C James

Anyone hear any rumors on how the chapter is doing, or a possible release date?

What a wonderful way to say "Happy Birthday"! That was a really sweet story too. Kevin, I know what it's like to be newly arrived in a new place, and spend your birthday there. I sincerely hope that you did have a great day. Happy Birthday Kevin!!

Happy Birthday Xandra!!!

Happy Birthday BRAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Below is what I posted a while back in the "Are David and Oliver one person?" thread, and IMHO it still fits, so I'm re-posting it here. OK, since I wrote the above, we have had Brian's "Explanation". The operation to return Oliver to consciousness could well have resulted in the severing of the corpus callosum that connects the two hemispheres of the brain. I still suspect that there is a LOT more to this story than we have seen. I'm still wondering what those photographers were up to, and especially why one of them (if it was them) attacked Oliver and FRank? Great chapter, Dom! Thank you!

Hi David!! Thanks for joining us in the forums! I think you will love it here. I know I do. Welcome to GA!

The Bush admin might take action against Iran, I'd say it's about a 50% chance at most. That's just guess on my part. If Bush takes the easy way out, he will leave it for the next admin, bu which time it will likely be too late. The Democrats, on the other hand, have (when they choose to raise the issue) been saying some very heartening things, including statements in favor of an airstrike. I sincerely hope it's not just political sniping and that they mean what they say on the issue. However, there is no unified Democratic policy on Iran, which is a bad mistake on their part for political reasons. Given the Republicans appalling record on many issues (even their own conservative base is ticked off at them) their only real option for the congressional elections coming up in November is to make it all about National Security (an issue the Democrats still are not trusted on). It's very easy to do, if the Democrats don't act first by announcing a party policy on Iran (and they don't appear to have any intention of doing so). All Bush needs to do is call for a vote authorizing force if it's the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The leftist "Cut-and-run" wing of the Democratic party won't support that, and many Democrats will be mindful of what happened to Senator Joe Lieberman (Lost his race in the primaries thanks to the left wing of the party). The Majority of Democrats would likely oppose the measure, and hand Karl Rove (Bushs head political strategist) a very nice stick to beat them with on National Security issues in November. There are other ways of doing this, but it's my bet that some variant is exactly what the Republicans will do, as they have few other options (and the Democrats are handing them the opportunity on a silver platter). BTW, there isn't any reason to invade Iran, as we could accomplish what we need to from the air *IF* we don't wait until the program is close to producing nukes. IMHO, it's clearly a case of "the sooner, the better". It's also glaringly obvious that the UN is a waste of time on this, as France and Russia won't even support sanctions, let alone an airstrike. That's a very good report, and a great primer on the issue. Thank you! It is however flawed: Negroponte's assessment that Iran is at least five years from nuclear capability is basically a guess. If Iran can acquire reactor-grade Uranium, that would greatly speed the process. Also, the P2 centrifuges may already be in operation, or nearing it, in an underground facility. We do have the means to determine if a centrifuge array is active, *IF* we know where it is: They require a huge amount of electricity; dedicated major high-voltage transmission lines. You can tell if those are active from orbit: when active, they produce some heat (not much). This can be detected by a night-time infra-red image in cool or cold weather. A KH-13 could be tasked for this on demand, BUT, we need to know the location. I have a hunch that we don't, and I certainly don't think it's anywhere near the array pictured. Also, why is Iran producing Pollonium now? It has a fairly short half-life, and for use in a nuclear initiator needs to be under two years old, as I recall. My hunch is that they are closer than we know, and they would logically be running a counter-intel op to deceive us as to the state of their program. Also, the longer we wait, the less actual delay an airstrike will cause. (this was a glaring omission from the report) As for the Politicians, I think many can see the danger. I just hope it's enough, and I hope it's not too late.

Hey, it's Sunday already, and no one has commented on the chapter except for the twins? Hmmmm!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY KEVIN!!!!!!! Happy birthday to the friendliest guy on GA! Have yourself a great birthday, and have fun!!!!

I disagree. I don't think there is a "slight possibility" that you are right, I think there is near certainty that you are right! Good call!!!!! And that means that all the other statements on DK's list are false!

