Wilber

Good point, I spent long enough in Japan to learn that if you want to make your point, you don't back them into a corner where they don't have an honorable way out. They will just get their back up and maintain black is white.

So we don't bomb them, we starve them to death, how humane. The surrender terms had been defined as unconditional by Roosevelt at Casablanca in 1943. It sounded catchy in the press but it was to Churchill's discomfort. Now the Axis knew they had no option but to fight to the end. The Japanese were not noted for surrendering, just look at the ratio of dead to prisoners in previous engagements. Japan is a rugged country geographically and a great source of pride to the Japanese is that they had never been successfully invaded. Trying to fight 90 odd million people intent on defending their home soil to the end? How many lives do you think that might cost? You think Iraq and Afghanistan are quagmires. We could still be there.

Hillier is the top guy in the military, lets hope he does have a vision of where he wants it to be. That's why he is there, or it should be.

I think you have misunderstood, pollution comes from the fuel, not from air. It doesn't matter how much air you pump through an engine the amount oxygen used to provide combustion is directly proportional to the amount of fuel you add. Assuming that a gas engine used all the O2 in 14.7 gallons of air for each gallon of gasoline consumed, for a diesel using a 100:1 ratio to consume all the oxygen in 100 gallons of air it would mean that a gallon of diesel would have to contain 100/14.7=6.8 times as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. We know that isn't true. Comparing fuel air ratios means nothing, it is just a function of the different ways these engines work. A diesel has no throttle plate in its intake system so there is always a lot of air going through it, the amount of power produced is controlled purely by adding fuel. It doesn't matter how much air goes through an engine, if there is no fuel there is no pollution. Another reason gas engines need a 14.7 ratio is that they are spark ignition engines and cannot run too lean. A diesel is a compression ignition engine, it doesn't care very much about lean mixtures. Catalytic converters are used with all engines now, diesel or gas and diesels produce 20% less CO2 and much less CO than comparable gas engines.

How was he wrong? It was politicians who were responsible for not doing anything.

The new Bluetec technology is greatly reducing particulates and other pollutants, ULSD fuel is making a big difference in sulphur dioxide emissions and diesels were already producing substantially less CO2 And CO than gas engines. For the first time in years diesel cars are meeting 50 state standards. There is still plenty of development left in diesels to further reduce emissions. Higher combustion temperatures help reduce emissions not raise them, that is why exhaust gas recirculation is used in gas engines and catalytic converters operate at such high temperatures. Perhaps you have it backwards. Air is not a pollutant, fuel is. Instead of saying that's a lot of air, you should be saying, that's not much fuel. I certainly don't think gas engines are on the way out, just that we will be seeing more diesels.

The previous government defined the mission and sent our troops to Afghanistan, not Hillier. The present government has confirmed that commitment and extended it, not Hillier. It is Hillier's duty to carry out that mission and his responsibility to see that his people have the resources to do it or explain to the people of Canada why they don't. If telling the public about the real state of their military and how it got there helps fulfill that responsibility, then he should do it. If you look at Canada's history during the two world wars, we started off by sending people who were poorly led, poorly trained and poorly equipped and ended up with armed forces as good as any in the world. In between a lot of people were killed unnecessarily not through fault of their own but because the government and people which sent them as well as their own leadership let them down during peace time. Our military has slowly deteriorated since the Korean War and when our NATO commitments ended in Europe with the end of the Cold War, this country took a vacation from it's military commitments and the rot accelerated. For the first time in decades we have both a public and a government taking a real interest in our military's actual needs and Hillier is pushing to extend that interest and exploit it as long as it lasts. I say, go Brian go. I'll give Martin credit where credit is due. He appointed Hillier and I don't recall him ever going off the deep end when Hillier called a spade a spade, even if it didn't reflect that well on his government. Good on him for that. No, my kid is not a member of the military, he is a member of another paramilitary group called the police. Every police force should have a chief like Hillier. One who takes advantage of every opportunity to improve the lot of his members and is willing to stick his neck out to do so. A real cop, not a politician in a uniform who's chief priority is his career. If that means telling the public what his force is capable of, what it is not and why, then he should do it. The police and the military do not belong to the government, they belong to the people and the people have a right to know from the horses mouth.

Yup, when everyone gets home from work, plugs in their electric car, turns on their TV, computer etc, where is all that power going to come from? Electric cars will have their place but I get the impression that some who are promoting one in every garage think electricity comes from a plug in the wall like some other folks think milk comes from a shelf in a store. It could be a zero emission way of powering vehicles but only in places where power is produced by polution free means such as hydro electric or nuclear and charging is limited to times when other demand is low.

Myata If you had a father/ brother who was preparing to assault a Japanese beach in August 1945, I doubt you would be so vocal about opposing the use of a secret weapon so that he could come home alive.

I was looking at a copy of Lemon Aid. Edmonston figures if you buy a 2002 Civic instead of a new Prius the difference in cost vs resale will give you $21,000 to pay for gas over three years. Probably a little high but you get the idea.

