Comments on: John Derbyshire tries to be clever and misses the point! http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm A Common Man Looks at the War on Islamic Terror Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:47:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Nuke Gingrich » Blog Archive » WTF-BenQ WTC? http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-55019 Nuke Gingrich » Blog Archive » WTF-BenQ WTC? Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:45:13 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-55019 [...] RT, Angel, RW, GCP, Layla, Coz, Pierre, Jihaddujoir, Blue Star ,RightTruth, Hang [...] [...] RT, Angel, RW, GCP, Layla, Coz, Pierre, Jihaddujoir, Blue Star ,RightTruth, Hang [...]

]]> By: Pierre Legrand http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-15932 Pierre Legrand Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:01:40 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-15932 Joe having been a fan of yours for a long time now I gratified to see you commenting. Thanks. You have a terrific point. But if Rumsfeld was trying to fix that problem by simply not giving the Pentagon money that was a poor way to go about it. From my point of view Bush should have come out after 9/11 and said we will need to up our defense spending to 6-8% to support the 15 divisions of troops we will need to fight with. Instead we were told that no one needed to sacrifice, we didn't even have to give up our social programs because we weren't going to increase our defense spending as a % of GDP. He should have stated this country is going to war footing and I expect all department of the Government to respond to this crisis. Instead he gave us pap. Our enemies laugh at us and our allies wonder what it takes to get us to drop them as allies. At one time I thought he might go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents. I say this just to prove I haven't arrived at my present disdain for his administration lightly. Just look at this Baker abomination...sorry. Thanks again for reading...it is a treat to know you have visited. Joe having been a fan of yours for a long time now I gratified to see you commenting. Thanks.

You have a terrific point. But if Rumsfeld was trying to fix that problem by simply not giving the Pentagon money that was a poor way to go about it.

From my point of view Bush should have come out after 9/11 and said we will need to up our defense spending to 6-8% to support the 15 divisions of troops we will need to fight with. Instead we were told that no one needed to sacrifice, we didn’t even have to give up our social programs because we weren’t going to increase our defense spending as a % of GDP.

He should have stated this country is going to war footing and I expect all department of the Government to respond to this crisis. Instead he gave us pap. Our enemies laugh at us and our allies wonder what it takes to get us to drop them as allies.

At one time I thought he might go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents. I say this just to prove I haven’t arrived at my present disdain for his administration lightly.

Just look at this Baker abomination…sorry. Thanks again for reading…it is a treat to know you have visited.

]]> By: Joe Katzman http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-15881 Joe Katzman Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:10:15 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-15881 The willpower point is valid. Do is the GDP point. Having said that, when weapons system costs have been rising past the rate of inflation for decades, and each successive generation of weapons is fielded in smaller numbers despite spending increases, we have a systemic problem. When we look around and note that US weapons competing on even ground are starting to have issues in export competitions due to price:performance, that's an issue too. Many of these issues are intrinsic to the Pentagon bureaucracy, which is apt to make choices based on what benefits them rather than what benefits the military. It's the same "public choice economics" issue that underlies the existence of a "poverty industry" whose main goal is providing cushy employment to members of the Left's "New Class." The problem is reaching critical mass with fiascoes like 183 F-22s as the sole basis for future American air superiority. Or just 2-8 DDG-1000 destroyers being built. That's pretty relevant if, as you note, the USA has world-wide responsibilities. The reductio ad absurdum endpoint is a military consisting on 1 Imperial Star Destroyer that has to remain parked over Washington. Derbyshire would understand what a Haldane Board is - and probably why America needs one. The willpower point is valid. Do is the GDP point.

Having said that, when weapons system costs have been rising past the rate of inflation for decades, and each successive generation of weapons is fielded in smaller numbers despite spending increases, we have a systemic problem. When we look around and note that US weapons competing on even ground are starting to have issues in export competitions due to price:performance, that’s an issue too.

Many of these issues are intrinsic to the Pentagon bureaucracy, which is apt to make choices based on what benefits them rather than what benefits the military. It’s the same “public choice economics” issue that underlies the existence of a “poverty industry” whose main goal is providing cushy employment to members of the Left’s “New Class.”

The problem is reaching critical mass with fiascoes like 183 F-22s as the sole basis for future American air superiority. Or just 2-8 DDG-1000 destroyers being built. That’s pretty relevant if, as you note, the USA has world-wide responsibilities. The reductio ad absurdum endpoint is a military consisting on 1 Imperial Star Destroyer that has to remain parked over Washington.

Derbyshire would understand what a Haldane Board is – and probably why America needs one.

