the love and respect of the world, we should rather opt for the hatred of the world then allow the world to breed evil, discord, and distrust.

Our works in the Middle-East may have been led astray but we can still renew and make right. By applying our focus and vision, to serve a righteous purpose – to stabilize the region and allow for hope and opportunity, the US can resist the intentions of evil men and the nature of evil itself.

Russian Resurgence (archive recovered)

gumbyender — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:40:13 +0000

Original Post – June 7, 2007

Recently in press, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made the following comments. ‘If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe,’ Putin said… ‘It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles.’

Reading a slashdot article and commentary on it, you would think people would use their brains more and apply logical thought to a situation like this. Rather than look at a macroscopic scope of what is occurring in RUSSIA and the US, they look at a single event and a single news item as if a thousand other events are not related.

Lets examine some facts:

Putin, in his ending days as President, is setting up the Russian nation to be aggressive and assertive where it can. Putin is a very intelligent man and understands that there are places that Russia just can’t go anymore with their limited economic and military resources. However, they can apply pressure in local regions where Western/US interests lie to gain advantage in areas that they otherwise cannot reach.

Putin, in his last state of the union address earlier this year, laid out a course for Russian resurgence as well as very clearly pointed at the US and the West as ‘the enemy’ again. Comparing us to the rise of the 3rd Reich, Putin is using very hot and old topics important to the Russian people to galvanize them. His target for angst is not REALLY the US.. but we are convenient.

Russia needs Ukraine and its natural resources. The Orange revolution is pretty much dead without Western support and Putin is very clearly drawing lines and boundaries to prevent further NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.

US Missile shields, for the next 20 years, will have 0 impact on Russian ability to decimate the world with its nuclear arsenal. So any arguement to the contrary is silly. Will the US eventually try to deploy a system that can more greatly ensure even a large missile attack can be stopped? Perhaps. Nuclear parity and MAD worked for a long time though and I am not sure strategic thinking has left too far from this.

Why the missile shield at all then? – Thats worthy of a whole blog. But I think the #1 reason is it reduces the number of strategic nuclear (and simply long-range missile capable) adversaries to a handful rather then a hundred. Iran, Pakistan, Indian, etc become a non-threat while capable of launching only 20-30 nukes at a time. China, Russia will remain an issue for a missile shield for a very long time.

Children

gumbyender — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:39:10 +0000

There is nothing more rewarding in life then being a father.. or becoming a father anew. If there is something else, I haven’t found it and I am perfectly content with what I have!

The closeness you have as a father for your children is akin to the closeness when it is still in the night and you feel God with you and your wife at your side, breathing quietly. My wife, Nikki, my best friend for years, is blessing me – us – with a son to add to our growing family. Due to join us Nov 3, though I doubt he (or she) wait that long, we are looking to add Camden Shane Robinett to our family!

I love my little pirates.

Political Stance

gumbyender — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:34:45 +0000

Original Post – MAy 21, 2007 – Recovered/Archive

For those familiar with my blogs, we know where I stand on many issues. Though a registered Republican, I am moderate on a number of social issues regarding individual freedoms and rights. I am conflicted still, regarding the direction of the Republican party in this election as well what challenges the Democrats will throw up before all is said and done.

• Abortion Issue: Though personally pro-life, I have no interest in seeing the nation get embroiled in a battle over abortion. The returned value on any fight over abortion is minimal, I am not certain we could actually win any battle, and it will simply be an item that the Democrats can use as a rally point for future elections. Why hand this prize to them? I would like to keep a focus on minimizing the impact and the need for abortion within our society. The issue of pro-life/pro-choice will disappear completely once our nation resolves the social issues that lead to this fateful decision.

• Iraq and Geo-political involvement: I find it impossible to separate Iraq from a larger issue, ‘Geo-political involvement’. Call this the ‘War on Terrorism’ if you like, it is a question of “Does the United States stay engaged with the world regarding the political stabilization and growth of the middle-east or we do back out completely and become isolationist?”. To leave now is to mean to completely back out of our engagement on this issue. We are no longer fighting a ‘war’ in Iraq and are now in the midst of a policing action. We should support the government as long as we need to, get it on its feet and move on to our next pressing issue in this arena.
• Gar Marriage/Partnerships: For the sake of civil unions, benefits, freedoms, etc – I have no issue with Gay ‘Marriage’. But to foul the civil union between a man and a woman in an act we call ‘Marriage’ by making it a civil union between two of the sexes goes too far. We have enough problems with maintaining the sanctity of marriage already, we don’t need to add more to the mix! ‘Marriage’ is as much a religious event, a promise between your spouse and God to remain committed to each other as one unit. Let’s leave it that way.

• Guns: The Bill of Rights provides for the right to bear arms. That right was afforded to us as a measure to prevent further inequities where the state can usurp control over our lives with no recourse. If we believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, if we believe they are what MAKES America then the enemies of it should not be assuaged. The right to bear arms should remain with little to no limitations. And the argument that guns in our society are what makes our society so dangerous, I still hold true to the following…
Take away my guns and only the criminals will have guns
If everyone had a gun, we would have a much politer society

• Illegal Aliens: I am conflicted…

• Environment: See previous blogs for my clear answer on this!

