Unqualified Offerings

I’m getting a subscription just so I can cancel it

9 Responses to “I’m getting a subscription just so I can cancel it”

1. Comment by William Burns —
   May 11, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

   The link doesn’t work, or else the sheer stupidity has overloaded my browser.

2. Comment by Gary Farber —
   May 11, 2008 @ 3:20 pm

   “If I type anything else about this I’ll descend into a stream of curse words, so I’ll stop now.”

   Who wants to invade Burma? Link?

3. Comment by Stephen Smith —
   May 11, 2008 @ 3:43 pm

   The NYT got in on the action, too:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11opclassic.html

   It’s a little more subtle, but it’s the same idea. The part where they hold up a possible invasion of Romania in 1989 is pretty hilarious, too, considering the politics of Romania after the “revolution.” I wrote a little bit about it in the latest post in my blog.

4. Comment by ML —
   May 11, 2008 @ 6:04 pm

   That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma…. But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government’s xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops as hostile forces.

   Now where would they get a crazy idea like that?

5. Comment by Jennifer —
   May 11, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

   Invasion would be dumb, but the idea of airdropping aid on Burma without the junta’s approval sounds appealing. And include some guns and ammo along with the food and water, and let the Burmese liberate themselves.

6. Comment by Badtux —
   May 11, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

   Airdropping aid is a pretty bad idea if you have folks with AA cannon below you who don’t like you. The deal being that you have to parachute the stuff down if you’re shoving it out the back of a Herc, and you have to fly real low and slow if you expect your airdropped goodies to land anywhere near the folks you’re trying to help otherwise the winds will carry your parachute’ed goods away with them to some other place entirely. And if you fly that low and slow over ground your own military doesn’t control, you’re dead — Hercs are tough, but 88mm AA cannon will still bring’em down. I guess what it boils down to is that an effective airdrop is impossible without the cooperation of the military beneath you. Just ask the French at Dien Bien Phu. Oh right, you can’t, because after the airdrops were forced to high altitudes by Vietnamese AA cannon, the airdrops rarely came to earth near them and they starved and ran out of ammo and died.

   But hey, this is logistics, which isn’t sexy, so nobody seems to know or care about it nowdays. Of course, it’s logistics that typically determine who wins or loses wars, but hey, let’s go fondle some penis substitute missiles or something sexy like that, eh?

   - Badtux the Military Penguin

7. Comment by Glaivester —
   May 11, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

   Badtux -

   Could you airdrop using a time-delayed or remote-controlled parachute that would only open when the aid is close enough to the target not to be blown far by the winds?

8. Comment by Jeff in Texas —
   May 13, 2008 @ 9:05 am

   Logistics and practicality aside, what is disturbing is how casual a suggestion it is in a mainstream news mag that we invade another country that poses no threat to us at all. In a few years the headline will be “Free Trade Talks Between US, France Break Down– Time to Occupy Paris?”

9. Comment by ajay —
   May 13, 2008 @ 10:05 am

   Hey, I remember the last time the US tried airdropping aid to the starving. Remember that? Afghanistan, 2002? The food got blown all over the place; the packages ruptured on landing, so the food got contaminated and spoiled; it was packed in yellow packages, so people mistook it for clusterbomb submunitions; the local warlords gathered it up and resold it; some people ate the dessicant packs…
   And the time before, in Bosnia, they airdropped pork to the Muslims!