Unfortunately, I'm in Korea now and I can't watch the episodes online like I used to be able to. Same for Lost... lame. 
 
I hope the last two episodes were awesome! If anybody knows where I can download them I'd appreciate it.

Hear, hear, Razib! I said some shit that was way less intelligent than what you were saying, and when I go back and read some stuff that I have written before I usually reel back in my chair. 
 
I still support the Iraq War, but I was definitely wrong about how badly the war would be conducted by our politicians.  
 
I also didn't think we'd sell out the Kurds as badly as we have, either.  
 
I've always been skeptical of democracy exportation and this war made me more so.  
 
I think Islamic *immigration* is a strategic threat, but I'm not so sure about jihadism anymore... jihadism is really good at causing instability, so whether you can classify it as a strategic threat or not depends on the situation. Regardless, jihadists have mastered the art of using tactical level actions to create strategic level effect. 
 
I'm not interested in expending further resources on democratizing and modernizing the Middle East. I say a mixture of containment, seizure of oil fields, immigration restrictions, diplomatic carrots, and punitive expeditions are the way to go in the future. 
 
I don't think very highly of Thomas Barnett anymore and I think his core/gao paradigm is borderline Marxist, although it is is useful from a H-BD standpoint. 
 
Interestingly enough, my score on the LPT is still in the 70s.

don't know what that exception is about. 
 
fried chicken. 
 
Au contraire, mon frere! It's all about the barbecue. More than a few people near where I grew up swear up and down that if they could get all the world's leaders together for a barbecue, all would be well.

I think very highly of David Gress and I have major problems with those who attempt to draw a linear model of the development of Western Civilization all the way back to ancient Greece. I think the true development of Western Civilization can be traced back to the beginnings of Islamic expansion into the West, where the fissures that lied between East and West widened dramatically, the rise of the Catholic church and its subsequent assimilation of Roman religious and political institutions, and the northern Crusades where Christianity assimilated pagan beliefs in order to achieve European dominance. Western Christianity differs substantially from Eastern Christianity as a result of all of this. 
 
Of course, this is highly generalized, but it allows one to see how the West developed organically and how there is no date that one can pull out of the box and say, "Western civilization was founded in what century?"

If the story were about heroic resistance fighters battling a Panzer division, or if there were derogatory references to “goose-stepping,” Ms. Stevens would probably be enthralled. “Race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth” are great for most left-liberals, provided that the “race” being baited is German and the nationalist myth being promoted is that of FDRÂ’s America. It all depends on whose gigantic rhinoceros is being gored.  
 
I especially like this comment Larison... lots of "progressives" went nuts about Lord of the Rings in the same way they're going nuts about 300. It demonstrates beautifully just how shallow so many of them are.

...the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves. 
 
... real nice guys, those Athenians. What can I say? For the poor Melians, neutrality's a bitch.

on a pedantic note, the victory of charles martel, from what i have read, is more an illustration of the general trend of the muslims reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than a turning of the tide. that is, it seems unlikely that a muslim victory at tours would have resulted in the conquest of francia seeing as how it was more a raid than anything else, and muslim raids would continue into the provence and thoroughout italy for decades. 
 
This is sort of like saying that the victory of the United States at Midway is more of an illustration of a general trend of the Japanese reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than the turning of the tide... it's just as unlikely that a Japanese victory at Midway would have resulted in the conquest of the United States... 
 
And for all you folks who think the Athenians were so cultured and noble, I suggest you read the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. In fact, the Athenians eventually became so brutal that Sparta was looked upon kindly by most of the Greek city-states. And it is to Sparta's everlasting credit that it, in such a great anti-democratic manner, rejected the opinions of the majority of the Greek city-states and didn't destroy Athens. If it were up to them, Athens would have been turned to rubble.

I find it interesting that we side with the authoritarian racist Spartans over the authoritarian, tolerant Persians. - Alan Kellogg 
 
... being that the "graphic novel" / comic book that the movie is based upon is itself based upon the writings of Herodotus, who was obviously extremely biased in favor of the Greeks, I don't see how you can level this criticism. Besides, most writings from back then would be considered "racist" by today's standards... haven't you ever read the Anabasis by Xenophon?

Here's some info on Sageman's research.

On the whole muslim question....simply give them an IQ test when they come in, if they score under 100...dont let them in. 
 
This is absolutely absurd... 
 
According to Peter Bergen in his study of 70 or so Islamic terrorists, 53% of them have college degrees or have attended college. Marc Sageman has found that many have advanced degrees, and that 60% or so of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists have professional or semi-professional occupations. A large percentage of Islamic terrorists became radicalized while residing in the West, not prior to going there. 
 
Basing immigration policy solely upon IQ is silly, and the idea that smart people don't conduct terrorism is absolutely idiotic. 
 
That's not to say that IQ should not play a role in determining entrance; it should play a substantial role, but let's not be absurd about it. IQ is not everything.

