Display Modes: Help
All: Full / Chopped / Footer / None
Works best with Mozilla/Firefox or IE 7.0+

Thursday, August 25, 2005

DRUDGE: ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL DRUDGE: ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL

The Drudge Report has a flash announcement today that "ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL":
ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL
Wed Aug 2005 24 21:20:05 ET

Anti-war protestors besieged wounded and disabled soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C, a new web report will claim!

CNSNews.com is planning to run an expose on Thursday featuring interviews with both protestors and veterans, as well as shots of protest signs with slogans like “Maimed for a Lie.�

The conservative outlet will post video evidence of the wounded veterans being taunted by protesters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Developing late...

This could be the beginning of the end for the war protest movement. Or, at least for the fiction that you can support the troops without supporting their mission. Targetting servicemen wounded in the line of duty in Iran and Afghanistan is surely not supporting the troops.

Labels:

10:08 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Web server - Xenu Web server - Xenu

I found a great Web tool the other day: Xenu. It looks at all the URLs on a Web site and tells you which ones are broken. I ran it on my Web site (www.softpats.com) and found that I had three of my own. One was missing an ending quote (to Help, unfortunately). The second one was CSS file that I had changed in my other pages. And the third was a PDF copy of my resume that I had not put up on the web site. Very clean and easy to use.

In addition, I found that 3 or 4 of the "Useful Links" that I had included had moved or had disappeared in the four or so months since I put up the site. This is out of a hundred or so, so no surprise. But this is so much easier than what I did originally, which was to manually click on each link to verify it. Also, Xenu has a feature where you can ask it to retry links that failed - in this case, three links had timed out, and turned out to still be good, just slow.

Labels:

9:54 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Server (#3) VPN Server (#3) VPN

I have known for quite awhile about MSFT Virtual Private Networks (VPN). But I never really looked into them. What they are is a way to securely tunnel through the Internet from one computer to another.

Then, a couple of days ago, I looked up VPN in Help under Win 2K. They looked fairly easy to implement, so I tried it. You configure one connection on the server, and one on the client, using Connection Manager. Then, you connect to the server from the client just like you do a dialup connection. Voila.

Of course, at this point, it was all irrelevant, since I was running locally over a local network at 100 mbs. I couldn't do anything except ping the VPN connection, since any real requests were routed directly over the Ethernet connection. The next step was to disconnect the laptop from the local network and dial in via modem. It turns out that VPN connections even have this built in (and you should use this feature when dialing in to use VPN, so that local requests are routed over VPN before attempting to satisfy them over the dialup connection). After a couple of false starts, got it working.

I should add that you also need a dedicated IP address and something like Win 2K Professional Edition for the server. Win XP Home Edition doesn't appear to provide this - but I only run that on the laptop, and it is the client here (and XP does provide VPN client software).

What you end up with is a highly secure connection (128 bit encryption) that looks like your computer is sitting on the same internal network as the server. My laptop had the same view of the files on the other systems that it had when directy connected to the local network (which it still was physically, but its Ethernet connection had been disabled for this). It even had the same IP address.

I also like the feature that you can use your Windows login from the client (and get those privileges), that you can specify precisely which users can come in (and make sure they are password protected), and that you can control through this what the client user can do. Also, I like that I can specify the IP address for the client machine (same as when directly connected to the local network).

This looks like a great feature for when you are on the road. Indeed, I can receive FAXes in Colorado, and read them elsewhere, by looking at the directories where they are stored. I may even be able to send them from there.

It turns out that my biggest problem was getting through two firewalls, one in the modem, and a second in the router. No different though than getting HTTP or SMTP connections in from the outside.

Labels:

9:25 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Server (#2) Server (#2)

Why a server? As noted earlier, I had a computer (ZDS desktop #G) lying around not being used. But realistically, I had thought of using my old desktop (#D) after migrating to my new desktop (#F).

