This news is already two weeks old, but its implications will last longer than two weeks. I am talking, of course, of the resignation of John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN since August 2005, when the President used a recess appointment to get Mr. Bolton on the job. I guess I won't have to tell Americans that Mr. Bolton could have stayed in function, even despite the changed power balance in Congress, had it not been for Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island), who refused to lend his vote to the Republicans in the Senate's Foreign Relations committee. Outgoing Secdef Donald Rumsfeld once remarked that if you are not criticized, you're not doing your job well, and by that standard Mr. Bolton must have been doing a hell of a job. Read, for instance, how a certain Spencer Boyer of the Center for American Progress, whatever that may be, comments on the Ambassador's departure:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - John Bolton's resignation today as the US Ambassador to the United Nations is a positive development for the United States. Mr. Bolton was a diplomat who lacked diplomacy. His antagonistic ways tarnished the United States' relationships at the UN and denied him the political support in Washington he would have needed to keep the job. President Bush now has an opportunity to nominate an ambassador committed to reform of the institution in a positive way and who understands why the UN matters and how it can advance the national security goals of the United States
... committed to reform of the institution in a positive way... but, IIRC, it was Bolton who, upon assuming the function of UN Ambassador, threw on the table 750 amendments to a 29-page blueprint aimed at restating the ideals of the UN and proposing necessary reforms. 750 is a huge number and may indeed suggest contempt for the UN rather than a serious will to come up with valuable suggestions for reshaping "the world's government". At the time the media preferred to highlight the sexier amendments - like, e.g., the US's proposal to delete all references in the new UN chapter to the Holy 0.7 Per Cent of GNP To Be Set Aside By The Rich Countries For Third World Development. Picking out this amendment is, of course, a not so thinly veiled stab at America - because, after all, if the man in the street reads that the US does not even want to put a cipher that low on a development goal, it surely is the birthplace of heartless capitalism. In my opinion, and I do not say that to flatter DowneastBlog's US readership, the 0.7% Holy Cow is a hoax and the States have long since discovered that. Donations to developing countries do not help. The act of giving a drunk a buck he'll very likely spend on a Bud, will not lift him out of poverty, though it may give the donator a warm and fluffy feeling. It is no different with the 0.7% of GDP to be donated by the richer fellas at the UN Table. I can tell, because I could tell you a (nasty) thing or two about Belgian development aid. On the other hand, introducing free market reforms, privatizations, implementation of capitalist principles: these are the tools that will lift developing countries out of economic misery. And indeed, Bolton's amendments referred to the so-called Monterrey Consensus, a 2002 summit in Mexico that focused on free-market reforms and which required governments to improve accountability in exchange for aid and debt relief (can't see what's wrong with that, btw). Free market reforms are a proven means to make countries wealthier - as a matter of fact, a little known free market feat which happened only recently, namely new free trade legislation between most arab countries, immediately led to surging trade volumes and investments. It's things like that which will lift countries out of poverty, not some ludicrous vow to spend some stupid percentage meant to help, so to say, but in reality to cheaply buy one ounce of good conscience and two and a half ounces of frikking moral superiority.
Among those 750 amendments were also US suggestions on the Milennium Goals, the International Criminal Court, Climate Change and Nuclear Disarmament, but like I said, all of these sexy topics offered MSM at the time plenty of shooting opportunities to depict the US's UN envoy as a bully. The ICC? Golly, what sane person could possibly be against something noble as an ICC? But the folly of the ludicrous universal jurisdiction law in Belgium and Germany led thus far to Powell, Bush I and now Rumsfeld being threatened with lawsuits. Can someone possibly imagine what an ICC with jurisdiction over US citizens or US military personnel would be capable of? But what MSM wisely chose to ignore was that the UN Draft for Reform was at times written in such poor English that Bolton himself had to correct typos (changing "accordin" to "according" on one occasion), or that from the start he profiled himself as a champion for more ethics in the UN alleys (indeed succeeding shortly thereafter to revise the upper limit for gifts to UN employees from 10,000 US$ to just 250 US$.)
Now, all that was late summer 2005. We are sixteen months down the road now, and Bolton has to go. But in the sixteen months of his tenure, he was able to leave more than an imprint, indeed, proved himself to be an essential thriving force, in three domains:
A.) HUMAN RIGHTS.
