kgambit

FUTURE RELEASE! Coming to a theatre near you! Watch out because here comes the BIG ASS SPIDER! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSlNiSEWqwQ October 18

Chalk up another one for Florida. Chalk up another victory for stupidity .....

Yep Numbers seem to have changed. That 9% was in response to a very broad question and left the interpretation of term "military intervention" wide open. That poll also showed that "25 percent said that they support intervention if Assad uses chemical weapons". That is also a broad response since it fails to specify the type of intervention. But when you ask specific questions the tatest numbers seem to be quite different. The entire poll results are here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf Here's some of the results: (Note that one or two of the questions are still fairly broad - as in the use of the term "military action") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been reported that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its citizens. Do you think the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapons or not? Yes, should take military action .................. 42 No, should not take military action .............. 50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, more specifically, if U.S. military action in Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?* Support ................................................................. 50 Oppose ................................................................. 44 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Syrian civilians have been killed by their government in response to protests and civil unrest. The U.S is taking diplomatic and economic measures to try to stop the Syrian government from taking military action against its citizens. Which ONE statement best describes what you think The U.S. should take military action to help stop the killing of civilians. ......................................................................26% The U.S. should provide weapons to the forces inside Syria opposing the government................................................ 6% The U.S. should provide only humanitarian assistance to the civilians injured or forced from their homes. .................40% The U.S. should take none of these actions ................................................................................................................. 23% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The use of chemical weapons by any country is a “red line,” that is an action that would require a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action. Agree .......................................................... 58 Disagree ..................................................... 35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think that President Obama should or should not be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria? Should be required to receive approval ................... 79 Should not be required to receive approval ............. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the United States takes military action in Syria, which one of the following should be the most important objective of United States military action in Syria? Stopping the use of chemical weapons ...................................... 56 Removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power .......... 16 Stopping the fighting between government and rebel forces ..... 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wish they had included a question that asked if the reports of Assad's use of chemical weapons was believable or not. It would be nice to put the poll responses in some sort of context. Anyway, have fun with those.

I agree. That's the one source I could see that the US / UK would be hesitant about revealing publically. It also is uncomfortably similar to the Iraq WMD justification. That's the prevailing opinion. It's possible that the situation is not quite as rosy for Assad on the ground as people think, The Syrian military may be having trouble coping with multiple battle fronts simultaneously. http://arabsaga.blogspot.com/2013/07/after-khalidiya-is-assad-winning-syria.html http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/07/21/Has-Assad-really-won-the-war-.html Those reports are a month old but If they still represent the state of the conflict then perhaps this isn't such a clear cut situation.

Nice, thanks. That's a lot better than most people do throwing out the first pitch conventionally. http://www.audiomicro.com/tracks/dialog/548599 This opens in a separate window

As impressive as that is, they cut the gif off too early. I want to know whether she threw a strike, or even reached the plate. Yes and no (high outside) Full video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVeo6QMcbW4 She was South Korean (rhythmic gymnast Shin Soo-ji's) not Japanese

If the MLB team is the Houston Astros my money is going on Japan. Rangers win on a walk-off balk. Tied with Detroit and a 1/2 game behind Bosox for AL best record Baring a total collapse, the NL races are over - only thing up in the air is who wins NL Central

The Fall is excellent, very short but worth well worth it. They are making a second season. If you like European directed series you must watch Crossing Lines Bruce, thanks for the tip on Crossing Lines. Waiting for it to hit DVD. Finished The Killing season 2. Thought I had guessed the identity of the killer but the show had one final surprise. Third season in the works. Also finished watching season 1 of Persons of Interest. It's an interesting twist on a Prism-like computer system. Season 2 coming out on DVD next week. Watching Sons of Anarchy season 5 now.

I'm quoting this because .......... damn .......

Jay Carney - "We're not in the business of regime change." 27 August 2013 White House Press Briefing Barack Obama - "The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way ... For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside." 18 Aug 2011 That press conference did not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. In fact, I had a feeling of deja vu all over again. I'll pass on the whipround if you don't mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcFC90cEEI old but still funny ROTFL

Well done. Obama and Kerry have claimed that they have compelling evidence that the Syrian government is behind these attacks. If this is an exercise in exerting diplomatic pressure on Assad, then the rhetoric isn't important. I don't give diplomacy much of a chance for success but it's worth a try. If this is a preface for an armed intervention, then Obama needs to provide some concrete and well documented proof. (Yes I realize that some intel might need to be withheld for various reasons but surely that can not apply to every scrap of evidence.) The historical background of how Assad ramped up the repression on the Syrian opposition makes me think that Assad isn't going to accede to a cease fire or give the opposition any voice. He had a chance to nip this in the bud back in 2011 but he simply failed to deliver on his stated promises of reforms. He refused a UN peace proposal in 2012. At this point, Russia and Iran are squarely in his corner and as long as they stay there he's not going to budge. FWIW, I think the 100,000 civilian casualties make a compelling case for action even in the absence of the chemical weapons. That's always been a concern, even during the early stages of the conflict and even more so once the Al-Qaeda Nusra front got involved. I've seen estimates that it would take 75000 troops to secure Syria's chemical weapons. Not sure what all that estimate entailed.