Alliance Responds to Iranian Genocide of Iraqi Sunni Civilians

gumbyender — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:32:45 +0000

Original Post – Sept 11, 2007 – archived recovery

September 11, 2015
Reporting by Vanessa Stevenson of MS-FOX News
Credit/Sources Reuters World Media

I am reporting from the Persian Gulf on the newest American Super-Carrier, the Gerald R. Ford. From my vantage point on top of the new dual band radar system that is monitoring the skies for hundreds of miles around, I am looking upon an unusually churned ocean as a flotilla of over 100 warships from the US Coalition prepare for military operations. This US Coalition, comprised of American, British, Australian, Italian, German combat ships as well as a number of Japanese support vessels (with the rumors of a newly commission Japanese Naval destroyer squadron being positioned to provide support from the Oman Sea), has been gathering for weeks in preparation of what is seen to be a major air-war with a follow-on my a coalition of Army and Marine units.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is said to have spoken briefly with Iranian President Ahmadinejad a couple of hours ago, in an attempt to forestall this invasion of Iraq and potentially the Iranian homeland. The Alliance military buildup is in response to the growing genocide of Iraqi Sunni populations by Iranian Security Forces. This buildup has quickened after last weeks reported chemical bombardment of the Sunni town of Talafar that killed an estimated 12,000 civilians. Iranian Ministry officials deny the use of WMD’s but did confirm attacks on insurgent forces in the town of Talafar. They estimated only 18 died.

Military sources believe that the Alliance is likely to begin targeting of Iranian “security” bases operating within Iraq to include the US Base outside of Kirkuk that was over-run by Iranian Security forces in 2008 shortly after the US Marine’s departure. It is also rumored that Alliance covert operations are operating throughout Iraq and Iran establishing ties and providing relief to insurgent forces resisting the Iranian occupation of Iraq.

—-

A summary of events leading to Operation Iraqi Freedom II

2007 -
The lack of significant progress in light of unrealistic goals of the troop Surge in Iraq led to the dismissal of another US General by Congressional action
US Senate & Congress demanding the roll-back of forces to begin by December of 2007

2008 -
Because of perceived American weakness, the Iranian backed insurgency pushed harder in early 2008 resulting in the reduction of US troop levels to less then 60,000 by the end of the year. US Troops remained in the “Green Zone”, a few other military positions in Ambar Province and Baghdad. A continued US troop presence would continue in Southern Iraq until the migration to a Kuwaiti based US Firebase. An estimated 15,000 US Troops would remain in Kurdish territories.

With the pullout of US Military forces in 2008, Iranian security forces began to multiply. With already an estimated 1000+ Iranian security forces and advisors operating in Iraq in 2007, by the end of 2008 over 50,000 would be providing ‘security’ in predominantly Shia populated regions.

Rumors of a campaign of violence against Sunni populations with the aim of forcing the hands of Sunni insurgents

2009 –
Iranian security forces numbering 200,000 now operate through-out Iraq except for the southern border with Kuwait and the Kurdish territories to the north.

Iraq government capitulates to Iranian demands and agrees to recognize the protection of Iraq by the Iranian military and demands withdrawal of all US forces from the country. The US declines the opportunity for complete withdrawal and maintains a ring of firebases in the southern port city near Kuwait as well as in Northern Iraq.

Insurgent attacks, supported by a growing Hezbollah and Iranian supplied, against US positions near the southern Iraq ports forces the US Marines to route across the border to Kuwait

Public Western outrage at the genocide of a small Sunni town outside of Bagdad rumored to be a Sunni ‘Insurgent Stronghold’.

US funding of Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq increases 200%

2010 –
Iranian military provide security for all of Iraq (except northern Kurdish Regions)
Iraqi government assumes state control over all oil resources in Iraq, banishing all Western aligned Oil companies out Insurgency continues. Genocide of Sunni populations continues.
Destruction of US Destroy Nasworth by Iranian insurgents in the Gulf

2012 –
The price of oil begins to move from the stable $80 a barrel to over $100 a barrel due to restricted contracts to Chinese firms for Iraqi oil
Insurgency continues. Genocide of Sunni populations continues.

2014 –
Iran and Iraq, jointly controlling over 30% of the worlds oil supply, declare an oil embargo over the US and any countries aligned with it.
Insurgency continues. Genocide of Sunni populations continues.
Joint Iranian and Iraqi military buildup occurs on Saudi border. Old arguments used to justify hostilities.

2015-
A continuation and expansion of the armed conflict of the middle east.

——

This article is a fictitious account of a world that may come. Arguments for peace instead of war.. for the sake of peace and peace alone.. tend to lead to further conflict. Two enemies that take a step back but one not defeated and disarmed leads to a continuation of conflict as soon as circumstances are convenient for one side or the other. Neither should, from a political viewpoint, be deemed evil however everyone must take a side. In Wester Society it behooves us to maintain and stabilize otherwise instable regions. This rule is further encouraged when said regions provide critical resources to the economies of our societies.

We should recognize the situation for what it is today, not how it might have been or how we would have liked it. Like the current US Administration or not, the situation is what it is. To retreat and allow the situation to spiral further is to invite future failures at a larger cost. No war is unwinnable for our western societies if we choose to expend the appropriate capital, treasure, and blood. We simply need to have the willpower and understanding of the need. Arguments that the US lost Korean and Vietnam conflicts are simply reinforcing arguments to stay in Iraq. The US lacked the political willpower to remain engaged and committed in both conflicts and now we are still dealing with a communist Vietnam and a Nuclear-Armed North Korea. Imagine what these countries might look like if we had remained to finish the job?

Shane Robinett

Hello world!

gumbyender — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:04:25 +0000

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!