Bolton has worked tirelessly to push for greater action by the U.N. Security Council and the international community over the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region, which has claimed over 250,000 lives. He played a key role in UNSC negotiations, pressing for more protection for the refugees against the Janjaweed and for targeted sanctions against Sudanese officials implicated in the murders. He also steered the US away from joining the UN's new Human Rights Council (the successor to the UN Human Rights Commission), on the grounds that it makes no sense to talk human rights violations with human rights violators: the council's members included experts in the field like Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.
This summer and fall, the UN's Human Rights Council proved itself to be a worthy successor to its predecessor (the UNHR Commission, which included murderous regimes such as Burma, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Zimbabwe), since in three consecutive "Special Sessions", Israel was lambasted while the real agressors and provocators got a blanco check. And then we do not even talk about the Council totally ignoring the continuous state-sanctioned human rights abuses in Belarus, Burma, Cuba, China, Iran, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.Some may argue that Bolton was wrong in not securing a seat for the US in the UN Human Rights Council. I disagree. By participating, the US would at the same time have been blocked and vetoed time and again. By contrast, painful though it may be for the sufferers from human rights abuses in the countries mentioned, a policy of non-participating has (hopefully) shown the world what a freak cabinet a Human Rights Council is when it is run by butchers.
B.) UN REFORM.
Bolton helped establish a General Assembly consensus on reforming the U.N. resource management and budget process, improving oversight, reviewing United Nations mandates, and reforming human resources management. He led an effort to cap the U.N. budget at $950 million, pending progress on U.N. reform. Partly due to Bolton’s efforts, the U.N. created an Ethics Office, mandated financial disclosure for U.N. officials, and increased resources for the Office of Internal Oversight Services.
A little known fact is also that Bolton was able to build coalitions in the UN. He forged one of 50 nations in the face of strong opposition by the so-called G-77, the Group of 77 Nations, some kind of a developing world counterweight against the G-8. Keep in mind that Ambassador Bolton's coalition was responsible for a staggering 87 percent of the U.N. regular budget, which made their demand for management reform all the more reasonable. Unfortunately, G-77 opposition ultimately succeeded in delaying and blocking the reform effort, with the General Assembly eventually approving a U.N. budget beyond the $950 million limit. Be that as it may, that does not diminish Bolton's qualities. I can't imagine someone else from the western world standing up like he did and demanding rightful transparence for usage of its funds.C.) NUCLEAR ARMS PROLIFERATION.
Since becoming US Ambassador at the UN, John Bolton has been at the forefront of the battle against proliferation of nuclear arms technology. He was instrumental in the adoption of three key UNSC Resolutions, 1695, 1696 and 1718. The first one, 1695, condemned North Korea’s test-firing of long-range ballistic missiles and urged an immediate return to the six-party talks. With regards to Iran, he played a key role in warning the international community of Tehran’s continuing enrichment of uranium and has tirelessly pressured the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to toughen its position on Iran’s nuclear activities. This led to UN Security Council Resolution 1696, which called on Iran to "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development" by the end of August or face possible sanctions. Then, when North Korea tested its first nuclear device on October 9, 2006, John Bolton successfully led U.S. efforts to rally international support for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, which imposed military and economic sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear test in October.
Of course, these days getting resolutions passed seems an excercise in futility. On the one hand, we have a Middle Eastern dictatorship of which the leadership, and not just Ahamdinejad, have vowed to destroy Israel. On the other hand, we have an Asian dictatorship which has actually tested a nuclear bomb and which also has launcher systems available. It is as good as certain that there are profound links between both regimes - Iranian military personnel is said to have been present at the missile launching over the Sea of Japan. And then one sees how difficult it was to even get the UN impose restrictions on NK buying luxury goods.
That said, one cannot but admire the tenacity with which John Bolton tried to stomp to life the dead hippopotamus which the UN had become under Kofi Annan's reign, especially so during his last months in office. Sadly, it is not his countless working hours and frantic coalition building trying to contain two dangerous maniacs, which we remember from last summer. Rather, it is the speech of yet another madman, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who, before the UN General Assembly in September, referred to President Bush with: "Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here." And yet again, after crossing himself: "Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today."
And to top it all off, Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain, the usually somber president of the General Assembly, adding: "He's quite a character..." And laughing.
EPILOGUE.