Thanks Wals. I'm done with the blame game discussion. Without some really substantial definitive proof, this is nothing but an exercise in conjecture and speculation. Those types of discussions can be fun but I think we've gotten to the point where we are simply rehashing the same arguments. The only real losers in that argument are the Syrian people. But I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion about intervention scenarios and this: Spot on!

Daily Fail, but it took ages to find given that the first half dozen pages of search results dealt with the current incident. Yeah, not absolute proof, but then William Hague et alia are hardly waiting for proof absolute either. I never said this was done in a "fit of anger". Why keep harping on it? Thanks for the link. Sorry but that does not qualify as confirmed use of Sarin let alone proof that the Rebels did it. If you are going to accept Del Ponte's statement at face value as proof of rebel use, then all of the other 33 alleged regime attacks can be accepted as proof of government use. I did notice in what appeared to be foaming of the mouth on the victims in a couple of pics in that link. That isn't a symptom of sarin poisoning. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp The UN Inspectors were actually in Syria to inspect previous attacks. Ake Sellstrom's team arrived on August 18th to investigate the March 19, 2013, attack at Khan al-Assal and two other sites. The Syrian government had refused to allow access to theKhan-al-Assal site for 5 months. Now the issue of safe access to the latest attack site is a valid concern but don't make this sound like Assad has been all open armed and welcoming, That's BS. The reason that Sarin is useful is (a) it is incredibly toxic and (b) it is non-persistent. Persistence is a measure of the length of time that a chemical agent remains effective after dissemination and the method of dissemination is a significant issue in how long the gas persists The standard military dissemination approach is to convert sarin into a mist rapidly. In that case, the contamination in the target area is only low or not existent and after four hours sarin or similar agents are not detectable anymore. Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks when stored - it doesn't go inert immediately. The best the UN team can hope to accomplish is to (a) establish that sarin was used by taking blood samples of the victims and (b) establish the mode of delivery. Hoping to find actual samples of the delivered sarin agent is likely impossible. The Russians claim that they have samples that show that the sarin gas had to be "home-grown". I believe the French have made the same claim. The US and UK claim they have evidence that shows the Syrian govt is responsible. Maybe they all do, and the truth is that both sides have used them. 1. That's true but with the exception of the two atomic bombs all of WW2 was conventional as well. 2. This is the one I have the toughest time with. 3. Just supposing that's true, that would put somewhere 10, 13 or 34 attacks (depending on whose numbers you believe) squarely on the rebels shoulders. It's not impossible of course. Do you have a link to any of stratfor's analysis? NVM I found the site but it appears you need to be a paying subscriber. Oh well.

The UN isn't the sole reliable source. I would like to see a link to support that claim. I'm not saying it isn't true but I would like a source. A couple of hundred defections aren't significant in a 100,000+ man opposition force; those losses could more than be made up by new rebels joining - although new troops would probably come via Al-Qaeda which is apparently happening. Last figures I saw for the Nusra front indicated their force size had more than doubled. The Russians desperately want to hold onto their naval base at Tartus. It's their only such outpost outside the ex-Soviet Union and Assad can use that to leverage their acquiescence. I suspect that Assad has used that as a bargaining chip to accelerate deployment of the S-300 SAM systems as well. What do you mean "they are not going to gain the ability to use chemical weapons"? Assad already has the capability and has used it. Assad's binary artillery shell stockpile is well documented as is his stockpile of sarin precursors. If it was the rebels you were referring to then how did they manage to launch a single previous chemical weapon attack, let alone the current one? The baby step argument is totally plausible. You don't have to buy it. As for playing chicken with Obama, I think he's already done it and Obama has flinched more than once. You might dispute one or two of the earlier attacks, but all of them? That list of five I provided is actually only a partial accounting. I believe the NY Times that had a list of 13 alleged regime uses of chemical weapons. If I can find it again, I'll post the link. Edit: Found a link referencing 10 incidents but not a list of the specific incidents themselves. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/06/26/U-S-Britain-list-10-chemical-attacks-in-Syria-envoy-says-.html another link referencing 34 incidents http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=600901 Like I said I could be wrong. I wouldn't put it past Al-Qaeda to have orchestrated this. The scale of the last attack and the sheer number of attacks makes it far more likely that it was the regime. It's going to take some solid proof to convince me. Until then I think both our scenarios are plausible. Let's just agree to disagree okay?