The count still falls way short of 200,000 dead in the bombings of two cities (mostly civilian), does it? And it can be argued whether the US casualties could have been less if the campaign was conducted differently. But it's beyond the point. Being moral, there's a line that will never be crossed - no matter cost or risk. Using N-bombs in this war far off US mainland (as the later examples of Vietnam and Iraq) just shows that morality has little to do with their war strategy - efficiency and expediency, on the other hand, has a lot. And I'm not saying that they're the bad guys. No, they're OK as long as one doesn't step on their toes (or has something they really want). It's just that their actions in all these years put them way short of that shining image of eternal truth and liberty they're trying so hard (genuinly or as part of the plan) to project. I only gave numbers for two actions in one theater of a war that lasted 4 years in the Pacific/Southeast Asia and 6 years in Europe. You are missing the point, although estimates vary we are talking about ending a war that took as many as 60 million lives. Who are we to judge those who went through that? Put aside your anti Americanism, get out of your self righteous pulpit and learn a little history.

The thought of another new tax being leveled by our least accountable level of government gives me the creeps.

I think more diesels are definately in the future. My 04 Jetta goes 16,000 Km between services and people don't know they are riding in a diesel car untill you tell them. I've kept mileage records since new and have maintained just over 50 miles per imperial gallon. The diesel pickups built since Jan 01 are not only cleaner but more powerfull than the engines they replaced. The new Bluetec Mercedes E320 diesel meets the latest emission standards, is rated at 31 mpg city 48 mpg highway and is faster 0 to 100Km than a E350 gas. Not bad for a fairly large luxury sedan. Diesels are just getting started.

Hillier is a great role model. If my kid was in the military I would be thanking my stars he had someone like that for a boss.

So Gates thinks Harper is good enough for a partnership like he did Buffet. Good enough for me.

Japan invaded Korea, Manchuria and China long before Pearl Harbour. The death toll was already in the millions by Pearl Harbour Just to put things in perspective casualties for the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa alone. Saipan Dead US 3500 Japanese 29,000 Wounded US 13,000 Japanese almost none and only 900 prisoners Okinawa Dead US 12,500 Japanese 66,000 military 140,000 civilians missing Wounded US 39,000 plus 33,000 non combatants Japanese 17,000 The US also lost 79 ships sunk or scrapped. Of course this doesn't include all the other island campaigns plus the Philippines, New Guinea, Burma, Malaya etc etc. An invasion the main Islands would have probably made these numbers look very small in comparison

Why is this in a forum on US Politics?

Ya right, he is supposed to let politicians stick up for the military. That's how they got so run down in the first place. Fascistic impulses aside, folks, do you really not get why the military should stay out of government? A commander has a duty to the people he is responsible for, not a particular government. He is subject to the governments orders but his responsibility is to make sure his people are equipped to carry out those orders. If that means going public with its deficiencies then so be it. The people also have a right to be informed about the status of their military from those who really know, not just those who have to win the next election. Are you saying that no one in government employ should ever be allowed to comment on deficiencies in their departments?

Basically yes. The Japanese showed little morality in the way they conducted their war, at least not the way we understand morality. The allies did not invent the bombing of cities, they just wound up doing it better than the opposition. At the time it was estimated that the allies could take over a million casualties if they had to invade the mainland. Japanese casualties both military and civilian would have far exceeded that. That was an estimate based on their experiences on other islands particularly Okinawa which is regarded by the Japanese as one of their home islands. The cost benefit analysis was a million of us plus millions of them, versus 200,000 of them. It is an analysis that still stands up sixty years later. Brutal but true.

Ya right, he is supposed to let politicians stick up for the military. That's how they got so run down in the first place.

The Russian vessels turned around - that is pretty good evidence that the Russians already understood the brutal realities of MAD even at that time.However, I will concede that Americans had to make it clear that they were prepared to go 'all the way' if the Russians did not back off. So in that sense I am willing to agree that the Cuban missle crisis was a key element that established the MAD doctrine which effectively eliminated the Russian threat to North America. That said, I am still not convinced that missles in Cuba represented a real threat to the Americans. Of course they were a real threat. That was the whole principal behind MAD.

Who is driving them and how many of them would give a rats ass about green cars even if you did give them two grand to buy one. Government and oil companies aren't putting a gun to anyones head and forcing them to buy SUVs. Until the public is actually willing to act on its rhetoric, tax breaks and grants aren't going to do much.

You can maintain all you want but we haven't been through years of what had already been the most destructive war in history. I have a hard time with second guessing those who were there at the time. After all, at the time it was just another couple of hundred thousand added to the tens of millions who had already died, in the hope of avoiding even more deaths. Was it really necessary? We will never know for sure because the alternative never happened.

Why would Castro attack the US? Castro was not a stupid man nor a suicidal one. You are confusing todays logic with the reality of the time. The US was not going to have Russian nukes installed 90 miles from their mainland especially in the hands of a mutual enemy. They would have gone to war to prevent it. That's all there was to it. They had their fleet positioned to intercept the Russian vessels carrying missiles. Where do you think it might have gone if the US navy had fired on or boarded Russian ships if they hadn't turned around? They were carrying out daily reconnaissance flights over Cuba. Their military was on a war footing. To say it was no big deal over 40 years later is well, I don't know quite how to put it.

Why did Cuba need to be attacked? Do you think Cuba would have invaded the US? Do you think North Korea would invade the US? I doubt it. Do you think that the US wouldn't retaliate if North Korea took out an American city with a nuke? The Russians were installing missiles 90 miles from the continental US. All of Kennedy's advisers were telling him to take them out. That's the way it was. Asking questions like that 40 years after the fact is a mugs game. Whether it makes sense now or not doesn't matter. The fact is, we were very close. Kruschev acted like a cowboy and if he hadn't blinked in the end, we might not be here. It's easy to say the Cold War wasn't a big deal now that it is over and nothing happened. It was deadly serious at the time.