The killing in Darfur began in 2003. By summer 2004, there were an estimated 70,000 dead and 1,000,000 refugees (the numbers would rise to 250,000 and 2,000,000 respectively by fall of this year). Countless eyewitnesses confirmed the same scenario over and over and over again: villages bombed by the Sudanese Air Force, the survivors machinegunned by Sudanese gunships, then ethnic cleansing by janjaweed, including murder, rape and the burning alive of their victims... all of this with the support of the Sudanese Army. In Turtle Bay, in that same fateful summer of 2004, now more than two years ago, the UN Security Council voted in favor of a resolution threatening to impose sanctions if the Sudanese government did not stop atrocities in Darfur by the end of August. Elfatih Mohammed Ahmed Erwa, Sudan's ambassador to the United Nations, criticized the resolution for failing to recognize "improvements on the ground" and for pre-judging efforts by Sudan and the African Union to resolve the conflict peacefully, adding "The intention is there, the will is there, it's the pre-judging I'm worried about.". Earlier that year, in May, after Sudan had been elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, that same Erwa, before his appointment a.o. a Major General in the Sudanese Army and a Sudanse mukhabarat bigshot, had commented on the American Abu Ghraib PR snafu "that he was very concerned about human rights abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."In a perfect world, it would be Elfatih Mohammed Ahmed Erwa leaving the scene, preferably covered with tar and feathers, and with the Mother of All Spiked Boots planted squarely in his fat ass, and not John Bolton.
But, obviously, this is not a perfect world.
MFBB.
A few words about the Dutch presence under NATO-umbrella in Afghanistan. With 2,000 troops, The Netherlands is one of the main contributors to the ca. 20,000 strong ISAF-mission (not counting the ca. 11,000 US troops still operating within the framework of Operation Enduring Freedom - so ISAF and OEF count, taken together, some 31,000 troops). Over the past year, the Taliban have resurged again, mainly in the south, the centre and the east, and while US troops are mostly active in the east, the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan's centre and its south is borne by the Canadians, the British, the Dutch and the Danes. The Canadians have about 2,000 troops (with armored support of 20 Leopard I-tanks), mainly in the Kandahar region, the 
Camp Holland near Tarin Kowt is the biggest Dutch base. Ultimately, some 1,000 Dutch and 400 Australians will be stationed here. The main component of the Dutch troops is infantry: two companies of airmobile and armored infantry, supported by specialists of other branches. Camp Holland is also home to the staff of Task Force Uruzgan, the Provincial Reconstruction Team, and the Apache-detachment (six Apache Longbow helicopters). Medical support is provided by a Role 2 enhanced hospitaal with operation room, intensive care, blood bank, pharmacy and röntgen laboratory.
A few words about the newest artillery platform on the Dutch Army's inventory: the "Pantserhouwitser 2000", a literal translation of the German "Panzerhaubitze 2000". The PzH2000 is indeed a German development using the chassis of the trusted Leopard MBT (Main Battle Tank). Specs are: length 11.7 metres, width 3.50 metres, height 3.46 metres; weight is 55.5 tonnes (battle-ready), speed 62 kloms per hour (on hard road, cross-country some 40 kloms per hour). The engine is an eight cilinder diesel developing 1,000 HP. The PzH2000 has a crew of 5 and is armed with a 155mm gun and a machinegun for self-defence. It replaces the old M-109 A2/90 and the improvement over this Cold War era artillery piece is vast: e.g., whereas the 109's range was a mere 18 kilometres, the PzH2000 can throw a charge away over 40 kilometers. The shells weigh 40 to 45 kilograms, but this poses no problem for the crew since charging is automatic. Apart from that, armour and speed are better, cross-country performance too and especially rate of fire. The Dutch Army has currently two Pantserhouwitsers in Afghanistan, of which one was used in September 
In the night of November 9 to 10, 1938, tens of thousands of Jews in Germany and Austria had their windows smashed out, as "ordinary" German citizens and SA-men went on a rampaging tour with sledgehammers, leaving the streets covered with shards of glass. This infamous assault against a peaceful and contributing minority got to be known as the "Night of the Broken Glass" - 
At 9pm a group of Turkish youths gathered in the vicinity of the youth hostel. They shouted anti-Jewish slogans and besieged the hostel, throwing stones and pieces of concrete through the windows. Police arrived on the scene "to ease the tensions" and by 10pm "the situation was under control". Thereupon a school teacher accompanying the chassidic youngsters decided not to stay for the night in Beringen and fetch the boys back to Antwerp by bus.