EDITOR LEAK! EDITOR LEAK!! Emoe, you just gave away the fact that something happens in the stroyline in Ch 13! This is a major spoiler, because now I know in advance that Ch 13 won't be a chapter where absolutely nothing happens!

Well, this silly goat is delighted to hear that we get a new chapter soon! HAve yourself a fun trip to Canada, too!

Uhoh! Has anyone heard any screaming eminating from the direction of Jacksonville? Is this another DK teaser, implying that Ch 13 is a shocker?

There are some who share my views on many aspects of foreign policy, actually a great many who study the Middle East do, though I have no idea what the percentages would be. The problem with public opinion on foreign policy is that the Media is doing a pathetic job when it comes to explaining the issues. I don't ever recall seeing the issue of radical Medresses being the main root cause of Terror mentioned on the TV news. (this would be akin to not mentioning the SS during WWII!). In related areas, I'm afraid that ignorance and misinformation is rife. For example, I've heard many people (a small minority, thankfully) why believe the Iranian excuse that their nuclear program is peaceful, and they need it for electricity. That's preposterous for so many reasons that it is not deserving of a serious reply, yet some people believe it. Another example is the ongoing buzz in the media regarding whether or not Israel will "take out" Iran's nuclear program. They talk endlessly about this, but totally lacking is any discussion on whether israel has the actual capability to do so. Ugh. Another fact totally lacking from the Media is that as time passes, it becomes progressively harder to seriously derail Iran's nuclear program. Waiting until the last possible moment (assuming you know it) is utter folly, as they would already have the weapons grade materiel. It's the fissionable production facilities that are the real bottleneck (as well as being far easier targets due to their size and infrastructure demands), not assembly or components. So, the assumption that the US or Israel can wait until Iran is weeks away from nuclear capability is flat-out wrong, at least for a strike with conventional weapons. Therefor, the decision point will come far sooner than the media thinks. What will Israel or the US do? Bear in mind that I don't know the actual current status of Iran's nuclear program: I'm assuming that they have not yet enriched enough uranium hexafluoride to weapons-grade levels, because once they have we are in a much worse situation. They appear to be enriching uranium (in it';s hexafluoride form) with centrifuges, which requires vast banks of very large high-speed centrifuges. (this is the route the Pakistani program took). After many cycles, the Uranium hexafluoride is sufficiently refined and then the fluoride can be separated (a comparatively simple and far faster process), leaving weapons grade uranium. Once they have that, building a nuclear weapon is child's play, and they would likely have the components ready in advance. It would take about three days to cast core segments and machine them (far less accuracy is required than with a plutonium-core nuke). Assembly would take perhaps a day, at which point they have nuclear weapons. The Uranium core device usually uses explosive assembly, far easier to do than implosion. In it's simplest form (I'm leaving out details like the initiator), you are slamming together to half-spheres, and the US Hiroshima device was of this general design. It was so simple that it was dropped without ever being tested, because they were so sure it would work. (The Trinity device was an implosion core, not gun-assembly like the Hiroshima device). So, the strike must occur before they have refined sufficient uranium hexafluoride. How far away from that are they? I know they have the centrifuge arrays in at least two locations. What I don't know is there state of progress. I also don't know if the US and Israel are able to know that. But, assuming they do, let's say they determine that Iran is about two years away from producing it's initial batch of nuclear weapons. That would make a strike within a few months imperative. The US can, due to having long range bombers, fighter bombers on Iran's East and West borders, plus naval aircraft, launch a strike to destroy they key facilities (you don't need to get them all, just the ones hardest to repair or replace). It won't be easy: the Array at Estafan is reportedly deep underground, and the key sites are heavily defended and hardened. As a guess, the centrifuge arrays, the hexafluoride processing plants, and the uranium processing and storage sites would be critical, along with Iran's nuclear reactors (the latter are at least easier targets). The centrifuge arrays are easier to find due to having massive power requirements (just follow the massive power transmission lines). But, you need to know exactly where the underground chambers are, to within a few feet, and you can't determine that from the air if they are deep. But, basically, with overwhelming force and bases surrounding Iran, the US would have the ability to keep hitting the targets until the job was done, and so the Us could most likely pull this off (it would be far from easy). Israel, though, does not have nearby bases, and the US would probably much prefer to do the job itself than allow Israel to use Iraqi bases. Israel's long-range strike aircraft (f15's and f-16's) could theoretically do the job at max range with conformal fuel cells and with reduced weapons loads, but it would leave no fuel reserves for combat (which would be very likely) and would also require overflying at least Syria and Iraq. This would leave few aircraft per target, and Israel only has 25 F-15's and 100 F-16's so a massive strike is out of the question. I don't see this operational scenario as being feasible for anything other than an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran. The most likely option IMHO is the covert cooperation of one of the gulf states (who fear a nuclear Iran) for a refueling base. Turkey might be another option, though I doubt it. I'd give the chances of Israel acquiring such permission as less than 30%, given the politics in the Arab world regarding Isriel. So, Israel has very few options. It does have submarines which can fire cruise missiles, but those are useless against hardened targets. No matter what, the military options for Israel are very difficult. If I were the Israelis, I'd be more inclined to think outside the box and go for an asymmetrical solution. My own personal plan is to use Iran's weaknesses against it. Iran's weaknesses, for these purposes, are three: they lack force-projection capability, they have very serious internal dissent problems (which is the reason for their brinkmanship on the nuclear issue and also the reason why diplomacy will fail: The Mullah can't back down for domestic political reasons) and they have a fuel problem. The last is interesting: Iran has massive reserves of oil, but doesn't have the refining capacity to supply itself with gasoline and other light distillates. They presently import the majority of their gasoline, and much of that comes from Venezuela (which does have the refining capacity). So, my plan would be for the Israelis (this would work for the US, too, and be far easier both politically and militarily) to cut of Iran's gasoline supply and also it's oil exports. That would both bankrupt Iran, and cause it massive internal disruptions. This could be done at first without firing a shot: simply announce a blockade (Iran and Israel are still officially at war, so no "act of war" issues) and that any gasoline tankers bound for Iran must turn back or be torpedoed: Israel has three Dolphin-class diesel-electric subs that could easily threaten the sea lanes to Iran. Those subs can also fire cruise missiles (a modified Harpoon variant) which could hit the vulnerable oil terminals. They could also wreck the facilities for unloading gasoline, and hit nearby storage sites as well, plus Iran's limited gasoline refining capability (which I believe is a coastal refinery). Iran does not have the ASW gear to go after the Israeli subs, and their ranges and deployment times could keep them in the area on a rotating basis (operating out of Elat, Israel's port on the Red Sea). The lack of Gasoline would be devastating to Iran's infrastructure, including food distribution. This operation would coincide with a propaganda blitz: Remind the Iranian people that the Gasoline would return just as soon as the Mullahs, with verification, scrapped their nuclear program. It would also remind the Iranian people that the Mullahs had wasted billions on the nuclear program, claiming it was essential that Iran be self-reliant, while ignoring the fact that a country with some of the world's largest oil reserves had to import gasoline, leaving it's people very vulnerable. Hopefully, the internal chaos would result in an either the Mullahs backing down, or Iranian revolution, but if not, the chaos would at least make the air attack on the Nuclear facilities a bit easier. The only downside would be that Iran's oil would be off the world market for a while, resulting in some shortages and a big increase in global fuel prices. However, UN sanctions would result in much same thing if implemented. (what else can they stop Iran from exporting? Pistachio nuts?)

