« Mother's MILC and the Department of the MISCellaneous | HomePage | Huge Privacy Violation: Buy a List of Anyone's Calls for Only $110 »

Saturday, January 07, 20061136645400

Good News from Iraq

"Iraq Violence May Provoke Shiite Backlash," by Patrick Quinn, Associated Press, 7 January 2005, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=SDSIO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT.

"Shiite Crowds Protest Bombings, US Support for Sunni Arabs; 11 GIs Killed," by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, 7 January 2005, http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/shiite-crowds-protest-bombings-us.html#comments.

I've celebrated Iranian cooperation with Basra and the strength of Kurdish separatism. Now, more good news from Iraq:

The rallies and threats by the Iraq's largest Shiite religious party to react with force if the militant attacks continue have renewed fears that paramilitary militias - now thought to make up part of some elite police units- would take to the streets and carry out reprisals.

...

"We're going to crush Saleh al-Mutlaq with our slippers," they chanted, many armed with automatic weapons. "No, no to Zalmay. No, no to terrorism." It is an insult in Arab culture to touch someone with shoes, which are considered unclean.

...

The demonstration was organized after Friday prayers by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq - one of two religious parties that makes up the governing Alliance.

SCIRI and Badr Brigade Secretary-General Hadi al-Amiri have both blamed hardline Sunni groups of inciting the violence, and said the Defense and Interior ministries - both dominated by Shiites - were being restrained by the U.S-led coalition and had to be unleashed.

He told the pan-Arab Al-Arabyia television that the government told the U.S. "that they should not give any cover to terrorism."


This is exactly what we need in Iraq. Iraq is an artificial country. We can spend blood and will trying to save this relic of British Colonialism, or we can focus on shrinking the gap and building connectivity.

The Kurds in the north make up about 20% of Iraq, and should be their own country. The Shia in the South make up about 60% of Iraq, and should be their own country. There is no reason why these two peoples, who both want connectivity, must be held back by the 15% of Iraqis who belong to a nation unready for the modern world.

If we can connect the 85% of Iraqis who want it by allowing them to defeat terrorist-infested Sunni Arab networks, we should do it.

The prize is bigger than just Iraq. Globalization spreads globalization: let the reverse domino theory work.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari complained while on pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia about the poor quality of Saudi preparations for the event. Some 53 pilgrims died when their hostel collapsed. Tragedies during pilgrimage are so frequent that many observers believe the Saudis are neglecting their duties as hosts of the event.

The Saudi minister of the interior, Prince Naef, angrily rejected Jaafari's criticism, saying that he was just posturing in hopes of salvaging his fading political career. (In fact, Jaafari has a real shot of being the prime minister of Iraq again). The Saudis also said they had be nice enough to let the Iraqi delegation come in numbers greater than their allotted quota, implying that Jaafari was being ungracious.

Tension between the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq and the Wahhabi state in Saudi Arabia have been high since September, when a major Saudi prince castigated the United States for spreading Iranian influence in the region by installing Iraqi Shiites in power.


One of the great pay-offs of the Iraq War is permanently weakening Saudi power. The American liberation of Iraq freed Iraq, letting her join Iran as a sister Shia republic on the Persian Gulf. East Arabia, currently occupied by the Saudi Tyranny, is the third



Besides being Shia, East Arabia holds most of the the Saud family's oil. Saudi Arabia applauds terrorism, Saudi TV is as antisemitic as Hugo Chavez, and the Saudis run pro-terrorist camps for children. Helping the Shia in Iraq finally free themselves from the nuisance of Sunni terrorism would allow them to spread their connectivity to their imprisoned brothers in the Saudi south.

Shia Militias that attack terrorist-supporting Sunnis should be welcomed. They are part of a well-built Military-Industrial-SysAdminComplex just as much as firms like Blackwater, or the US Army for that matter. The Shia should rise up, free themselves from terror, and build their future. We shouldn't stop them,

Comments

Keep us posted on any more good news from Iraq! In case I haven’t got this right, let me go over what you are saying. With regards to the network between Iran (Persia) and Saudi Arabia (Arab), we should destroy the artificial gap between them that kept the power from Persia in check by the minority Arabs and the power of the Arabs in check by the majority Shia. In doing so we will free the unchecked power from our democratic buddies in Iran to dominate the region with their implicit rule-set. This will give the Arabs incentive to become a free and democratic society, because democracies don’t attack other democracies.