]]> By: Dusty http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-14986 Dusty Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:59:13 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-14986 "What we spend on the military in comparison to other nations is irrelevant. Furthermore to imagine that the CIA actually has some idea of what China spends is laughable. These guys don't have any idea what China spends on their military. The CIA should have been fired a long long time ago." Apparently, the CIA doesn't think Russia spends anything on their military since it doesn't show up in the table (which, by the way, per a quick yahoo lookup, Russia looks to be spending about $18B). But I am glad the CIA had the guts to point out that Svalbard is spending $5B per annum on military defense in spite of it having been demilitarized by treaty in 1920. That's something we all should be watching carefully. On a serious note, the table to which Derbyshire refers, does not reflect purchasing power parity of military spending in different countries but is solely based on converting amounts spent to US dollars by using the appropriate exchange rate for the time period noted. But aside from those problems with Derbyshire's reference, I tend to agree with your observation that the spending comparison is irrelevant to the point he was arguing against. How much one nation spends militarily in relation to others is not a good reference in arguing against a proposal for increasing overall troop strength in connection with a war (on terror) which requires men with rifles more than planes, ships, tanks and artillery and that has required rotating deployment of the these same troops the last five years. Now I may reconsider his argument against increasing national troops levels for the long haul of the war on terror both in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere when the essence of the debate is that we don't need more troops in Iraq because we are researching missile defense or that we don't need more troops in Iraq because we are building a new aircraft carrier, or that we don't need more troops in Iraq because we have an abundance of humvees. “What we spend on the military in comparison to other nations is irrelevant. Furthermore to imagine that the CIA actually has some idea of what China spends is laughable. These guys don’t have any idea what China spends on their military. The CIA should have been fired a long long time ago.”

Apparently, the CIA doesn’t think Russia spends anything on their military since it doesn’t show up in the table (which, by the way, per a quick yahoo lookup, Russia looks to be spending about $18B). But I am glad the CIA had the guts to point out that Svalbard is spending $5B per annum on military defense in spite of it having been demilitarized by treaty in 1920. That’s something we all should be watching carefully.

On a serious note, the table to which Derbyshire refers, does not reflect purchasing power parity of military spending in different countries but is solely based on converting amounts spent to US dollars by using the appropriate exchange rate for the time period noted.

But aside from those problems with Derbyshire’s reference, I tend to agree with your observation that the spending comparison is irrelevant to the point he was arguing against. How much one nation spends militarily in relation to others is not a good reference in arguing against a proposal for increasing overall troop strength in connection with a war (on terror) which requires men with rifles more than planes, ships, tanks and artillery and that has required rotating deployment of the these same troops the last five years.

Now I may reconsider his argument against increasing national troops levels for the long haul of the war on terror both in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere when the essence of the debate is that we don’t need more troops in Iraq because we are researching missile defense or that we don’t need more troops in Iraq because we are building a new aircraft carrier, or that we don’t need more troops in Iraq because we have an abundance of humvees.

]]> By: Pierre Legrand http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-14741 Pierre Legrand Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:15:09 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-14741 <b>It’s pretty much for certain that (s)he’s a homo and what’s needed, if we had the balls, and as clearly demonstrated by his nonsense, is state-mandated chemical intervention at the earliest indications of deviancy.</b> Couldn't agree more except not for the "homos" but for misguided leftists who think that they are so clever no one can see through their bullshit. It’s pretty much for certain that (s)he’s a homo and what’s needed, if we had the balls, and as clearly demonstrated by his nonsense, is state-mandated chemical intervention at the earliest indications of deviancy.

Couldn’t agree more except not for the “homos” but for misguided leftists who think that they are so clever no one can see through their bullshit.

]]> By: Pierce Kramer http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-14447 Pierce Kramer Sat, 02 Dec 2006 05:50:25 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-14447 I couldn't agree more! But I think you are being too easy on the misguided fool. It's pretty much for certain that (s)he's a homo and what's needed, if we had the balls, and as clearly demonstrated by his nonsense, is state-mandated chemical intervention at the earliest indications of deviancy. You are so correct about the emotionality of the left. This is somewhat frustrating when our own position by contrast is entirely rational and methodically thought through on the facts. Unlike them, we owe nothing to environmental influences. We are as likely to disagree as to agree with our parents' and communities' views. In fact I rarely agree wholeheartedly with anyone at all. The left have to be made to understand that emotion is no basis on which to decide whether someone needs killing or not. Emotion simply cannot be allowed to interfere in the business of war. I seriously wonder whether it isn't time to draft Ann Coulter, with Pelosi so close to the throne. Coulter (strangely enough) has the balls and the brains. What do you think? Anyway, well done you guys! Keep up the good fight! I couldn’t agree more! But I think you are being too easy on the misguided fool. It’s pretty much for certain that (s)he’s a homo and what’s needed, if we had the balls, and as clearly demonstrated by his nonsense, is state-mandated chemical intervention at the earliest indications of deviancy.
You are so correct about the emotionality of the left. This is somewhat frustrating when our own position by contrast is entirely rational and methodically thought through on the facts. Unlike them, we owe nothing to environmental influences. We are as likely to disagree as to agree with our parents’ and communities’ views. In fact I rarely agree wholeheartedly with anyone at all.
The left have to be made to understand that emotion is no basis on which to decide whether someone needs killing or not. Emotion simply cannot be allowed to interfere in the business of war.
I seriously wonder whether it isn’t time to draft Ann Coulter, with Pelosi so close to the throne. Coulter (strangely enough) has the balls and the brains. What do you think?