So, some of the reasons.
- Good experience
- Save $10 a month from hosting current Web pages for www.softpats.com
- save $100 a year with register.com for emails, etc.
- able to put up other web sites, including Geriatric Tele Society, family, etc.
- potentially let daughter put one up.
- better control over email and email aliases.
- would really like to implement an email system that uses query / respone to eliminate spam. This would be esp. useful for my father who doesn't use email as much as he would like because of the hundres of spam messages he gets.
- setup listserve for Geriatirc Tele Society.

Labels:

11:19 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Server tribulations Server tribulations

In my spare time over the last couple of days, I have been trying to get a server operational (computer #G - see previous posts).

I somewhat got an email server running a couple of days ago. At first, it seemed like it wasn't working at all. I was able to send email to the SMTP server, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. Two messages to the server got lost between SMTP and POP3. But the two messages from SMTP to another SMTP host showed up the next day. Apparently, I need to play with the relaying timing.

Then I tried to get a web server running. I had had problems with standalone Apache awhile back on my old desktop (#D). So, I tried Vertigo, which has Apache integrated into it, among other things. Turns out, it runs Apache 1.1.31 or something. Couldn't get it to redirect out of the "Program File" directory, which is the last place I want web pages, log files, etc.

So, then I tried to install Apache (2.x). It installed, but wouldn't start. Uninstalled and reinstalled, same thing. Booted a couple of times. Either that message, or that it couldn't get to the port (80). Finally, in desperation, I uninstalled Vertigo and Apache, then reinstalled Apache. Seemed to be running. Tried it by using the server's IP address from another computer. Got the Apache intall page. Obviously, the redirect had not worked. Modified the registry. Ditto. Copied the config file into the place where I suspect it was looking for it. Ditto. Then, I remembered. Browser caching. Cleared the browser cache, and voila, SOFTPATS.COM web pages, pulled from where I want them to be.

Labels:

11:01 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Invasion of Iraq (#3) Invasion of Iraq (#3)

From President Bush's 2002 State of the Union message:
Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened...

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.


Labels:

8:52 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Invasion of Iraq (#2) Invasion of Iraq (#2)

Following list is by "Apollyon" 8/16/2005 in a post to Polipundit.com

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.� – From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.� – From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities� – From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.� – Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ – National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.� – Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.� – Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.� – Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.� – Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.� – Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.� – Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.� – Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.� – Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.� – John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.� – John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.� – Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.� – Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.� – Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.� – Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.� – Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.� – Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.� – John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.� – John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.� – John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.� – Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.� – Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.� – Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.� – Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.� – Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources – something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.� – John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.� – John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.� – Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Labels:

8:35 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Invasion of Iraq Invasion of Iraq

The following quote is from Kenneth Pollack, Director of Gulf Affairs for the NSC from 1995-1996 and 1999-2001 (i.e. he worked for Clinton) in his book “The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America� (p. 384-385) on why Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have been significantly more dangerous with nuclear weapons than is Iran today (he also wrote “Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness 1958-1991″ and “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq"):
“What was so disconcerting about Saddam Hussein was that he was a serial agressor who never seemed to learn from his mistakes: his humiliating confrontation with the Shah in 1975 was followed by a confrontation with Syria the next year, which was followed by the invasion of Iran in 1980, then the invasion of Kuwait two years after the end of that war, followed by the decision to fight the United States and thirty other nations for Kuwait in 1991, then the attempt to assassinate former President Bush in 1994, then the renewed threat to Kuwait in 1994, the attack on the Kurdish city of Irbil in 1996, the eviction of U.S. inspectors (provoking the Operation Desert Fox strikes) in 1998, and his effort to move a corps of ground troops to the Golan Heights to start a war with Israel in 2000. This was a stunning record of agressive risk taking behavior unriveled in recent history".

Labels:

8:19 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Sunday, August 14, 2005

The Biology of Death (#2) The Biology of Death (#2)

Wrapping up reading "The Biology of Death" that I mentioned in an earlier post. Ran into an interesting factoid.

Somewhere around four years ago, my girlfriend's father had surgery for Alzheimer's. The surgeon claimed that this experimental procedure had a chance of stabilizing his condition for four or so years, as it apparently has. Almost like clockwork, it seems that her father is starting to progress again.