This will definitely settle the whole Israeli and Palestine thing quicker. I can’t see any down side to the whole thing, can you? Definitely a win-win situation is in the air. The whole idea of civil war between Arabs has to be good, it did so much for our country. Now if you throw in the idea that the Iranians probably already have the bomb, things could get very interesting. On ward 2006! I am always glad to find someone who can give us something positive about the world we live in today. Keep up the good work! If our plan was to spread an Iranian type democracy throughout the region, then it seems to be working just fine.

What will be interesting to see if the ICE network between Iran and Saudi Arabia is more relevant than the ELI network between the Shia and Sunni Arabs.

Posted by: Larry Dunbar | Saturday, January 07, 2006

You are right that checking Iranian power with artificial Arab states has not worked. For complex reasons, Arab culture is "sick" - it is stuck in an Orientation state or OODA state that is unhealthy for them, for us, and for globalization.

Iran may not be a true democracy, but it is much more democratic than Syria, Jordan, or those ur-retrogades The Saudis. Governmentally, Iran today is where Britain was a bit more than a century ago: [1] a very powerful, unelected upper house and an institutional, well-developed lower house.

The democratic peace is important, but more important is the capitalist peace. And more important than any of those are building connectivity to the Middle Eat. After all, we're "spreading the fire" not to stop all wars right now, but to use war in a way that will ultimately end wars as we have known them.

The near-term solution is for Israel to abandon undefensible positions of the West Bank by finishing the Wall. Just as unwanted Iraqi Sunni Arab connectivity isn't worth American blood [3], unwanted Palestinian connectivity isn't worth Israeli blood.

I believe that Iran understand that nuclear weapons are "for having... not for using" [4] Iran's slow and methodical gavotte (contra "race") to the bomb show that they understnad this lesson.

ICE and ELI? My mind wanders away from memory....

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/27/wto_membership_for_iran.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/01/spreading_the_fire.html
[3] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/12/28/good-news-from-kurdistan.html
[4] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001297.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, January 09, 2006

On ELI and ICE

When a force moves a distance across a resistance or is present at a distance on either side of a gap (basic broadband network), what you have is a network. Force at a distance is the definition of energy. There are three electrical energy types or networks available. One is strictly a Voltage-Resistance-Currant network. Another is a Currant-Capacitance-Voltage network. The third one is a Voltage-Inductance-Currant network. This pretty much sets the dynamics for studying networks. What science doesn’t really have is an understanding yet of what Resistance, Capacitance, and Inductance look like. They know how it works and can produce algorithms to understand how it works, but basically, and after all these years, the geometry behind all of this is only defined by testing. Until we have quantum computers, what everything really is will still have to be debated. My personal opinion is that God exists, it is simply mass that we take on faith because of our five senses.

Voltage-Resistance-Currant network is a shared network. When a voltage shows up at the end of a wire, all the networked Resistance inside the wire react as one against the currant.

A Currant-Capacitance-Voltage network is an exclusive network. No currant has to exist inside the gap. The network becomes active when currant becomes available. The gap simply networks the exclusive positive and negative charges on either side of the gap. A Currant-Capacitance-Voltage network has a mnemonic device, which is designated ICE.

A Voltage-inductance-Currant network is when two shared networks work separately under common Voltage and Currant. The primary network produces flux when Voltage is applied at a frequency. This flux gives the secondary network Voltage and Currant. What is great about this type of network is that neither the primary or secondary network has to run at the same Voltage or Currant, nor do they have to be connected in any shape or form. This is similar to the relationship between North Korea and China. The political pressure (potential energy or Voltage) can be lower and the Currant (kinetic Energy or people) higher in China than in North Korea. However if that is the case, then the political pressure is higher and the mass is lower in North Korea. A Voltage-inductance-Currant network has a mnemonic device called ELI. Al Qaeda could also be an ELI network.