Anyway, well done you guys! Keep up the good fight!

]]> By: Pierre Legrand http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-14426 Pierre Legrand Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:01:44 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-14426 hehe...Well lets not be too hard on the poor dear because soon enough if my terrible predictions are borne out he may find out how well he does under new management. hehe…Well lets not be too hard on the poor dear because soon enough if my terrible predictions are borne out he may find out how well he does under new management.

]]> By: Michael http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-14342 Michael Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:09:08 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-14342 Force projection is always an ugly thing to the emotional. No level of protection is necessary to those that want us to have a cake sale in order to buy bombers. Remember that bumper sticker? They have no idea of why we have to lock up violent criminals much less defend America outside of America. They would be the first killed in a Jihadist government. They are indeed useful idiots. Case in point: Spetznatz units supplied by Putin ushered out WMD to Syria on the eve of out invasion. We found thousands of chemical warheads, any of which would have killed a third of Des Moines, but the greatest WMD, Saddam Hussein was never even considered a weapon. Murderer of over a million of his own countrymen, the emotional left figured he was just a casualty of war, not the focus. The left hates our proping up dictators...yet loves Chavez The left believes the US is the cause of the pain in the world...yet it wants us to intervene everywhere: Bosnia, Haiti, but won't lift a finger for Darfur The left thinks gays should be allowed to adopt and marry when any scientist will tell you homosexuality is totally abnormal in the evolutionary theory. If it is not a natural - survival of the species (can't survive if you can't procreate) methodology, then why do they think it is a defendable social construct? Their own position on Evolution contradicts it? What is it going to be? gay marraige or decended from an ape? Can't have both. Need I go on...we really don't have the time to illustrate the indefendable positions of the leftist - emotional response to everything crowd. Force projection is always an ugly thing to the emotional. No level of protection is necessary to those that want us to have a cake sale in order to buy bombers. Remember that bumper sticker? They have no idea of why we have to lock up violent criminals much less defend America outside of America. They would be the first killed in a Jihadist government. They are indeed useful idiots. Case in point: Spetznatz units supplied by Putin ushered out WMD to Syria on the eve of out invasion. We found thousands of chemical warheads, any of which would have killed a third of Des Moines, but the greatest WMD, Saddam Hussein was never even considered a weapon. Murderer of over a million of his own countrymen, the emotional left figured he was just a casualty of war, not the focus.

The left hates our proping up dictators…yet loves Chavez
The left believes the US is the cause of the pain in the world…yet it wants us to intervene everywhere: Bosnia, Haiti, but won’t lift a finger for Darfur
The left thinks gays should be allowed to adopt and marry when any scientist will tell you homosexuality is totally abnormal in the evolutionary theory. If it is not a natural – survival of the species (can’t survive if you can’t procreate) methodology, then why do they think it is a defendable social construct? Their own position on Evolution contradicts it? What is it going to be? gay marraige or decended from an ape? Can’t have both.
Need I go on…we really don’t have the time to illustrate the indefendable positions of the leftist – emotional response to everything crowd.

]]> By: Pierre Legrand http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-14221 Pierre Legrand Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:17:00 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-14221 Dear Tool, It is telling that you aren't even willing to declare unequivocally that the battle of Afghanistan was fought in our defense. To people like you we should simply sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya with the enemy admit to our sins and the bad guys won't: Murder gays Murder women for being raped Murder Christians for being Christian Murder Jews for being Jewish Slaughter the Hindu for not worshipping one god Slaughter animalists Engage in slavery Attempt to spread their pestilence around the globe. Silly boy go back and sit in the corner. Dear Tool,

It is telling that you aren’t even willing to declare unequivocally that the battle of Afghanistan was fought in our defense. To people like you we should simply sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya with the enemy admit to our sins and the bad guys won’t:
Murder gays
Murder women for being raped
Murder Christians for being Christian
Murder Jews for being Jewish
Slaughter the Hindu for not worshipping one god
Slaughter animalists
Engage in slavery
Attempt to spread their pestilence around the globe.

Silly boy go back and sit in the corner.

]]> By: Graham http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm/comment-page-1#comment-14115 Graham Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:21:59 +0000 http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/30/john-derbyshire-tries-to-be-clever-and-misses-the-point.htm#comment-14115 I find this amusing: <em>We are too genteel it seems to defend ourselves.</em> The war in Iraq is not and never was truly in defence of the US. Afghanistan maybe; Iraq, no. And to say that what the US has done in Iraq displays "gentility" borders on obscenity. Take a look at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0v9wRxvY0" rel="nofollow">this video</a> (or many others). It's just like Ken Adelman's claimn that what the US has done in Iraq is "a beautiful thing". I find this amusing:

We are too genteel it seems to defend ourselves.

The war in Iraq is not and never was truly in defence of the US. Afghanistan maybe; Iraq, no.

And to say that what the US has done in Iraq displays “gentility” borders on obscenity. Take a look at this video (or many others). It’s just like Ken Adelman’s claimn that what the US has done in Iraq is “a beautiful thing”.

]]>