Ok, prepare for a very long-winded (even for me!) post, as I'm replying to the above first, and then the article! I'm sorry to hear that your friend did not survive. I'm not Jewish, but I am, by classical definition, a Zionist. I strongly support a state of Israel that encompasses it's present territory plus the West Bank. I also feel that Israel's greater restraint in recent decades is a root cause of it's present increase in trouble. As for Dayan, as I say, I have mixed feelings. His military decisions in the run up to and the early days of the '72 Yom Kippur war bother me greatly, but no one can dispute his tactical brilliance later in that war, or especially in the 1967 war and earlier. I do disagree with Israel's Lebanon bombing campaign, but for one reason only: It didn't work, and worse, it gave the strategic victory to Iran and Syria (and their Hezbollah puppets). IMHO, Israel would have been better served by a more intense military campaign, one with their customary speed and a far different operational plan. Bob, you raise one question above that I think is the key to American foreign policy, both of this administration and prior ones: "Do they know exactly what they want?". The answer to that is NO. They not only often don't know what they want, but certainly have no agreement on how to get there even when they do know what they want. As for the article, It was better than I was anticipating, and even raised an issue that I wish the US military would address: That describing Sadr's Militia as the "Mahdi army" does indeed convey a sense of legitimacy on them due to the intrinsic cultural meanings of "Mahdi". That we continue to do so is incomprehensible to me. Another excellent point raised is of the cost to the US economy of the ill-advised attempt to secure everything. The Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Authority are the two best examples of the incredibly waste that has occurred. Both are largely useless, and in many cases are actually counter-productive. Time after time we hear about infants being kept off of flights due to matching names on a do-not-fly list, and time after time we hear of security breaches that a child should have been able to detect and deal with. That's just the tip of the iceberg, too. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security was foisted upon us by the Democrats, as their post 9-11 proposal. They even pushed for hiring and tenure guidelines that made much of it (including the TSA) a jobs program, instead of focusing on the only thing that matters: getting the job done. This is part of why the Democrats have the sadly-deserved reputation of never seeing a bureaucracy that they didn't like. They have, so many times, saddled us with more and more government, as if more government was ever the answer for anything. This is part of why I still don't trust the Democratic party on these issues. Of course, I also blame Bush for not opposing, and then signing, the abomination of the Department of Homeland Security into existence. I also feel that Republicans are now every bit as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats, so I'm certainly not supporting the Republicans at the moment, either. There were true security needs after 9/11, and the ability to screen all airline baggage was key amongst them, and the ability to screen seaborne cargo as well. But, five years and hundreds of billions of dollar later, we still don't have those! We could have had what we needed, and had it in place, for less than 1/10th of what we spent to NOT have what we need. It's beyond pathetic. The article points out that much of the airport security is for show, to "make people feel better about flying" while basically doing nothing. This is true, but the costs go well beyond the 5 billion a year mentioned (the economic costs multiply that by at least a factor of three). The article also raises another good point; That the US is at risk from being goaded into acting unwisely. This is certainly true. Iraq was a perfect example, though they overlook a key aspect: The lack of international co-operation existed BEFORE Iraq, and in fact was a prime cause of Iraq. Had the international community not been violating the sanctions regime, and in fact planning on ending it, Saddam would have been of no real concern. It's true that he didn't have a large, active WMD program, but it's also true that he had everything in place to reconstitute one, and planed to do so (there is ironclad proof of both) once the sanctions ended. The US tried to have the sanctions enforced, and also to extend them, but due to the combined forces of blatant greed (look into the oil-for-food scam, plus the enormous amount of prohibited equipment sold to Saddam by France, Russia, etc.) and the mindless whining about the humanitarian cost, the UN was going to lift the sanctions regime (there was no hope of getting the votes to extend it). Saddam would have had his weapons programs back up and running in a hurry. But, even given that, I said at the time that Iran was a far more appropriate target for a US attack. I also fully agree that the US bungled the Iraq invasion, largely via having too few ground forces in theater and also lack of postwar planning. We also made another critical error: *If* we were going in, we should never have given Saddam the time to seed the country for a gurilla war. We had the logistical capability to be ready to invade