While I miss-represented the Shared Voltage-Resistance-Currant network as an ELI network, I thought I’d better try to explain where I was coming from when I mentioned ICE and ELI.

As a comedian named Dennis Miller would say, “of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.”

Posted by: Larry Dunbar | Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Could you give simplistic examples of the different types of electrical network? For instance, christmas tree lights, etc.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, January 11, 2006

A string of Christmas lights represents a shared network. By my definition it would be a Voltage-Resistance-Currant (ERI) network. The bulbs represent areas of currant in the network moving at a different constant velocity than other parts of the network (while this is not strictly true it is as accurate as going through pressure, heat and all that crap). Velocity is scaled in feet/second. If you combine feet/second with an area (the area is moving at a certain feet/second) you have volume. Another name for volume is space, so the bulbs represent a spatial place on the network that has a different velocity. As an area of currant moves there is change in potential from where it was, to where it is going. Another name for a change in potential, or change in anything for that matter, is frequency. Therefore the bulb really represents a spatial place on the network that is of a different frequency (this is really what it is all about).

I have mentioned before that, like frequency creates an electron (currant), implicit laws create a society. In a network-connected society, the bulbs would represent people that are connected with like implicit laws. I believe you call them “controls”.

There are two basic configurations that these controls are used in a shared network. One way, called Parallel, means that the potential (Voltage, political energy) is constant throughout the network, but the currant is allow to build or lower as needed. This would be represented of the network-connected society of the USA. The over-all political pressure remains constant; the members of each political party are allowed to change either in numbers or closeness (frequency).

The second configuration is called Series. In this configuration the political pressure changes through out the network-connected society, but the currant moving through the network remains constant. This would represent the different political parties in Iraq. The political pressure of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish factions is allowed to build or lower separately, but the people of the parties remain the same. The Shia don’t join the Sunnis, and the Sunnis don’t join the Kurdish. The influence these parties have simply build or lower depending on whose is in power. Another way to think of this is that whoever is lower down on the food chain simply has less potential in that society.

Both configurations have advantages and disadvantages. A society connected in Series has a quicker OODA loop (an Arab knows how an Arab thinks, doesn’t really matter if they are Sunni or Shia), but a Parallel connected society is more able to adapt to a changing environment (become more Arab to fight an Arab, example: Lawrence of Arabia). That is one possible reason that during a time of war our society becomes more connected in Series (to enable a faster level of decision making) but still is able to adapt to a quickly changing environment (Normandy invasion) by maintaining a level of parallelism (united we fall).

I hope this simplifies, at least the Voltage-Resistance-Currant network, for you. The ICE type and ELI type, while more interesting, will take a lot more time to simplify. ICE is simply a capacitor and ELI is a transformer. What is really interesting is that there doesn’t have to be any physical connection, in the Newtonian defined way, between these types of networks. In fact, a primary inductor could influence a secondary conductor without the secondary inductor’s awareness (5GW?). Because my computer experienced 40,000+ attempts by many different addresses in just a few minutes to find an opening in which they could enter my computer, it maybe in my interest to examine how an inductor network operates. I only say it was an induced attack because the network of most of the addresses, of those who were inquiring, seemed, according to my tracing software, to make a loop from China, to Southern California, to Northern California, to my address then back to China. This would seem to produce a loop, which is the main attribute of an inductor network. I am thinking that maybe the network didn’t change, just the inquiries or a combination of the two possibilities. It might also just show how connected everyone is. Now that there are only 20 inquiries an hour I guess I am no longer under attack. At least I didn’t upset any technicians (I just love that China help line) from my Internet service provider. They didn’t seem to care at all, so I guess I shouldn’t either.

If this posting helps you to understand a Voltage-Resistance-Currant network, as I defined it, maybe I will attempt the other two. As it is this whole posting may not make any sense to anyone, so it may not have any purpose!

Posted by: Larry Dunbar | Saturday, January 14, 2006

Larry,

Thank you for this post. I hope you continue it. I linked to it in another thread [1] because I know it is valuable.