At the time, I asked around about this, including of some physician friends of mine who treat this affliction. Also, I looked on the Internet for any indication of this procedure, or, indeed, why it might work. I kept coming up blank.

But today, I think I have the answer. One of the things that investigators have been looking at in trying to figure out why we die is the death of cells. Cells can either be killed ("necrosis"), or they can commit suicide ("apoptosis"). Apoptosis is necessary for creation of multicellular life. For example, when fingers are being formed in utero, essentially stumps are formed, then the fingers are etched into the stumps via programmed apoptosis. Similarly, the routing of the brain uses extensive apoptosis.

Extensive work is being done on apoptosis right now - on how it is turned on, and how it is prevented. Different genes have been identified for both, as have different enzymes.

Interestingly, cancers had been assumed to be the result of uncontrolled growth. But apparently a number of cancers appear instead to be the result of a supression of apoptosis. Apparently, one of the body's mechanisms for controlling tumors is for them to either voluntarily commit suicide, upon detection of genetic damage, or do it upon order of the immune system or their neighbors. One of the most widely studied tumor supression genes is p53. Apparently, the deregulation of p53 is one of the primary causes of cancer in humans: fully half of all cancers diagnosed, taken as a whole, are somehow related to mutations of this gene. Mutations of this gene have been found in more than fifty types of cancer, including those affecting breast, brain, lung, colon, skin, and prostate.

Back to Alzheimer's. That condition is the result of neurons dying. It was long assumed that they were killed somehow, partially due to lack of evidence of apoptosis. But the evidence of such would, by necessity, be extremely transistory, being cleaned up within hours of cell death. Closer examination has shown that apoptosis is, indeed, involved.

Overall, it is unclear why those neurons commit suicide. But one of the major features of the brains of Alzheimer's patients is the presence of numerous spherical aggregates measuring approximately one hundred microns in diameter, called "senile plaques". In 1985, one of the major components of these senile plaques was discovered: a small, hydrophobic peptide composed of 39 to 42 amino acids and called "amyloid peptide". Interestingly, although the function of amyloid peptides are still largely unknown, it has been shown that they can trigger apoptosis of the neurons in the area where they accumulate. Though somewhat convoluted to a layman such as me, it appears that this phenomenuon can self-intensify due to the side effects of apoptosis.

In other words, what appears to (maybe) be happening in Alzeimer's patients is that neuron apoptosis indirectly results in amyloid peptides which ultimately results in more neuron apoptosis. But it is the senile plaques where the amyloid peptides are concentrated. Thus, by removing them, the amount of amyloid peptides is reduced, significantly reducing the neuron apoptosis, and, thus, stabilizing Azheimer's patients until the senile plaques build up again.

And, that is indeed what the brain surgeon appears to have done to my girlfriend's father - the surgeon's removal of senile plaques resulted in a temporary stabilization my girlfriend's father's Alzheimer's (how do you like that - three possessives in a row). Her explation wasn't quite accurate, as she said that the plaques "poisoned" the neurons, which would have implied necrosis, and not apoptosis, which is actually the case. But close enough.

3:20 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Saturday, August 13, 2005

OpinionJournal - The Theology of Global Warming OpinionJournal - The Theology of Global Warming

OpinionJournal - The Theology of Global Warming pointed out that the "theory" of global warming has become more of a theology than really a valid scientific theory.

One reason that I am sceptical, is that I heard former Colo. Senator Tim Worth give his canned Global Cooling speech three times in the late 1980s, culminating in the commencement address when I graduated from law school. Back then, Global Cooling was the established fact. Now, it is Global Warming, despite the fact that we are apparently still some 20 degrees below the historical average - if you look out over the last million or so years.

Labels:

9:25 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Blogging (#3) Blogging (#3)

In my previous posts under this topic, I have bemoaned that there appear to be people who disapprove of my blogging, not just what I might be saying about them or someone they know, but also that I spend some of my time doing it in the first place.

I actually heard the later last night, and again this evening. The person who mentioned this tonight was in the middle of a movie when I talked to such. So, we have people who spend their free time watching TV criticizing someone who (intentionally) doesn't own a TV spending his spare time interacting on the Internet.

