Comments on: The case for energy alternatives and other matters http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/12/29/the-case-for-energy-alternatives-and-other-matters/ Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:08:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: gs http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/12/29/the-case-for-energy-alternatives-and-other-matters/#comment-302258 gs Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:32:24 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/12/29/the-case-for-energy-alternatives-and-other-matters/#comment-302258 <b>Clarification.</b> I tried to draw a line through 'sufficiently' in the first sentence of my previous comment, but the site ignored the HTML. Clarification. I tried to draw a line through ’sufficiently’ in the first sentence of my previous comment, but the site ignored the HTML.

]]> By: gs http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/12/29/the-case-for-energy-alternatives-and-other-matters/#comment-302257 gs Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:29:27 +0000 http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/12/29/the-case-for-energy-alternatives-and-other-matters/#comment-302257 <i>Which presidential candidates, if any, sufficiently understand the Great Game that is being played around the globe?</i> McCain has survived a previous Game and he is my clear first choice for <i>understanding</i> it, but his age concerns me as do some of his other positions. Rudy seems to have the right instincts, i.e. a mean streak. Fred seems to have the right understanding, but I'm not sure he has the ruthlessness which extreme scenarios might require[1]. McCain could go eyeball to eyeball with Khameini, Putin or Hu (or Abdullah); Giuliani probably could; I'm uncertain about Thompson. (Would the country support doing what might have to be done if things get severe enough?) Huck and Hill have mean streaks, but I fear they'd use them against their domestic opponents, and meanwhile placate foreign enemies. <i>Which presidential candidates, if any, <b>sufficiently</b> understand the Great Game that is being played around the globe?</i> The full form of the question is beyond me. I leave it to future historians. ******* [1] Petraeus' generalship is a reminder that the optimal way to apply force in asymmetrical warfare can be counterintuitive. Heaven forfend a President who goes looking for apocalyptic confrontations, but I want a President who won't shirk them if the alternative is acquiescing to America's becoming mortally vulnerable. Enlightened ruthlessness is the war leader's best, and ultimately most humane, attitude. Which presidential candidates, if any, sufficiently understand the Great Game that is being played around the globe?

McCain has survived a previous Game and he is my clear first choice for understanding it, but his age concerns me as do some of his other positions. Rudy seems to have the right instincts, i.e. a mean streak. Fred seems to have the right understanding, but I’m not sure he has the ruthlessness which extreme scenarios might require[1]. McCain could go eyeball to eyeball with Khameini, Putin or Hu (or Abdullah); Giuliani probably could; I’m uncertain about Thompson. (Would the country support doing what might have to be done if things get severe enough?)

Huck and Hill have mean streaks, but I fear they’d use them against their domestic opponents, and meanwhile placate foreign enemies.

Which presidential candidates, if any, sufficiently understand the Great Game that is being played around the globe?

The full form of the question is beyond me. I leave it to future historians.
*******
[1] Petraeus’ generalship is a reminder that the optimal way to apply force in asymmetrical warfare can be counterintuitive. Heaven forfend a President who goes looking for apocalyptic confrontations, but I want a President who won’t shirk them if the alternative is acquiescing to America’s becoming mortally vulnerable. Enlightened ruthlessness is the war leader’s best, and ultimately most humane, attitude.

]]>