I got the most out of the discussion of parallel and series networks, because I am familiar with those. Very interesting analogy to American and Iraqi political parties. Also interesting speed v. flexibility discussion.

Also very good analogy identifying lights as having different frequencies than the base network.

I liked the discussion on zombie attacks [2], and tying it into 5GW [3]. I've discussed both of those before, but I don't think I put it together. (Even though it is so obvious in retrospect!)

Thanks again for the "series" -- I'm looking forward to the next installment :)

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/01/13/rob-reviews-hostel.html#c481349
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/05/04/net-attacks_and_counter-attacks.html
[3] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/20/dreaming-5th-generation-war.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, January 14, 2006

Dan, not sure I agree with how valuable but here goes.

I appreciate that someone might be interested in what I write and even interpret it correctly (it might help to read this posting by holding your breath and going really fast). What has always amazes me about Mark at Zenpundit, he always seems to catch on to what I was getting at no matter how convoluted my comment seemed. He understood what I meant not being able to change implicit laws.

But of course you can’t change implicit laws, only the person who has these laws can change them. This means there are only certain options available. You can destroy those frequencies that are not in harmony to yours or you can seek to compromise. This means the person with the implicit laws, unlike your own, can either change or you need to change your implicit laws. The third option is that both parties can change just a little bit; we can tweak those frequencies just a little bit so they are more in harmony with each other.

I suppose our best plan would be to develop a potential future worth living that the bad guys can also follow. This potential that we need to create has a force that is in the distant future, or in other words forces are at work building to a final outcome (potential). This is my reason for explaining the three different types of networks. I am attempting to explain how forces flow through a network and what causes the flow in the beginning. Because this is a learning experience for me as well, my explanation for much of this reads like a work in progress. I suppose this is one problem with not being a part of the academia. It would be great to talk this over with someone who has answers to my questions.

I described three types of networks using three abbreviations: ERI, ICE, and ELI. The first initial represents that which is required to enable the network to begin the flow of forces. (E) stands for electromotive force. Another name for this force, when distance is added, is potential (political) energy. The most significant attribute of potential energy is that it contains no mass; it only causes mass to move. When mass moves the force it represents is equal to the negative of its potential. This makes it easy to know the force available if either the mass or potential is known. When potential, or political, pressure is added to an ERI or an ELI network, flow is created. Like wise, in an ICE network the (I) represents currant or kinetic energy. When currant is applied to an ICE network flow begins. Flow is life so in all three cases it can be said that your network comes alive upon applying either potential or kinetic energy depending on what type of network it is. When, how much, and at what intensity (time, volume, frequency) is determined by the middle initial, which is the geometry specific to that network.

The middle initial represents the geometry of the network. This is the part of a network that so far can only be found by laboratory testing. While resistance can be defined as R=Voltage/currant, voltage itself is defined using a found number represented by Boltzmann’s constant (k). In other words, resistance, along with capacitance, and inductance, is being defined by laboratory testing not on information we possess as to what the geometry looks like or how energy moves through it. In order to give voltage and currant a defined number, constants were found. Resistance, capacitance, and inductance are objects that allow the geometry between forces to be known when information about forces is needed. This information (resistance, capacitance, and inductance) is the geometric relationships of the forces in the network. Until the development of quantum computers these unknowns will probably remain unknown.

To create flow, you apply voltage (create a political policy that appeals to everyone) and, depending on the resistance, currant will flow. This is how forces start to flow in an ERI network. You simply add a political will to the currant that is already inside the network and you have flow that is dependent on the resistance. Flow is good; flow is life. It is only when flow encounters destructive frequencies that war (the destruction of frequencies) happens. This is why it takes a delicate balance between the forces, both Parallel and in Series, inside the ERI network to create a network without destructive frequencies.

Because resistance, capacitance and inductance are geometry attributes, all networks can have elements of all three. In fact, every connection between forces (network) has a gap, which is the main requirement of an ICE network.