Paul, 
 
I thought you were speaking about the military in general, nut just non-state armies. But then, even though you're quick to differentiate them, you're also quick to use them as examples by citing a silly song...

I don't see any inherent contradiction between those advocating a traditional society as the end result and the utilization of non-traditional means in the run-up to that. For example: Alfred Rosenberg idolized the soil and saw agrarian society as the epitome of goodness, but he had no issue with developing massive industrial capabilities in order to defeat Germany's enemies, at which point they would tear down all the industry and bring about their agrarian peasant society. 
 
That's why the foot soldiers tend to be young. The older one gets, the more cynical one becomes. 
 
No, "foot soldiers" tend to be old because of a multitude of reasons: 
 
1. Military organization requires a large amount of lower ranking personnel. Not all can advance to higher levels of the hierarchy, since its size gradually decreases as you move up the ranks, so they get out. Not only that, many simply join the military for a short enlistment to get the benefits, like college money, and then get out. This leads to a very dynamic force, where, in many cases, 70% of new recruits at any one time will be out of the military within 4 years or so. 
2. With increased age generally comes decreased physical abilities. 
3. The military limits the age of new recruits to the early 30s, regardless as to how many would join up who are older. 
4. The military actively works to get rid of people who have been in for more than 20 years (those who are usually aged between 38 and 44). 
 
When all this is put together, you get a very young military force. 
 
Just a quibble, but I don't think that it's rational and utilitarian to go for "victory at all costs". 
 
Victory is perfectly rational and utilitarian... I can think of very few situations where defeat would be an overall positive for whoever is fighting...

It is better to discuss red and blue counties. Democrats win in blue states like California and Illinois by winning with huge margins in just a few counties. The most interesting thing about those counties is that they are where the fewer middle class white live. 
 
I agree with this completely... split California down the center from north to south and the westside would be overwhelmingly Democratic and the eastside would be overwhelmingly Republican. 
 
I'm not the biggest fan of how they split up counties and states by Democrat or Republican. I think they should be split by how conservative or liberal they are. Like, for example, in my county in Florida, where I just voted via absentee ballot, I voted for a conservative Democrat. But if he wins, the media will automatically assume that the county has become more liberal, when in fact it will still be as conservative as before...

I think the author needs to be more careful about 'Communist/ Socialist groups'. In highly religious thrid world countries, they usually have a religious tinge to them (like Fatah in the West Bank). 
 
The modern manifestations of Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Fatah/PLO and the PFLP, definitely have a religious tinge to them, but back in the early 80s, during the period which Pape is discussing, they were generally secular organizations espousing pan-Arab or Communist ideology, or a mixture of the two.

The parallel you make is a valid one but I think seriously using the term "Islamic anarchist" would mostly lead to confused speculation about how imposing an islamic order is anarchistic, the term "anarchist" isn't sufficiently associated with the specific means of violence used by it's followers to be very communicative. 
 
I like the term "Islamic anarchist"... a lot! Based on the kinds of societies that Islamist terrorists train in, like the border regions of Pakistan, rural areas of Pacific islands, Afghanistan, semi-autonomous and heavily decentralized areas of India and south Asia, Chechnya and its autonomous border states, and chaotic Islamic nations like Somalia, it seems that they have very little interest in any form of central government, even though they say they want a caliphate and all that. Just to use Afghanistan as an example, the Taliban NEVER had full control over the country and the areas which were technically within its governance still had a very high level of local autonomy not seen in the more developed countries of the world; tribes and villages were(/are) very tightly-knit and changed allegiences on a regular basis depending on their interests. The border areas of Pakistan are an even better example, because there is no central government at all and the villages and tribes are highly autonomous and choose their allegiences based on their interests at the time. 
 
This is very much the sort of society advocated by guild and communal anarchists, ie, a society where there are a myriad of small, self-governing communities who are very tightly-knit and who operate and cooperate based solely on the interests of their locality. Sure, the Islamists are not socialists and utilize a system of economics that is, for lack of a better term, medieval and unscientific, but that doesn't mean that they aren't anarchistic; it just means they aren't left-wing. There are many different forms of anarchism, some leftist, some rightist, and some theocratic (like the models sometimes advocated by Christian Reconstructionists like Gary North).

we won't have the wealth to guard them all with high-tech surveillance equipment anytime soon 
 
...that's assuming that the technology will always be highly priced, which is simply not true. As its use increases, its price will decrease and the technology will continue to evolve. 
 
You have to remember... we're only spending about 3.5-4% of our GDP on the military right now. We could easily triple that with no significant impact on the economy (that's assuming, of course, that some existing non-military programs would have to be cut, which I doubt anybody in Congress would do... the military is always the one who takes the cut for social programs, not the other way around). 
 
I agree with Fly's comments, as well.

I agree with that, John.

Northern Ireland was a similiar case. Whenever anyone on the Catholic or the Protestant side tried to cut a deal, a splinter group would be formed which would try to sabotage the deal. 
 