Offer apologies to the Jewish youths.... Beringen is a community with a lot of Turkish immigrants. In fact, during the municipal elections the main contest for the mayor's seat ook place between Marcel Mondelaers, of the Christian Democratic Party CD & V, and a resident of Turkish origin, Selahattin Koçak, of the Socialist Party SP.a. Koçak stood a very good chance of becoming the first mayor of immigrant origin of a Belgian town, but his socialist party was in extremis beaten by the christian democrats with a difference of... 0.3%. Given the fact that indigenous Belgians, with a fertility rate of 1.5 children per woman, are on the road to extinction while the Turkish community with 3.5 children per woman is on the rise, Marcel Mondelaers may very well be Beringen's very last native Belgian mayor. Note, also, that Mr. Koçak preferred to throw in his lot with a socialist party. As I have already mentioned ad nauseam on these pages, it's striking how immigrants from a culture with archconservative views on the role of women in society, homosexual people, abortion and euthanasia and what not, time and again choose the side of leftist parties with views and values diametrically opposed to theirs.
Iter, I mean. Which stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. OK, the decision to build 
Why split it? Because energy is freed in the process. Think of a U235 atom as a core made up of 235 little balls. 92 of them are loaded electrically positive – they are called protons, the red balls to the left. The remainder, 143, are electrically neutral – we call them neutrons, they are the yellow ones. When you look at the drawing you see the denomination U235/92. It's not the most correct analogy, but try to think in terms of weights relevant to a truck. That would be its maximum authorized weight (the sum of its own mass plus its payload), and what really matters, the payload itself. In the same manner, the atomic weights relevant to this particular Uranium atom are 235 (its maximum weight), and what really matters, the 92 protons. So you really have to understand that the 92 "weight" is also included in the 235! Or put differently, the maximum atomic weight, 235, is the sum of the "protonic" weight, 92, and the "neutronic" weight, 143. Well, when a neutron similar to the ones in that Uranium core is shot inside that core, the core becomes a 236-ball constituency – but only for a splitsplitsplitsplit second, since unstable. It breaks up. It breaks up into two smaller cores, one with 144 balls and one with 89 balls. The former is called a Barium atom (Ba), the latter a Krypton atom (Kr). But hold it! Oops, 144 + 89 = 233??? That’s right, the breakup process produced two lighter cores and 215MeV of energy but… three little balls went missing. All three of them neutrons again, flying away at a mighty speed and as luck will have it smacking into three other U-235 atoms, which will again split and produce 3 x 215MeV = 645 MeV! Which is what is called a self-sustaining chain reaction. More details with excellent graphs 
Now fusion. Fusion is the process whereby energy is released not by splitting atom cores, but, on the contrary, by fusing them! The cores to be fused are Deuterium and Tritium, and please, don't run away now, it really isn't that complicated! Above we have already met the Uranium atom, one of the heavier atoms, consisting a.o. of 92 protons. Well, the very simplest atom has just one proton, and is called Hydrogen (H). Coupled with two Oxygen (O) atoms, Hydrogen forms a fluid we use tens of litres of each day - water: H2O. Now, while a Hydrogen atom thus consists of a core with just one positively laden proton (and one negatively laden electron circling around it), there are hydrogen atoms with heavier cores, because the sole proton is accompanied by either one electrically neutral neutron, and then we speak of Deuterium, or either two, and then we speak of Tritium. Deuterium and Tritium are the two isotopes of Hydrogen: the core's electrical charge is the same (in all three cases only one proton), but the weights differ. See the picture above, which is from the 
When deuterium and tritium fuse, for a brief instant they form an unstable nucleus of two protons and three neutrons, or a Helium atom with a mass of 5. This bursts apart as seen in the figure to the left, in a stable 4He helium nucleus (core consisting of two protons and two neutrons) with 3.5 MeV (1 MeV = 1 million eV) of kinetic energy swerving off in one direction, and a neutron with four times as much energy, 14.1 MeV, going off in the other. With its positive charge the helium 4He nucleus, also called an alpha particle (the so-called alpha rays, with a very low penetration ability, are merely rays of helium atoms), interacts strongly with surrounding material and stops rapidly, depositing 3.5 MeV of heat close to the site of the fusion reaction. The electrically neutral neutron can only slow down by colliding with other nuclei, transferring small amounts of kinetic energy to each just as a cue ball when it hits a pool ball, until finally the neutron is absorbed by some atom's nucleus, potentially several meters from the original fusion reaction. Thus, fusion results in kinetic energy transforming in heat. So far so good. However, in order to make Deuterium and Tritium to collide like that, one needs to put much more energy first. 