in early 2002 instead of 2003, and had we done so then, we would have avoided much of both the political and military cost of the invasion. OK, back to the article. It raised some good points, but I believe that in the end, it failed, badly. First and foremost, it only addressed the short term strategic picture, and never gave real examples of how, exactly, the supposed benefits of declaring victory could be implemented. It was specious at best in this regard. Worse, it made the claim that by declaring victory, the US could step back and evaluate it's strategy. That's idiotic: There is absolutely no reason why a US re-evaluation of strategy would be hindered by not declaring victory. They also overlook Osama's obvious move to such a declaration: A nice little video pointing out that he is still there, still a threat, and the US thinks the war is over. He would be hard to counter with that, as he would be quite right. The most glaring failure of the article, though, is that it ignores the elephant in the room: The Actual cause of terrorism, and WHY it's a growing threat, and WHY it is a long term strategic threat: The underlying dynamic at play here is the radicalization of a large and growing section of the Islamic population, due to radical, racist, and extremist teachings in so many of the Medresses (schools run by the Imams). Medresses are an integral part of the education system in much of the Islamic world, and they are a cancer at it's core. The malignancy of extremism is the underlying cause of Islamic fascism, and is the reason why the extreemists (such as the Saudi Wahhabists) expend so much money and effort in setting up these extremist schools worldwide. Left unchecked, this dynamic will continue to grow, and result in the radicalization of much of the Muslim world. Then, we will be faced with a fairly unified extremist majority of over a billion people, armed with nuclear weapons, who think that it's good to die for the cause (thus rendering deterrence useless). That is a strategic threat that makes the Soviet Union pale by comparison, and the article utterly ignores it. Finally, I'll address your concerns on Iran. The fact is that IMHO the full threat of Iran is not realized in the US, even at the highest levels. There is also a tendency to focus on nar-term issues and ignore long-term ones. Worse still, the US seems to be by far the most rational (with the possible exception of Israel) on this issue, as France, Germany, and Russia seem compelled to work against us in many ways on this issue. The scariest thing is that I often hear people, including those who ought to know better, speaking of "containing" Iran via Deterrence, as we did the Soviets. Against the Soviets, we came close on several occasions to the destruction of the planet, so that alone ought to make them reconsider. However, with Iran, you would have nukes in the hands of fanatics who BELEIVE in martyrdom for the cause! Once they have one, they have the ability to deter us until they have more. Once they have more, they will likely use some, probably by proxy. I'd give 50-50 odds on whether the first city to die will be in the US or Israel (Let's not forget whom the mullahs have been calling "the great Satan" for almost 30 years!). A Nuke by proxy is probably the biggest threat. Much has been said about it being traceable back to it's creator via isotope fingerprinting, but that's actually false. It's true that with plutonium, individual reactors produce different ratios of Plutonium isotopes. But, this is only for plutonium and does not apply to Uranium (which seems to be the route Iran is pursuing the hardest). Furthermore, you would need to know the isotope ratios of the reactor in order to trace it, but by far the biggest flaw in that plan is that you can simply defeat any ratio evidence by mixing the plutonium output of different reactors. But, all that is really irrelevant, because the Mullahs are quite willing to trade Tehran for Tel Aviv or New York. My opinion on Iran: I think there is a good chance that the US or Israel will attempt to forestall their nuclear plans via air attack. I fear that they might not. IMHO, Iran's nuclear program needs to be stopped by any means necessary, no matter what. I'd certainly prefer diplomacy, but I think it's obvious that it won't work. What I am unsure of is whether Israel has the ability to act: Give the ranges of their primary long range strike aircraft (F-15's) they can't pull it off without refueling bases, at least for the return flight. They also couldn't do this with a reasonable chance of success with just one conventional raid. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see an Israeli option short of nuclear. That leaves the US, and even for the US, give the type and number of the facilities, it's going to be a difficult job, with several days of follow-on strikes. But, I don't know if we have the intel to do the job, because we would need to know exactly within feet) where the key elements (such as the centrifuge barrage) are located, and that assumes it's not buried too deep underground. It would be very difficult. The only other two options are the nuclear variant of the bunker-buster (I believe it exists) or ground forces. The one thing I hope that the recent war in Lebanon has driven home to both the US and Israel: that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear capabilities, not matter what it takes.