Zo, you could be right but I don't think the argument that Assad would be a moron to try this is simply good enough ...... The first indications that Assad was prepping a chemical weapon attack might have been back in December 2012. But I'm sure that was just him "repositioning" his stockpiles? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/08/syria-william-hague-chemical-weapons http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/syria-chemical-weapons-3/ And I suppose that all of the previous uses of chemical weapons in Syria either never occurred (despite some being verified) or were all false flag attacks that were originated by the opposition forces? Despite the fact that it always seems to be the opposition or their populist support that seems to be hit. (Damn - those opposition troops just can't the broad side of a barn) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/21/a-partial-list-of-syrias-suspected-chemical-weapons-attacks-this-year/ I really suggest that you read this article (link is in the quote box). I think it lays out one very plausible scenario about how this is a carefully orchestrated plan by Assad. It does bring to mind the following line from the Hunt for Red October: The hard part about playing chicken is knowin' when to make the other guy flinch. Two links that contain a huge synopsis of a lot the information about the attacks http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/what-to-read-on-syrian-chemical-weapons/ http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/what-to-read-on-syria-and-chemical-weapons-part-ii/ Edit: You might be right about this. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you think it is.

Wals gave me the idea (tips his hat)...... lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mppSCnSIAf0&list=PL7C49AAEDE6F8C1C3 MST3K ftw

Spread 2 cubic yards of mulch in the planting beds around the house. Then had a long soak in the whirpool tub.

Fair enough on the last point. Clancy doesn't throw a lot of surprises at you. I can't vouch for all of his books but that's definitely not true for Hunt for Red October. Based on the following link, I think he does most of his own research but its always possible that he uses assistants. It appears that HfRO opened a lot of doors for Clancy - enough that he was able to write 11 non-fiction books as well. He probably got a lot of information about various Naval systems from Harpoon. I've played Harpoon and the detail in that game is amazing. Here's a list of Clancy's non-fiction books http://www.clancyfaq.com/Hold%20Originals/Non-fict.htm

Fair enough. I will admit that I am less of a fan of his later work after The Bear and The Dragon in 2000. and I agree that his earlier novels are a lot better. Those books generally have a much more historical / political overprint. They are a bit of tangle as the chronology of events and the publishing sequence are way out of whack. e.g. Red Rabbit supposedly predates Hunt for Red October and was published 18 years later. The cross over occurs with Clear and Present Danger where the historical / political overprint is scrubbed away (although the underlying geopolitics is real enough). Starting with Sum of All Fears most of his subsequent works are generally non-historical with passing nods to real historical evens such as Saddam's overthrow as the pretext for the Executive Orders plot. I have to admit that Ryan's televised address to the nation at the end of that book has got to be one of my all time favorite scenes. Anyway, I'm looking forward to Clancy's next one: Command Authority coming out at the end of this year.

Just started The Kill List by Frederick Forsyth (I love everything by Forsyth and Clancy and I've read everything by Ludlum.) Here's the overview: and a link to the beginning of the book: http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/1879370/report-excerpts-from-the-kill-list-by-frederick-forsyth

Saw four movies recently (all rentals) Olympus has Fallen - Paper thin plot but tons of action which is all I wanted out of this. I half expected Gerard Butler to scream THIS IS AMERICA in the final confrontation with the head terrorist. Oblivion - Interesting sci-fi flick with a fair amount of action and a decent if somewhat predictable plot. Cruise's performance is probably the low point of the movie as the rest of the cast is fairly good. Still it was fun. A Place Beyond the Pines - This plays out as three mini-movies within a movie. Part 1 revolves around Ryan Gosling reconnecting with an old flame and a son he never knew he had. In part 2 a rookie cop played by Bradley Cooper becomes the central character. In Part 3 Cooper, his son and Gosling's son (now a teenager) are the central characters. The twists and turns are moderately interesting but the characters are just boring. I simply didn't care what happened to them. Most critics love this but I don't see the attraction. There is a lot more to the plot but I can't go into too much detail due to potential for spoilers. Admissions - Tina Fey as a Princeton University admission officer. I think that sums it up. Underwhelming at best. If you're expecting a Tina Fey comedy, you can save your time and money. My wife hated this as well. She thought it was just boring.