Frankly, I find this rediculous. Most of what is on TV is really of questionable merit. Sure, there is PBS, and, yes, I know someone who watches that a lot (my father). But even there, the obvious liberal tilt of many of the programs any more most often gives a significantly slanted view of the world. (IMHO, NPR is worse - though I listen to it a lot on the road when driving as it is more accessible in remote areas than anything except for Country Western).

What I don't think that those who don't participate on-line realize is that in many cases there is a lot more interaction there than you get when stuck in front of a TV. Besides, it is a lot more intellectually stimulating. You often have to read quite a bit to participate intelligently, and esp. if you want to counter arguments on the other side.

8:57 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Bogging (#2) Bogging (#2)

It appears that there are plurality (nice patent term meaning more than one) of people reading a lot of what I write on the Internet, including my own blogs, to see what I might be saying about them and others. It almost looks like they spend more time checking up on me than I actually spend writing it.

So, tonight, under pressure, I removed some entries, and tweaked some more to further obscure connections with real people. And, obviously, in the future, will have to be a bit more careful, though most of it was pretty sanitized already.

Mostly, what I talk about is politics, geopolitics, computers, and law. But I have strayed into the personal, and that seems to bother some people - though it appears that the fact that I write at all bothers them too.

I am thinking of starting to use a pseudonym or two. Those who read what I say will be able to connect it up, but it won't pop up on Google, as it appears I do right now. On the other hand, some of the plurality of those spending so much time reading what I write to check up on me wouldn't have as much fun then. We shall see...

8:48 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Web pages Web pages

Earlier this week, I went to the web site for my daughter's school to get the calender for the upcoming school year. I encountered a couple of problems. First, it had a nasty flash movie that overlaid and obscured the operation of their drop down menus with my (Mozilla) browser. And secondly, a bunch of the day/dates did not match. Oh, and the link to the contacts page was broken.

So, I sent off an email to point this all out to their web administrator, and got a response today. Apparently, the flash problem was manifesting mostly with Macs, and so they were redirecting to a page w/o the flash for them. They expanded it for all non-IE browsers. Seems to work.

But they couldn't explain the problem with day/date discrepancy. It looked good to them. And, when I looked at the calenders, indeed, they were good. But then I noticed that the days for parents' association meetings had changed. And then it struck me. Earlier this week, they had the schedule for last year's meetings up, plus still had some of last year's entries in the later part of the new calender. They since put up the new calender. So, no wonder there was a problem. Last year's day/date calender would be off by one day if applied to this year (365 mod 7 equals 1). Silly me - I should have seen that the wrong year was being displayed.

6:01 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Computers (#7) Computers (#7)

Last time I blogged about computers, I was worrying about my 160 gb hard drive in my new desktop (#F). By swapping hard drives with my old desktop (#D), I was able to show that the new motherboard was good. Initially, it had been flaky, but that mostly went away when I cleared it by using the prescribed jumper.

I had a flurry of emails back and forth with the Western Digital technical support people. Most of their canned suggestions were inappropriate. Finally, they suggested that I boot from floppy using their diagnostic floppy (which I had to download and create) and low level format the drive. Unfortunately, I couldn't do that on the new server, as it would hang before I could get to BIOS setup. But I was able to get to the BIOS setup on the old server and unconfigured the hard drive there. So, I moved the 160 gb HD there, booted to floppy, and did a full low level format, writing zeroes to the entire disk. I then went through the four diskette boot of the Win 2K install diskettes to get to the maintenance console, where I was able to partition the HD and format a couple of partitions. I then set the BIOS back to autodetect the HD, and then booted sucessfully. Moved it back to the new desktop (#F) and, voila, was able to boot. Went through the four floppy Win 2K boot again and then installed Win 2K. Pulled all the install files over from other systems, including Win 2K and 98. I then booted with the Win 98 floppy and installed 98. All of a sudden, I couldn't dual boot to Win 2K. Somehow, the Win 98 install had screwed up the dual boot feature. So, I had to go through the 4 diskette, etc. Win 2K install again - though this time I was able to install off of my hard drive copy. And, now, it runs.