An interesting possible twist: What if they are two personalities, one the "real" one, and the other a manifestation due to whatever the cause, exacerbated by whatever mistreatment is going on. Then, what if Frank has to help the "real" personality regain control (perhaps to save David/Oliver's life), and the real personality is David? Frank would be in effect having to "kill" Oliver. Talk about Hobson's choice!

Hi James! That's a scary new avatar that you have! I can see a point to the draft c proposal, but it has a serious flaw: it's only being proposed because it fits their goals (which, by definition, is bad science). It makes no sense in another regard: there is no reason at all that even gas-giant size planets cannot cross orbits. Also, Pluto doesn't actually cross Neptune's orbit: Pluto orbits out of the plane of the ecliptic, and the orbits never actually intersect, so don't technically cross (I'm rather shocked at that little oversight in that draft) in spite of Pluto having a perihelion that is closer to the sun than Neptune's. An earth-sized or larger planet could just as easily be in Pluto's orbit, which rather negates using that as a pretext for defining a planet. To me, the simple solution is to set an arbitrary mass (not diameter) limit, but at least acknowledge the fact that it is arbitrary. James, I want to thank you for posting your science articles in general, but this one in particular, and for a very different reason: I was unaware of the secret meetings! I've been sitting here laughing every time I think of that!

Oh good greif, my side hurts from laughing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is high comedy at it's finest! A group of scientists quibbling over semantics that have no scientific application!! This makes even less sense than arguing over the dividing line between "hill" and "mountain". I think it's hilarious that they seem hell-bent on avoiding having to add any planets, and I think it would be highly amusing to find out why (something they seem determined to avoid mentioning!) And they are having SECRET MEETINGS over this oh-so-vital issue! BUAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My prediction: no matter what they decide, they will be bickering about it again within three years, and less if Pluto is "demoted". I was at the Lowel observatory in Flagstaff last week, and one of the techs mentioned that if Pluto (which was discovered there) is "demoted", they plan on orchestrating a letter-writing campaign by schoolchildren to get it overturned! :wacko:

I follow global geopolitics quite closely, especially hotspots such as the Middle East. I am not sure what you mean by "where your heart is inclined"? I have major mixed feelings about Moshe Dayan. He had a great operational flair, and an ability to get the job done quickly, but he had his flaws, too. He was certainly not a modest man, and his later political views caused many headaches for the Israeli government, especially his later opposition to the Israeli capture of the Golan heights (which he had, ironically, earlier been attempting to take credit for) ignoring the military fact that without the Golan, Israel would have likely lost the 1972 Yom Kippur war. But, the blackest mark on his record was the 1972 Yom Kippur war, where his personal arrogance was in large part responsible for Isriel being caught flat-footed, and thus coming perilously close to losing. He also fell apart in the first days of said war, and at times had to be muzzled by PM Mier. Dayan was also the main force behind the unilateral withdrawal idea when it began, decades ago. Basically this is the same "plan" that Olmert implemented in Gaza and was preparing to do in areas of the West Bank. It failed disastrously, and will probably contribute to Olmert's fall, but it's certainly a dead idea now. I too, though, hope for change in Israel as I think they bungled the recent war very badly. The Hezbollah stockpile of missiles in Lebanon was no secret: I've been aware of it for over two years, at least to the extent that I was certain it was in excess of 5000 missiles. Olmert's government evidently had no contingency plans in place, as Isriel's initial actions were very much add-libbed. More to the point, I made a prediction two days before the war (though after the kidnappings) of what Hezbollah's agenda was: they wanted the war, and their operation was designed to cause an Israeli attack. To understand this, we first need to understand what Hezbollah is: It's formation was directed, funded, and orchestrated by the Iranian Intelligence service. It is not an ally of Iran, it is an organ of Iran, and, like Islamic Jihad (the organization) it is run by and controlled by the Iranian Guardian Council, via the intelligence and foreign operations arm of the Pasdaran (revolutionary guard). Iran and Syria are allied, and have long co-operated regarding Lebanon, including Syrian support for Hezbollah. (an interesting side note: this is one of many examples that prove the foolishness of the theory that Sunnis and Shia do not co-operate). Syria, until recently, controlled all of Lebanon via a puppet government in Beirut. The "Lebanese Spring" forced a Syrian withdrawal and the birth (or, re-birth) of a Lebanese Democracy. This event was a direct threat to Iran (which has it's own troubles with internal pro-democracy movements) Syria, and above all, Hezbollah. If the Lebanese government continued to gain strength, the day would come when it would evict Hezbollah from it's territory. Iran also fears an Israeli attack on it's nuclear program in the near future (I earnestly hope they are correct in that assessment, but I can't figure out how Isriel could accomplish it short of a nuclear strike, given basing and range limitations). Iran is trying to fence Isriel in by presenting it with threats on it's borders, and they are succeeding. So, the strategic imperative from Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah's position was the same: Lebanon's government must be undermined. What better way to do this than to trick Israel into doing the job for them? Look at the results on internal Lebanese politics: The Central government has been shown to be helpless, and Hezbollah has had it's influence and position much strengthened. The end result so far is that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah won this war, because they achieved their strategic goal. What no one in power seemed to realize was that it's strategic goal wasn't Israel, but Lebanon. I'm absolutely astounded that the Israelis didn't see this in advance, as it was glaringly obvious what the other sides strategic imperative was, and thus there strategy was largely obvious too. (one of the first rules of strategic analysis is to always look at the enemy's strategic position through THEIR eyes.) Israel played right into their hands. It's initial air campaign was exceedingly poorly planned and executed, and it's ground ops were worse. Instead of a fast seizure of a zone north of the Littani via helicopter assault, and then a move north with main forces to meet it (thus trapping most of Hezbollah if done right, because Hezbollah did indeed prove itself stupid enough to fight for ground if pressed) they attacked piecemeal, and only succeeded in undermining the Lebanese government. The worst part is that Hezbollah was not annihilated, it wasn't even severely damaged. The Israelis initially counted on the air campaign to cripple an enemy adept at hiding, and it failed miserably. Hezbollah is now re-arming and rebuilding, and it's power in Lebanon has been greatly enhanced. The US government IMHO did initially try to give Israel the time it needed, until it was clear that the Israelis had bungled the operation and no amount of time was likely to help. Finally, IMHO, the US put forward the UN cease-fire, which at least has one benefit: It's another UN mandate (the disarmament of Hezbollah, included at US insistence) that will, like most others before it, be ignored and never implemented by the toothless, spineless, and useless UN. (the only benefit is that it will serve as another stellar example of how useless the UN is). I hope I'm wrong on this, but given that there has been a UN force in Lebanon for 30 years, and that there has long been a UN resolution mandating the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the UN has done precisely nothing, I doubt it. I'm no fan of the US government's behavior regarding Israel, especially the institutionalized foolishness inside the career state department that the solution to the middle east it to press Israel for more and more concessions. I fear that this side won out in the end in this case. So, indeed, for their own sake, I hope the Israelis do have some major changes, including of their PM. Presently, I think Benjamin Netanyaho has a darn good chance of becoming PM again within six weeks. I don't put blame on the Israeli general staff (with the possible exception of the head of the Air Force), though: this bungle seems clearly to have occurred at the political level (though it probably includes the chief of staff). I note that the Israeli solders are protesting the political decision makers, not their generals, so they seem to share this impression.

JAck, All I want to know is: When is the next chapter? I won't spoil it this early in the thread, but suffice it to say I loved the lead in, and the resolution of that particular issue. This is great, and I hope you keep the story going! CJ

ROFL!! Well, I suspect that Garret's commitment to the unavailable Billy is about to be sorely tested... (hmmm, did I just say sorely? )

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wacko: I'm suffering from a severe case of Emoe-envy!

Huh? Garret is given two specially designed pleasure clones, and his AI is laughing hysterically in his head? I think that's a cliffie!! ACK! Oh no!! Not that! :blink. But, then again, why should Garret be any different? After all, multi-billion dollar corporations routinely ignore virus vulnerability in our era... Oh, I think I'm finally seeing the plot now: We will find out more about Garret's mysterious ancestry, and it will finally be revealed that he's Bill Gates, Jr, which would certainly explain the lack of concern over viri... Ummmm, ok, the question has to be asked: What is there that doesn't encourage DK's evil side?

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JAmes, that was great, but I note that it's a more realistic and imaginative plot than "Snakes on a Plane".