[OPE] Mr Obama in Turkey

Mr Obama has been making a lot a excellent, splendid speeches lately, and the most recent one was in Turkey. In fact, I personally get quite excited by them, but most of my countrymen rarely do. That's because a Dutchman typically thinks about how it will work out in dollars and cents, or euros and cents. It's not that Dutch people are completely cynical; there's a time to work, and a time to play. It's just a sort of sobriety that slips away only with a lacing of liquor, giving rise to the notion of "Dutch courage". It's not that the Dutch have no courage either, they do, but it often starts to show, only after others have given up.

Anyway, in his Turkey speech Mr Obama ventured to say that "There is an old Turkish proverb: "You cannot put out fire with flames. America knows this. Turkey knows this. There are some who must be met with force. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together."

That is exactly true, except...

Back in 1977, I worked in the New Zealand Forest Service, and I had it explained to me, that in forestry, this isn't true.

And, actually, the Parks Canada (the source of the ultimate wisdom about the world) says the same thing:

"Generations of North Americans have been raised with Smokey the Bear extolling us to prevent forest fires. Seeing firefighters lighting fires near a wildfire, instead of spraying water on it, may create confusion. "Why are they making the fire bigger? is a common question. The truth is that deliberately lit fire is a very important weapon in the firefighter's arsenal. Fire fighting techniques can be grouped into two broad categories direct and indirect control. Direct control suppresses the fire through putting water or retardant adjacent to or directly onto the fire from helicopters, airtankers or hoses. Direct control works best on smaller fires or slow burning fires and is also used when people and structures are at immediate risk. Direct control is less effective and extremely dangerous on large, active fires. Extreme fire behaviour is usually accompanied by high winds, blowing embers, high temperatures, unpredictable air currents, and massive amounts of smoke. This may create situations that are too risky for ground and aerial attack. Indirect control establishes a fireguard in the path of the fire and takes advantage of favourable terrain and natural firebreaks. The fireguard is created by physically removing fuels or through coating fuel with retardants to reduce its flammability. With the fireguard established, the unburned fuels between the guard and the wildfire are burned out, when conditions allow, using hand drip torches or by aerial ignition with drip torches or ping-pong balls filled with self-igniting chemicals. Burning out allows fire managers to choose the time and place that the fuels get burned rather than remaining at the whim of fire behaviour and weather. Indirect control is used when there is space and time to establish an extensive fireguard. It is sometimes the only way to protect structures in the fire's path. Fires may also be lit to create air currents in order to draw the main fire, smoke and lofted embers toward or away from some areas. http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/kootenay/plan/plan9_E.asp

So the substance of the geopolitical issue is the concept of "pre-emptive attack".

According to Mr Bush, "ruling the world" was a bit like "forestry", and then it makes sense to "fight fire with fire". You beat the shit out of the other guy, before he gets strong enough to do real damage to your interests. The trouble is, Mr Bush is a boy who played with matches. Now there's at least a million (!) post-invasion war dead in Iraq, and that fact is explicitly linked to the christofascist crusader view of the destiny of the world.

This doesn't strengthen what the West stands for, it weakens it.

Mr Obama is kind of poetic, but clearly the two main issues are:

(1) are there any rational-scientific grounds justifying pre-emptive war, in violation of international law?
(2)

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Apr 6 14:01:58 2009