The only real problem remaining is that there is still a hang somewhere. Booting takes a couple of minutes or far enough in the BIOS to enter setup or select an alternate boot device. And then it takes a couple of more minutes to get to the NT boot code. I originally thought that this later could be a result of a time delay in the dual boot function, but that is obviously not the case, since it takes that long before the dual boot menu appears. But it runs.

It looks like that my Linux install screwed up the disk partition tables on that HD. Unfortunately, there seems to be no easy way of fixing that. The MSFT DOS programs didn't help. And it is quite ludicrous that the BIOS will hang indefinately trying to read it early enough that you can't even get into BIOS setup with that disk attached.

Labels:

5:31 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Email Email

My current project is to bring up email and web serving on my newly operational server. Currently, I have an email server running there. It just doesn't get email from point A to point B. So, I have been learning SMTP and POP3 protocols as I try to debug why it seems that I can get email to the server, but not from there anywhere else.

That sounds somewhat tame, and probably is. But it hasn't been without its share of tribulations. Yesterday at lunch, I asked someone who runs some email and web hosting servers what I should get that won't cost too much. He suggested one product. I downloaded it. It needed Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1.4. I found version 2 (beta) on the MSFT web site. I went to install it, and it requires MSFT installer. I went to install that, and it requires IE 6 to download. I did that, and it is a monster. So, after downloading and installing IE 6, I downloaded and installed Windows Installer. And then .NET Framework 2. Then, I tried to install this server software again. Whoops, .NET Framework 2 wasn't acceptable. Uninstalled that (on a 125 mhz machine), then downloaded and installed .NET Framework 1.1. This time, when I tried to install the server package, I was successful. Then, I ran it. It is not an email server, as I know them, but rather a list manager, essentially converting distribution lists to separate emails. Instead of sending out one email with a bunch of CCs and BCCs, it sends out multiple emails, one to a recipient. In short, a total waste of my time.

Labels:

5:19 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

NCAA and Indian Names NCAA and Indian Names

Apparently, the NCAA is prohibiting teams with (most) Indian names from hosting post season games. The president of the Florida State Seminoles is considering legal action against the NCAA.

What is interesting here is that the Seminole Indians appear to be quite happy with that nickname for the school. Some have suggested that they sell at least some logoed products to the school, and, thus, stand to lose money as a result of this. In any case, you would think that their views on the subject would trump those of the NCAA. They apparently don't. By all indications, the NCAA is unmoved by the views of the Indian tribe involved. They stated:
"Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter," said Walter Harrison, chair of the NCAA Executive Committee and president at the University of Hartford. "But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control."

As I noted, this is regardless of whether the Indian tribe involved thinks that the use of their name is hostile or abusive.

5:07 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

The Biology of Death The Biology of Death

I have a funeral to attend tomorrow, of the father of one of my best friends. But that isn't the purpose of this post.

I am in the midst of reading "The Biology of Death: The Origins of Mortality" by Andre Klarsfeld and Frederic Revah (translated from the French by Lydia Brady - which means I left the accents off of the authors' names).

So, why don't we live forever? Or, more accurately, why do we age? The answer is really fairly simple, but not intuitively obvious. The technical answer is because our fertility does not increase as we age. And indeed, with single births (typically), it can't.

It turns out that in every species that does not age, whether it be fauna or flora, the organisms increase their fertility as they get older. This is the case for Sequoia, for fish, for crabs, and, even bees. Surprisingly, in the later case, it is only the bred queens who don't age. The unbred queens do, though at a much lower rate than the workers do.

At first, natural selection would seem to be neutral here - it seems that there shouldn't be natural selection in favor of aging if fertility were level. But it turns out that you have to factor death from other causes into the equation. Because members of a species cohort die from other causes, their cumulative reproductive value decreases even if their personal fertility stays the same. It is only in species where fertility rises at the same time that members of their age cohort are dying that do not age. And, also, in many of these cases, the death rate outside of old age flattens out and is relatively flat. You can see this with Sequoia trees - about the only things that will kill them are awfully big forest fires or chainsaws (which are new enough not to affect this). But queen bees fall into this category too - as they are extremely well protected, as compared to the workers they produce.