It isn't an area he controls and by most reports has not controlled for a year, presumably they would have to take the pressure off while the inspectors were there. More fundamentally- and assuming he didn't do it- it seems likely that there are suspicions on the Syrian side about the timing in a more specific way than others might have, he may have concerns that despite not having done it there might be credible evidence that he had ie a proper 'frame job'; or that the inspectors may be biased. There's no doubt that there are groups arrayed against Assad that are capable of doing a frame job, in both the sense of not being too worried about Martyrs going to heaven and in terms of being able to provide the needed supplies and expertise. And, of course, there's the slippery slope argument. Vary their mandate to look at this incident, next it will something else and before you know it you have UN teams, potentially infiltrated liberally by western spies, all over the place looking at everything when there's no doubt at all that's there is stuff he wants kept secret. Thanks for the clarification on the area. I knew if was generally eastern Damascus but the front lines can be fairly fluid. Interesting rundown.

http://www.opcw.org/news/article/the-sarin-gas-attack-in-japan-and-the-related-forensic-investigation/ Too many details but the essentials are somewhere in the forensics section. I'll concede that the Sarin liquid in Tokyo was not pure, I never disputed that. My sources say 35% with the composition spelled out as follows. Sarin 35% diethyl-aniline DEA (10%), hydrogen methylphosphonofluoridate MPF (10%), DIMP (1%), DFP (0.1%) petroleum ether (hexane) 43%. Everything except the hexane is either a precursor (MPF), a reagant (DEA) or a byproduct (DIMP & DFP). The diethyl-aniline for example was used to neutralize the acid formed during two steps of the synthesis. The DEA was a substitute because the AUM chemist couldn't get access to the correct base. Using DEA reduced the purity of the final liquid. The hexane was added after the synthesis was complete to make the resulting liquid easier to carry and become widespread. The dilution of the sarin liquid by the addition of the hexane is not a byproduct of synthesis: it is a direct result of the choice of the mode of dissemination and delivery. If you factor the dilution into account, the synthesized purity of the sarin was 61% not 35%. In Tokyo the sarin liquid was placed in 11 plastic bags; 2 were never punctured and one was punctured a single time and was recovered half full. At best, that's 77% efficient and combined with the reduction from dilution you get a final delivery system efficiency of (.35/.61) x (.77) = .44 or 44%. In fairness, the % of DEA and hexane are wildly different between two souces (but strangely the % of the combination doesn't). It does change the numbers but it's not that important compared to the effects of aerosol delivery systems as I maintained earlier. Sarin gas doesn't quite follow Huber's law but it's close. Huber's law generally states that the lethal exposure time is inversely proportional to the concentration of gas. So yes, a purer Sarin sample would have increased casualties. The higher the concentration, the less time you can spend before exposure is lethal. The trick with Sarin is that its lethality also increases with higher concentrations and shorter exposure times. The goal should be to increase concentrations so the lethal exposure time doesn't give your intended victims opportunity to flee the scene and limit their exposure. Aerosols do the trick. There are two major advantages to delivering sarin through an aerosol. An aerosol greatly increases the exposed surface of the liquid. Anyone who has studied first year thermodynamics knows that the evaporation rate of a liquid is directly proportional to the exposed surface area. Aerosols also introduce a far greater percentage of the liquid to the atmosphere in a given amount of time (at least when compared to the couple of dozen punctures from Tokyo). Don't believe me? Try this thought experiment: Take a pool of liquid (for the sake of argument assume it's a disk and the height is proportional to the radius). The volume of the liquid is always proportional to radius^3 and the surface area is always proportional to radius^2. Now turn that one big pool into 27,000 little pools; each with 1/27,000 of the volume of the original. There is still the same amount of liquid but the total surface area of all those little pools is 30 times greater than before. That increased surface area translates to an evaporation rate that is 30 times greater than the single puddle. That gets the liquid in gaseous form a LOT faster than allowing it to evaporate thru a couple of dozen punctured holes as in Tokyo, thereby creating a much higher concentration in a very short time. So you tell me which is likely to have the biggest impact? Increasing the purity of the sample (and the subsequent concentration) by a factor of 3 and delivering it ala Tokyo or taking the original sarin and delivering it via aerosols with at least a 30 fold increase in concentration ? I maintain its the latter. "Robert Kupperman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, for example, was quoted as saying that "Had the terrorists come up with a decent aerosol delivery system,...they would have killed 300 people or more" Interviews with {aum} indicated that they had originally planned to aerosalize the sarin but for some reason didn't carry through." from http://dead-planet.net/chemical-terrorism/canada/postscr_e.html "Perhaps the most important factor in the effectiveness of chemical weapons is the efficiency of dissemination." from http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html France is doing a lot of saber rattling, so who knows? The possibility of western intervention could entail more arms, a no-fly zone and other bennies .... hard to say though.