Comments on: Open source warfare, an example http://polizeros.com/2007/05/09/open-source-warfare-an-example/ Musings on politics: anti-war, global warming, peak oil and otherwise Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:20:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Open Source Warfare and climate meltdown... « Homeless on the High Desert http://polizeros.com/2007/05/09/open-source-warfare-an-example/comment-page-1/#comment-135527 Open Source Warfare and climate meltdown... « Homeless on the High Desert Wed, 09 May 2007 15:44:34 +0000 http://polizeros.com/2007/05/09/open-source-warfare-an-example/#comment-135527 [...] Wednesday, May 9th, 2007 in White Rose, Climate Bob Morris details an interesting example of Open Source Warfare: [...] [...] Wednesday, May 9th, 2007 in White Rose, Climate Bob Morris details an interesting example of Open Source Warfare: [...]

]]> By: DJ http://polizeros.com/2007/05/09/open-source-warfare-an-example/comment-page-1/#comment-135519 DJ Wed, 09 May 2007 15:12:32 +0000 http://polizeros.com/2007/05/09/open-source-warfare-an-example/#comment-135519 I think if you look closely, you'll see that the U.S. may be losing the war, but the Bush administration isn't. In so many ways, the War in Iraq supports the goals of the administration at home (expanding the role of government and eliminating pesky democratic freedoms) and abroad (expanding influence over the worldwide oil production system), and of certain Bush supporters, who have benefited and continue to benefit greatly from instability in the oil markets. This is one of the easiest mistakes to make in analyzing a conflict: to think it's about what they say it's about. If is was about the War on Terror, then indeed Bush would be on the losing side, and he'd be looking for an out. But it's not, and he's not losing at all. He may have a 26% favorability rating but does he care? He can't be re-elected anyway and the U.S. doesn't have provisions for a no-confidence vote. In the arena of global warming, there's plenty of short-sightedness and insane denial. But in the war, the interests of our leaders diverge from ours. I think if you look closely, you’ll see that the U.S. may be losing the war, but the Bush administration isn’t. In so many ways, the War in Iraq supports the goals of the administration at home (expanding the role of government and eliminating pesky democratic freedoms) and abroad (expanding influence over the worldwide oil production system), and of certain Bush supporters, who have benefited and continue to benefit greatly from instability in the oil markets.

This is one of the easiest mistakes to make in analyzing a conflict: to think it’s about what they say it’s about. If is was about the War on Terror, then indeed Bush would be on the losing side, and he’d be looking for an out. But it’s not, and he’s not losing at all. He may have a 26% favorability rating but does he care? He can’t be re-elected anyway and the U.S. doesn’t have provisions for a no-confidence vote.

In the arena of global warming, there’s plenty of short-sightedness and insane denial. But in the war, the interests of our leaders diverge from ours.

]]>