E.g., while not exactly a reactor, the so-called 
The horizontal axis depicts rising atomic mass numbers. So the more to the right you go, the heavier the atom. To the extreme left on that axis you'll find thus Hydrogen and its isotopes, to the extreme right heavy atoms like Uranium. The vertical axis stands for the energy binding together protons and neutrons in a core. This is thus also the energy freed either through fusion or fission. On the fusion "side", the higher the graph goes, the higher the binding energy, and you can see that the "ideal" zone corresponds with a mass number between 40 and 100. On the fission side, towards the right, the graph goes downhill. This is all theory of course. Theoretically, if you'd fuse somewhat heavier atoms than the ultralight hydrogen isotopes, you'd get more power ouput. Similarly, if you'd split lighter atoms than Uranium, you'd also get more output. In practice however, for a variety of reasons, uranium is used for fission and deuterium/tritium for fusion. Keep in mind though that a mixture of Deuterium and the heavier Helium is also considered to be a possible fusion fuel.
In a Tokamak the hot plasma is held in its place, not touching any solid matter, by strong toroidal and poloidal magnetic fields, see figure to the right. Absolutely necessary for the toroidal field is the huge central solenoid magnet. The poloidal field however... is generated by a large current, up to several million amperes, which flows through the plasma. This current is first induced by transformers and, after that, must be maintained "by non-inductive current drive or by self-generation of currents inside the plasma". Actually it's crazy: imagine that with a couple of colleagues all wearing isolating gloves and standing in a circle all of you try to hold an incredibly hot donut shaped balloon in place, one which writhes frantically to expand/explode, and you are still far off.
So, what does a Tokamak reactor look like from the inside? The photo shows the interior of an American Tokamak, the 
The criticism on Donald Rumsfeld mostly seems to crystallize around two main charges. The first one is that the current mayhem in Iraq is his fault because he ignored General Shinseki's recommendation that in order to maintain stability in Iraq "several hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed". Rumsfeld may indeed have underestimated the number of "occupation" troops, but your most obvious question which is never asked with regards to Shinseki's estimate is: where would he get them? As far as I know, the US Army numbers some 480,000 troops on active duty. Plus, perhaps 350,000 in the Army National Guard. Add to that the Army Reserve, give and take 200,000, plus some 70,000 Marines. Adding these four branches together one arrives at a grand total of 1,100,0000. Now suppose that Shinseki's goal was 350,000 men on the ground. I am not a military expert, but I gather that in order to maintain a field strength in Iraq like this, you need at least three times that number - or, 1,350,000, since I assume a working and bearable rotational plan involves three shifts whereby one shift is in the intended Theatre of Operations, one shift is resting and/or refitting, and one shift is readying itself to go. Well, as we have seen there simply are no 1,350,000 ground troops available! Moreover, I do not suspect all of these 350,000 National Guard troops can be mobilized all at once, and I suppose the same goes for the reserves. Then consider the troop requirements all over the planet from Europe over Afghanistan to South-Korea, which - quick guess - account for possibly 120,000 men. And you have a situation where you have to make do with a far less impressive personnel pool to provide for a permanent presence in Iraq. I haven't followed the particular topic too closely, but I read news flashes every once in awhile about it being always the same units that return, always too quick, 
The consternation in King Marke's camp upon seeing their hero returned from the dead quickly makes place for joy, but the young knight can't forget his Irish heartthrob. One day, King Marke receives a rather incongruous - given the state of war with Ireland - invitation from King Donnchadh for a tournament to be held at Donnchadh's residence, supposedly to herald a new era of cooperation. The price will be Donnchadh's daughter, Princess Isolde. Tristan, not knowing Isolde is actually his savior, volunteers to be King Marke's champion, who is a widower and to whom he feels indebted for having been adopted as an orphan. As could be expected, Tristan wins this tournament, and only then recognizes that he has won his lover for his Lord. Back in England, after King Marke's marriage to Isolde, the two try at first to suppress their emotions but soon see each other again secretly. Word of their affair spreads, and eventually reaches Donnchadh through Wictred, a renegade English knight who envies Markes' kingly rule. The two craft a plan whereby during a visit of the Irish Court to Marke, the latter will be publicly humiliated through disclosure of Tristan and Isolde's affair, and Donnchadh reckons that then is the time to dispose of a weakened Marke and replace him with the more trustworthy Wictred.