I define a network as a connection between forces. When information is being sent from one computer to another, what is being sent is a force (electrical). The computer that receives this force does so by using a force. This is similar to when a person takes a step forward. As you step forward a force is being applied to the earth through friction (an electrical force). At the same time the earth, in a real sense, is, like the receiving computer, exerting an electric force against you. When these two forces connect, as your foot does to the earth, they become a network. As a side note, the connection between your foot and the earth still has a gap between all forces. Like iron being attracted to a magnet, the attraction is only in the direction of the potential and not a connection without a gap. The repulsive force of two magnets is also similar. They only repel in the direction of the potential (S-N-N-S), not from each other. A magnetic field is a potential energy cause by the difference between where an electron is going and where it has been.

However, there is always a gap between forces. If forces actually “touched” they would become one force at one frequency. It is only because of this gap that they are actually two forces. An electrical force is a changing energy potential moving in the opposite direction as to the potential change. Another way to say this is an electron moves perpendicular to its displacement. This produces a wave of energy, which is one electron connected with another without a gap. This means they are actually the same force. This wave attribute can be seen in a tsunami wave. When the tsunami wave is said to be moving at 500 mph, it is not the same water, from the point of origin to the beach head, that is moving 500 mph, but the same force. The force resides in the water and is the electrical forces between the molecules of the water. When the force of the wave reaches the shore there is a gap. The amount of damage done depends on the geometry (capacitance) of the gap. While all networks have a gap between forces inside the network, an ICE network uses mass to start the flow.

By adding currant (mass) to one side of the gap a potential is created. Mass cannot flow with out a potential. On one side of the gap there is currant wanting to move to the other side where there is a different frequency of currant, or no currant at all. The currant can’t move to the other side until there is a potential created and the current creates a potential by being on one side of the gap. Once there is a potential then it depends on the capacitance of the gap and the frequency of the currant as to if there is flow. At a high enough frequency the capacitor acts like a short.

In the old days of Europe this was easier to visualize. The mass of forces (currant) would line up outside the walls of the fortress (gap) and demand for the forces on the other side of the gap to surrender. That mass assembled outside the walls created a potential flow across the gap depending on the geometry of the wall around the fortress. The direction of flow and how this network behaves depends on the geometry of the gap (capacitance) and the frequency of the attack. If the masses outside the gate were able to move forward as a single force (high frequency, virtually no gap between the forces) then they would be able to cross the gap unless the wall stopped them. If there were no wall just empty space, then the forces would carry on to the other side. This is how the forces flow in an ICE type network. Unless you can reduce the mass (lower potential), such as letting illegal immigrates into the USA, or the potential is raised on the other side of the gap (decrease the gap between the wealthy and poor in Mexico by increasing Mexico’s will to collect and distribute taxes) then the gap in an ICE network will always act like an open circuit. When the potential is high enough (the high frequency of the currant seeks to cross the gap to where the frequency is lower) and the capacitance allows it, mass flowing across an open circuit creates a violent release of energy or spark through the gap, which can lead to much destruction. That could be one use of China’s military, to control the spark. Unlike capacitance of an electrical force, we understand capacitance between people and nations; we can control this flow of force as we chose. To us the Chinese proven method is unacceptable, but I am sure there are other ways the west can act, if we understand the choices available.

Either we examine the flow across a gap as an ICE network or when there are masses on both sides of the gap, you can manipulate the masses across the gap with flux created from your own voltage and currant, which is similar to modern warfare or an ELI network. This network, like a nuclear bomb, is probably only useful to an aggressor network, however way-more favorable over the nukes. Also the relationship between China and North Korea; the USA and Mexico; and possibly the relationship between Christ and Christians, among others can be thought of as an ELI network. Politics and masses still move to the teaching of Christ’s life (flow of forces), after all these years, could be one illustration of an ELI network. While you think of Christianity as force crossing a gap (insurgency, or a change in potential) there might be other ways of looking at it.

Much going on in Iraq can also be thought of as an ELI network. Not enough “flux capacity”, as stated in Barnett’s review on Brenner’s book, oh ya, I can understand that much!

Posted by: Larry Dunbar | Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Post a comment