The bad news is that it takes a lot of generations before natural selection will select for decreased aging. But the good news is that we have moved quite a ways down that path.

It turns out that, with one exception, there is a fairly constant relationship between calories consumed during a lifetime per lb (or kg in the book) and life expectancy for mammels. Ditto for number of total heartbeats. The one exception? Humans, who consume approximately 4 times this mamalian average of calories per lb during their expected lifespan, and their hearts beat approximately 3 times average.

What to make of this? My suggestion is that we have been undergoing natural selection for quite awhile in favor of longer life, and that is why our expected lifespans are probably three to four times what they should be, given the mamalian averages for calories or heartbeats.

Labels:

4:43 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Gun Litigation: A Culture Theory Critique Gun Litigation: A Culture Theory Critique

The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law school has an interesting theory, that our views on the gun debate are determined to a very great extent by our cultural leanings. Those who are more communitarian and/or egalitarian concentrate on the dangers of guns, while those who are more individualistic and/or hierarchical concentrate on the dangers of not having guns. At least, in my experience, their theory makes sense.

What is to be made though of the recent legislation that basically immunized gun manufacturers from some types of liability? My view is that it was for the best because the avowed purpose of gun litigation, which is what the legislation was in response to, was to change the behavior of gun manufacturers on a national level. The problem that I see with this litigation though is that if any of these lawsuits had suceeded, they would have essentially forced a national conclusion to this dispute through actions of a local court, comprised of judge and jury from one small locale in this country. As the authors of the paper point out, there is a big geographic dimension in this dicotomy between egalitarian and/or communitarian versus individualistic and/or hierarchical. Those who are more eastern and/or more urban tend to be more egalitarian and/or communitarian, while those who are more western and/or more rural tend to be more individualistic and/or hierarchical. Not surprisingly, this matches relatively closely the last election. The more egalitarian and/or communitarians tended to reside in blue states or counties, while the more individualistic and/or hierarchical tend to reside in red states or counties.

The problem then is that if the litigation had been allowed to proceed, ultimately, some blue state judge and/or jury would have found against the gun manufacturers, and imposed what would have been, in essence, a national resolution to this debate.

The danger here, that I will suggest has been averted, was that what is a national political debate, would have been resolved through judicial means. Arguably, it was precisely this sort of judicial solution to a political dispute that has caused the abortion debate to continue to be so rancorous to this date. The biggest question that those on the left want Judge Roberts to answer concerns whether or not he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I would suggest that, in the end, it is much better to fight this sort of culteral dispute out in the political arena than in the courts, esp. here, where we are talking courts that would inevitably be colored by their locale.

11:11 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Computers (#6) Computers (#6)

A couple of weeks ago, I had a bunch of entries on my computer systems. As noted, I have essentially four active systems (##D-G). My new desktop system (#F) doesn't reboot properly, and indeed, got so that it didn't even finish initializing.

So, a week ago, I talked to the company that made the computer. We agreed that it was probably a bad motherboard. So, they shipped one to me. Last night, I moved everything to the new motherboard, including the processor. Reboots, somewhat, but still didn't finish initializing. Pulled all the internal cables from the motherboard and added them back in one by one. Turns out, the problem is with the 160 gb hard drive. I was able to boot with the hard drive from my old desktop system (#D).

But then, that computer wouldn't even start booting when I hooked up the new drive to it. I started getting a bit worried. But the old desktop (#D) would start with the power cable from the new desktop (#F). The new drive though wouldn't boot there either, so I have a disk drive problem as well as a reset problem.

Put the old desktop back together and found a spare cable to replace the one that I had been using. Went to plug it in, and discovered that the old cable had come mostly unplugged. Fixing that, the old desktop (#D) is now operational again (and, indeed, I am using it right now to compose this entry).

So, I have to figure out how to get a replacement 160 gb hard drive. I can replace it for under $100, but that seems a bit much, given that I have only run it a week or so now. I probably also need to replace either the motherboard (again) or the processor.

12:09 AM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Monday, August 01, 2005

Cell Phone - found Cell Phone - found

Not five minutes after posting the previous post on cell phones, I found it. It was in the bathroom on the floor. Must have fallen out of my pocket or some such thing last night.

In any case, it turns out that my problem was that I turned the phone to "stun" instead of a normal ring. I did this Friday night when I was being driven crazy by repeated calls from a friend. He called some doze times that day, with his number blocked and unblocked, and to the condo in Dillon. I was talking to someone Fri. night in Dillon, and didn't want to be bothered any more that night. And then, I just never got the ringer turned back on.

So, when I tried calling my cell phone, it did ring - except that the ring was set to vibrate. Missed seven calls, including three from my girlfriend, two from that friend I was avoiding, and one a patent firm that I do business with.

So, my ringer is turned back on (loud) and the phone is on the charger. Should be back to normal by the time I get up tomorrow.

11:45 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Cell Phones Cell Phones

Yesterday my father and I visited my daughter at camp. There, the three of us attended Sunday chapel service together. My daughter made sure that I turned my phone off for the service.

Later, I remember turning it back on, I think, in the car as we drove back to my father's house. Later, I remember turning it off accidently and back on, and checking the battery level. It looked like it could use a recharge. I was going to do that last night, but didn't get it done.

Then, this morning, when I tried to find it to plug it into a charger, lo and behold, I couldn't find it. So, I did what I always do when I can't find my cell phone - I called it. But, unfortunately, I didn't hear it anywhere. Which means that, more than likely, it has run out of battery and shut itself off. So, I think that it is somewhere around here. Just don't know where.

I suspect that a couple of people in particular tried to call me today. Oh well. Hopefully tomorrow. But my father and I have a funeral in the morning. Maybe in the afternoon.

11:19 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Rocky Mtn. Bighorn Sheep Rocky Mtn. Bighorn Sheep

When I am in Golden, I often take a couple mile walk west of town. My route follows a bike path until it goes under U.S. 6, and then continues as a wide dirt path for another mile or so up Clear Creek Canyon, paralleling U.S. 6.

Tonight, as I neared the end of the path, I ran into a couple of women standing by the side of the path looking up at the mountain N. of (temporarily closed) U.S. 6 up Clear Creek Canyon. They stopped me and pointed out a couple of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep on the side of the mountain. I indicated my surprise, as Bighorn Sheep tended to stick to much higher elevations, most notably north of I-70 on Georgetown Hill, about 40 miles west.

On the way back, I took a little higher route along a large irrigation ditch and saw them again. It was a herd of about 15 sheep, led by a big ram, heading back up the mountain. All this, about one mile west of the Golden City Limits. I wonder whether they had come down to drink from that irrigation ditch that I was walking along. In any case, a magnificant site to behold, making the walk well worthwhile tonight.

11:09 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Iraq and Iran Iraq and Iran

Today, in Arthur Chrenkoff's The Battle to Rebuild - A roundup of the past two week's good news from Iraq, I was surprised to find a number of instances of Iranian / Iraqi cooperation. One of these was a plan for Iraq to ship crude oil to Iran, in trade for refined petroleum products. Another was cooperation in saving one of the few marsh's that Saddam Hussein didn't manage to drain in the eleven years between Desert Storm and his outster. Further, they have signed an extensive MoU relating to closer transportation ties between the two countries. Indeed, one of the first destinations for the reconstituted Iraqi Airways is to Tehran. Iran has allocated $1 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. Additionally, it has committed to supplying Iraq with 800 MW of electricity.

It is esp. interesting, given that the two countries fought a very bloody war against each other less than 20 years ago.

This may be for the best. Kenneth Pollack in his book cited in previous entries suggests that Iran has decided that it is in its best interests to have a stabilized Iraq on its borders.

But in addition, we are facing how to get along with Iran. Pollack suggests that if there was a real chance at a revolution there, we missed it. To some extent, I am coming to the belief that the best way to handle our relations with that country is to try to bring it into the international community. And, to some extent, its work in Iraq is doing just that. It is cooperating with the international coaltion that is rebuilding Iraq. And maybe, just maybe, if we can work together there, then the tensions between the two countries can be defused, at least to some extent.

We shall see.

Labels:

10:32 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Iran Iran

I am in the middle of an interesting book by Kenneth Pollack titled "The Persian Puzzle". Pollack worked for Clinton's NSC, concentrating on Iran, and is now employed by the Brookings Institute.

I have found the book so far to be extremely interesting, though quite long - some 435 pages before you get to all the end notes. It cronicles the history between Iran and the United States for better than the last 50 years.

The problem is that our two countries have a very long, mostly acrimonious, relationship. One of the biggest problems, to this day, is their perception that we don't give them the respect that they are due.

Realistically, at this point, we don't have a lot of options. We can't really invade the country. We are spread too thin already, and it would take a lot more resources to invade Iran than we had when evicting Iraq from Kuwait in Desert Storm. It would be brutal, and it would be bloody. There is a distinct possibility that, short of using WMD, we might lose.

I have taken the position that the best thing that we can do with Iran is to stabilize its neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, as functioning democracies, and then let that push the Iranians into regime change.

But Pollack essentially dismisses this on a number of grounds. Most notably, the Iranians seem less willing to revolt today than they did in 1999, or, indeed, even earlier. The government has significantly loosened public morals, etc., while tightening restrictions on protesting and opposing the governement. The result seems to have been (as it was in China) effective in reducing the internal pressure for regime change.

The author talks of two different clocks running, one on internal change, and the second on nuclear weapons. As noted, our chance of affecting the former are reduced. As to the later, a military strike is always possible (he calls this "counter-proliferation"). But the Iranians have dispersed and hidden their nuclear facilities. And, this time, Israel is probably out as a surrogate, given the distances involved. Also, given the much lower level of perceived threat, combined with a significant amount of trade, our European "allies" are unlikely to condone this.

Pollack suggests a three prong approach:
- keeping the "Grand Bargain" option, which would be a deal settling all of our pending disputes, including removing all sanctions and returning seized assets.
- True Carrot and Stick, offering clear carrots for when Iran does the right thing, and clear penalties when they don't.
- Preparing for a new Containment Regime.

What is clear is that there is no easy answer.

Labels:

4:55 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None

Iraq Iraq

I am in the middle of an interesting book by Kenneth Pollack titled "The Persian Puzzle". Pollack worked for Clinton's NSC, concentrating on Iran, and is now employed by the Brookings Institute.

One of the oft raised questions is why did we invade Iraq when there are other countries out there that might have deserved it more. One answer is that Saddam Hussein was notoriously unstable and really unable to adequately assess risk, and, thus, engaged in a pattern of agressive behaior. Pollack called Hussein "a serial agressor who never seemed to learn from his mistakes".

Some of Saddam Hussein's more notable exploits:
- After a humiliating confrontation with the Shah in 1975, he followed this with a confrontation with Syria the next year.
- Then, he invaded Iran two years later, despite that country having 2-3 times the population and a similar size ratio.
- Two years after the end of that war, he invaded Kuwait.
- He then decided to fight the U.S. plus 30 other nations for Kuwait in 1991.
- Attempted to assassinate former president Bush (41) in 1993.
- Renewed his treat to Kuwait in 1994.
- Attacked the Kurdish city of Irbil in 1996.
- Evicted U.N. inspectors in 1996, provoking Operation Desert Fox.
- Tried to move a corp of ground troops to the Golan Heights to start a war with Israel in 2000.
- Ignored our buildup to an invasion in 2003, despite having misread the elder president Bush.

In short, Saddam Hussein just couldn't keep his head down and make nice with us. Rather, at every turn, even when discretion would be the better part of valor, he chose confrontation.

Labels:

3:53 PM Display: Full / Chopped / Footer

Display: Full / Chopped / None

Display: Full / Footer / None

Display: Chopped / Footer / None