I see what you're saying here. Yes, you're totally right about this nasty little fact, just I don't feel that can easily be applied to the case of the Palestinians. To Iraq, as you used in your example, you're right, as well.

The Israel-Palestine dynamic is such that any individual player or factional leader, especially among the Palestinians, can commit his side by breaking discipline. I'm not saying that that's what happened this time, but it does happen -- a treaty with "The Palestinians" can be broken by any individual Palestinian. 
 
This is crap. When both major parties in the Palestinian territories, who control the PA, are full-fledged terrorist organizations, and practically all the minor parties (PFLP, etc.) are, then every terrorist attack by those two major organizations is an attack undertaken by the PA. It's no different than an army attack undertaken by the Israeli government, except that it utilizes a different mode of warfare, in this case asymmetrical warfare as opposed to the conventional warfare conducted by the Israelis. 
 
The puzzling thing for everyone is why Israel attacked non-Hizbollah areas of Lebanon. 
 
...what non-Hezbollah areas have they hit, other than the airport? I know the Israelis have been trying to wipe out al-Manar in Beirut and they accidentally hit a UN post that, coincidentally (NOT!) was right next to a Hezbollah office.

why is that negative? 
 
Because the term "opportunism," by definition, and by its use by those who oppose Israeli actions, has a negative connotation. Next thing I'll see is people in these comments calling Israel's response "disproportionate," even though that is a factual statement in regards to Israel's response, it is still designed and used as a negative term, therefore I oppose using it. 
 
How can you stand up for your allies if you use the same terminology and phrases as descriptors as those who oppose your allies? You can't; you simply play into their hands instead.

Opportunism: "One who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences." 
 
Negative connotation.

if you are going to fight, fight hard, fight dirty as you can, and fight to win. 
 
They're fighting hard, but not dirty and not to win. You guys are delusional if you think so. 
 
And no, I don't think Israel fighting to defend itself is opportunistic... opportunism has a negative connotation which I do not accept.

What was different this time? 
 
Sharon was in charge on the last prisoner swap... that's what's changed: the PM. Olmert is in charge now.

it is clear that the action was planned for a long time 
 
Yeah, exactly, so what? That's what militaries do: they plan for wars so that they have a plan ready to go when it actually happens. Most countries, especially the bigger countries, have dozens of plans for things such as this. This is not some aberration; Israel is no different in this respect and they aren't exploiting the situation, as you are insinuating.

*with the best tactics

As for Lebanon, the fighting seems so ruthless because the more desperate the situation the more propaganda is used to make it appear worse than it is to convince those on one's side that it is justified to go to extreme lengths because the other side deserves it. 
 
What's going on over there is "ruthless"? I don't think so... only an individual with no knowledge of history or battlefield behavior would consider this war to be "ruthless." I believe it is not nearly ruthless enough. 
 
Dan, 
"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. This was no unplanned escalation. 
 
No, that means nothing: all it means is that Israel has planned for contingencies such as this. I'm sure they have plans for this sort of thing for almost every country in the Middle East. NATO has plans for dozens of countries, as does the US. We plan for these things ahead of time so, should they come up, we can simply pull them off the shelf and have a good blueprint to draw from. Any country who doesn't do that is just asking for it... 
 
Matoko, 
I disagree that the death penalties' primary function is retribution... the primary function of the death penalty is deterrence, although it is not used enough to have that desired effect. 
 
Also, there are so many different concepts of "just war theory" that I do not believe it is viable anymore. And I disagree that in a "just war" the "society with higher moral values will triumph." Quite the opposite: in a "just war," like in any other type of war, the society with the tactics to reach their strategic goals wins.

I'm with Dave. State-based or non-state-based terrorism is not a new form of warfare, nor is asymmetrical warfare. The deliberate killing of civilians for strategic effect, or even for utilitarian purposes, is not unknown in the annals of military history and is actually quite common. 
 
hizb' thought israel would make the prisoner swap, 'cause they had before. 
 
It wasn't just Hezbollah! The president of Lebanon was complicit and had this same line of thought, as I read on the news today. I think the president of Lebanon, who is very pro-Syrian, had knowledge of the kidnappings prior to their implementation. 
 
in the EEA the practice of sacrificing the tribes woman and children would have conferred a negative fitness hit. + Emerson's comment: I think that sacrificing the other people's women and children was a relatively rare exception to the rule. 
 
I don't know what you guys are getting at with this one, but I don't think all the leaders of the world for the past few hundred years who have never gone to war personally would agree with you on this. I think you're using a very simplistic model of evolution to reach this conclusion. I don't think there is any current model that takes account of this. 
 
Krampon: 
Ruthlessness may seem superficially more attractive but it is in the end an extreme position and as such prone to be fruit of unchecked passions. Romans had the famous adage - specifically emphasized for those in ruling positions in combat - that those who can't rule themselves - i.e. rein in their fears, keep composure and stay in command - can't rule others. 
 
...which is why they killed hundreds of thousands of their enemies and their enemy's women and children and took millions as slaves. Riiight...