By and large I found Tristan & Isolde quite entertaining. It was also the third movie I saw with Kevin Reynolds as director, after Fandango (1985) and The Beast (1988), and I'd say that Reynolds lacks just that little bit that would make him a real powerplayer among directors. It's not that his productivity is low; Kubrick's was lower. But there seems to be lacking some drive. Either he chooses mostly mediocre scripts, e.g. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), or he isn't a tyrant enough on the set. Possibly a bit too much intimacy too (especially in Fandango). And then there's the fact Reynolds seems to have trouble finding budgets with clout to finance his films - you can see that Tristan & Isolde is really, really low budget. Not surprisingly perhaps, since the only time he really did oversee a huge project, Waterworld (1995), it flopped terribly. That said, Tristan... gets the green light from yours truly, not in the least because of the fine acting. Both James Franco (who was also in both Spidermans) and Sophia Myles (Underworld) glow in their roles - watch out for those two - and Rufus Sewell too plays a very plausible King Marke. The producer of Tristan and Isolde is Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven).
To dwell a little longer on Reynolds' curriculum, the one movie that really, really left a lasting impression on me was The Beast (1988), which came out here in Europe as The Beast of War. It tells the story of a Soviet tank crew who, after having destroyed an Afghan village in 1981, get lost in a dead-end valley and are chased by mujahideen. Not surprisingly, Reynolds too calls The Beast his best film. I saw it first in 1989 IIRC at the International Film Festival of Ghent, and back then it was really trendsetting as far as combat scenes go, if you discount Platoon (Platoon was very good for combat scenes and general atmosphere, but I absolutely disliked the pathetical way Willem Dafoe went down as well as the PC message that "the enemy was inside us"). Actually, I'm surprised that The Beast received comparatively little praise since all of it - crew, director, story, special effects - were top notch. After the performance, I walked into the lobby of Decascoop, Gents main movie theatre, and bumped into Mr. Reynolds, a guy from Decascoop and George Dzundza, who plays the bad sergeant Daskal, the tank commander. Dzundza, who I believe is from Georgian origin (that's Georgia in the Caucasus, not in the Bible Belt) is a chap who also played in Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter. I was able to exchange a few words with Mr. Dzundza about the tank which is more or less a star too in the movie, the way the F-14 Tomcat was a star in Top Gun. As a tank geek, I don't like it when directors fail to come up with "correct" tanks in depicting historical battles, think Patton tanks for Tigers in movies about the Ardennes Offensive. But the T-55 in The Beast was goddam real. I asked Mr. Dzundza how on earth they had managed to get a genuine Russian tank at their disposal (remember, it was still the Cold War) and it turned out it was a Syrian army tank captured by the IDF. For the tank nutters among you, see the poster to the left. The gap between the first and second wheel identifies it as a T-55, not a T-62. I read somewhere that Russian tank designers put in that space to allow for easily making a tank with a blasted track roadborne again in case spare tracks were missing. The idea was that the crew would simply omit "the missing links" and drape the remaining track along the shorter wheelbase.
While it is clear that the violence has in fact continued unabated throughout the year, especially since last month it seems to have gained momentum, with the French Interior Ministry claiming a total of 
From my perspective in Belgium, Frances northern neighbour, one thing is very obvious, apart from the scale of the troubles of course. That is the TOTAL BLACKOUT in the Belgian Regime Media. One would think that with nearly 32,000 cars burned and 3,000 police officers wounded, it would be frontpage news and/or news item no°1 on TV. After all, Paris is barely 3 hours driving from Brussels. And yet... nothing. Nada. Niks. Nichts. Rien. Could it be that Belgian MSM received secret instructions from the powers that be to broadcast nothing that could smash the wonderful multicultural Utopia to smithereens? Especially around election time? It could be. In fact, it would not surprise me in the least. Belgium is, like France, a country where the Left is entrenched in power to an extent unthinkable in the US. There simply is no alternative viewpoint save from blogs. Unfortunately, despite all the bruhaha about the impact of blogs on the media landscape, fact is that blogs ultimately reach relatively few people. And so it is with sadness and horror that people who get a glimpse of reality, like yours truly, view the march of the ignorant masses towards doom. There are going to be presidential elections come next spring. The main candidate for the French Parti Socialiste is a woman, 53-year old Ségolène Royal. Tens of thousands of French Police Officers may be besieged each and every day, resulting in an everyday average of 14 wounded ones, but Madame Royal, more aware of the grave danger posed by capitalism and free markets, was quoted on October 13 as: