[QUOTE=chalsall;351386]And, then, of course, Perl Harbor.[/QUOTE]That well-known C port in the Pacific.

[QUOTE=xilman;351390]That well-known C port in the Pacific.[/QUOTE]

Your point?

[QUOTE=chalsall;351391]Your point?[/QUOTE]Zabriskie, on this occasion.

[QUOTE=xilman;351392]Zabriskie, on this occasion.[/QUOTE]

So, then, no actual point. Just distraction?

LOL, nice one, Paul.

[QUOTE=chalsall;351393]So, then, no actual point. Just distraction?[/QUOTE]

W.r.to the scripting language allegedly attacked by the Japanese in late '42, I believe the aim would be more ex- than dis-traction.

C'mon, Chris, ya gotta let the local punsters have their fun.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351396]C'mon, Chris, ya gotta let the local punsters have their fun.[/QUOTE]

Why? What's the upside?

Swerving abruptly back on-topic, I note major players in the financial press today are making the case for "intervention" in Syria. Here is [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/obama-is-about-to-undermine-his-mideast-doctrine.html]Bloomberg[/url] (US) - I've underlined the especially rich stuff:
[quote]America is poised to strike at the Assad regime in good part because Obama could not resist the urge, last year, to declare publicly the existence of a chemical weapons red line that the Assad regime should not cross. Obama could not resist because the urge was morally irresistible. [u]Like any decent human being, and like anyone with respect for international law and international norms of behavior[/u], Obama was repulsed by the idea that the Assad regime would deploy poison gas against his own people, and he said so.

Obama, by demarcating a red line, placed American credibility on the line. If the world is to maintain the taboo against the use of chemical weapons, then the world’s superpower, [u]which does so much to ensure global stability[/u], must act, particularly when its leader has previously threatened to act.[/quote]
In other words, the fact that we have no clue which side used the alleged chem-weapons should not deter us from "sending a stern message in furtherance of global stability".

And the [url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2af6babe-117e-11e3-a14c-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2dT2ONGYL]Financial Times[/url] (UK):
[quote]This week’s events will have an impact. [u]They will strengthen a rising US perception that Britain is an ally pulling back from the world[/u]. Mr Cameron’s decision to call a referendum on EU membership fits this picture. Why would Britain weaken itself further by disengaging from Europe?

There lies the danger. It is one thing for Britain to confront reality. In its own way, the US has been doing the same by rationing its interventions in the Middle East. But, [u]even as a diminished power, Britain still has something worthwhile to offer in helping to sustain global order[/u].[/quote]
Methinks FT left off a "the" preceding "global order". Even if not, the "force for justice" and "global policeman" hubris is sickening.

Don't have easy access to the WSJ, if any of our readers does, would be interested in their opining today.

[b]Friday Humor:[/b]

I realize there's nothing funny about it, but the deliberate illogic displayed here is just so outrageous, it belongs in the "surely you must be joking" category:

[url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/released-us-report-proving-assads-use-chemical-weapons-based-youtube-clips-full-repo]"Proof" Assad Used Chemical Weapons Is One Hundred YouTube Clips: Full Report Attached[/url]
[quote]"We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. ... [u]We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack[/u]."[/quote]
They don't have to fabricate the *videos* &c., you blithering morons - if they manage to stage a series of chem weapons "incidents", the "conclusive proof videos" will be done for them by every smartphone owner in the area, and of *course* all the signs will point to chem weapons having been used. But by whom?

Yeah, Ernst. That last bit is good WTF!?!? material. Let's see, "if it's on the Interwebs it must be true. Just LOOK at all these YouTubes which prove it!"

[QUOTE=chalsall;351393]So, then, no actual point. Just distraction?[/QUOTE]Nope, a real point. Otherwise I wouldn't have given you an explicit example.

[QUOTE=xilman;351390]That well-known C port in the Pacific.[/QUOTE]

LOL! :grin:

The Washington Post (Watergate -> Woodward not so great on Valerie Plame -> newspaper now owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon) has an article that I found to be very helpful:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/"]9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask[/URL] By Max Fisher[LIST=1][*]What is Syria?[*]Why are people in Syria killing each other?[*]That’s horrible. But there are protests lots of places. How did it all go so wrong in Syria? And, please, just give me the short version.[*]I hear a lot about how Russia still loves Syria, though. And Iran, too. What’s their deal?[*]This is all feeling really bleak and hopeless. Can we take a music break?[*]Why hasn’t the United States fixed this yet?[*]So why would Obama bother with strikes that no one expects to actually solve anything?[*]Come on, what’s the big deal with chemical weapons? Assad kills 100,000 people with bullets and bombs but we’re freaked out over 1,000 who maybe died from poisonous gas? That seems silly.
You didn’t answer my question. That just tells me that we can maybe preserve the norm against chemical weapons, not why we should.[*]Hi, there was too much text so I skipped to the bottom to find the big take-away. What’s going to happen?[/LIST]The article did succeed in making me feel that I better understood the situation. The TL;DR summation offered as the final entry in the above list:[QUOTE]
Short-term maybe the United States and some allies will launch some limited, brief strikes against Syria and maybe they won’t. Either way, these things seem pretty certain in the long-term:

• The killing will continue, probably for years. There’s no one to sign a peace treaty on the rebel side, even if the regime side were interested, and there’s no foreseeable victory for either. Refugees will continue fleeing into neighboring countries, causing instability and an entire other humanitarian crisis as conditions in the camps worsen.

• Syria as we know it, an ancient place with a rich and celebrated culture and history, will be a broken, failed society, probably for a generation or more. It’s very hard to see how you rebuild a functioning state after this. Maybe worse, it’s hard to see how you get back to a working social contract where everyone agrees to get along.

• Russia will continue to block international action, the window for which has maybe closed anyway. The United States might try to pressure, cajole or even horse-trade Moscow into changing its mind, but there’s not much we can offer them that they care about as much as Syria.

• At some point the conflict will cool, either from a partial victory or from exhaustion. The world could maybe send in some peacekeepers or even broker a fragile peace between the various ethnic, religious and political factions. Probably the best model is Lebanon, which fought a brutal civil war that lasted 15 years from 1975 to 1990 and has been slowly, slowly recovering ever since. It had some bombings [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/northern-lebanese-city-buries-it-dead-after-double-bomb-attack/2013/08/24/ff4d6eb8-0cf9-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html"]just last week[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I mainly mentioned the parenthetical comment about the Washington Post sale because of its fairly recent occurrence. Just now I've noticed that Bob Woodward talked to TIME about the purchase: [URL="http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/06/time-qa-with-bob-woodward-on-the-washington-post-sale/"]TIME Q&A with Bob Woodward on the Washington Post Sale[/URL]