LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

sebastian_dangerfield 10-12-2007 06:16 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Is free trade a net benefit for the economy as a whole? I think so. Are there people who disproportionately benefit from it, and are there people who disproportionately suffer from it? I think so. Should we try to pass laws that spread the pains and gains? Again, I think so. As an aside, I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.
You're giving unions way too much credit there. They were flagging before this admin took office. This admin cares about free trade because engaging in it is the only way we can compete and keep our economy going. And it helps Wall St.

I agree with spreading pain and gain. But the instrumentality used for that spreading always seems to target and hurt people like us instead of the disproportionately enriched.

Spanky 10-12-2007 06:17 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
We've been through this before -- people who have lost their factory jobs have been hurt by free trade,
We are talking about free trade agreement, not ree trade in general. What free trade agreements have cost these people these jobs? Was there some law that prevented companies from setting up factories overseas that was repealed by some free trade agreement I was not aware of?

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Is free trade a net benefit for the economy as a whole? I think so. Are there people who disproportionately benefit from it, and are there people who disproportionately suffer from it? I think so. Should we try to pass laws that spread the pains and gains? Again, I think so. As an aside, I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.
Who are thes people that are suffering from recent trade Agreements? Who was hurt by NAFTA? Who was hurt by the WTO?

Spanky 10-12-2007 06:24 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.
Yes that is why so much political (and monetary) capital is put into free trade agreements. Just to punish the unions and the environmentalists. All this money is spent on lobbyists by these large corporations, not to help the bottom line, or benefit their shareholders, but just to make some people a little more miserable. Yes, Bush has limited political capital, and not much time left in his administration to effect his legacy but he is not going to use that time on stuff he wants to accomplish and his legacy, he is going to use it just for sour grapes…..I think this may be the dumbest statement I have heard all year.

Not Bob 10-12-2007 06:31 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Who are thes people that are suffering from recent trade Agreements? Who was hurt by NAFTA?
People that worked in the GM Delphi factories. You know, the ones that used to be in the US and moved to Mexico.

Not Bob 10-12-2007 06:35 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes that is why so much political (and monetary) capital is put into free trade agreements. Just to punish the unions and the environmentalists. All this money is spent on lobbyists by these large corporations, not to help the bottom line, or benefit their shareholders, but just to make some people a little more miserable. Yes, Bush has limited political capital, and not much time left in his administration to effect his legacy but he is not going to use that time on stuff he wants to accomplish and his legacy, he is going to use it just for sour grapes…..I think this may be the dumbest statement I have heard all year.
Read what I said, not what you think I said.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-12-2007 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Guaranteed failure? That is an awfully self assured statement to make about the future. And what exactly are these guys’ credentials for him to know exactly what is going to happen in the Middle East if we continue on the present course?
The article itself is a better guide than his credentials, but since you asked, he's a professor at Illinois. The article was published in The American Conservative, of all places.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-12-2007 06:49 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This admin cares about free trade because engaging in it is the only way we can compete and keep our economy going. And it helps Wall St.
The administration "cares" about free trade because it helps the country as a whole and its political supporters, except when it doesn't, in which case the administration is all too happy to throw free trade out the window, as it's done (e.g.) with steel and agricultural subsidies.

Spanky 10-12-2007 07:16 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
People that worked in the GM Delphi factories. You know, the ones that used to be in the US and moved to Mexico.
And these factories were moved because of NAFTA.? NAFTA negated some law that prevented US companies from shutting down auto plants? and it further prevented US companies from builging auto plants in other countries?

Spanky 10-12-2007 07:19 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Read what I said, not what you think I said.
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob We've been through this before -- people who have lost their factory jobs have been hurt by free trade, and the fact that they can buy cheap Chinese toys for their kids at Wal-Mart on their unemployment checks is cold comfort. Why should they vote for people who support economic policies that cost them their jobs?
Was this said by another "not Bob"? Because my statement was a direct and pertient response to this ignorant diatribe.

Spanky 10-12-2007 07:22 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The administration "cares" about free trade because it helps the country as a whole and its political supporters, except when it doesn't, in which case the administration is all too happy to throw free trade out the window, as it's done (e.g.) with steel and agricultural subsidies.
So then you disagree with Not Bob when he says " that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade."?

Not Bob 10-12-2007 07:22 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
And these factories were moved because of NAFTA.? NAFTA negated some law that prevented US companies from shutting down auto plants? and it further prevented US companies from builging auto plants in other countries?
By this logic, free trade agreements are irrelevant. So why do we need them?

There's also no law requiring the use of lead paint on Thomas the Tank Engine toys. And yet it happens.

Not Bob 10-12-2007 07:30 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Was this said by another "not Bob"? Because my statement was a direct and pertient response to this ignorant diatribe.
Actually you were replying to a different post. See below. My point wasn't about the business community or shareholders or lobbyists. My point was about the Bush Administration. You and Ty argued ad naseum for what seemed like eons about how Bush was unwilling to add any labor or environmental protections into the free trade deals in order to get them passed. Surely you remember that?

Anyway, my point is that Bush's unwillingness to do so shows that he cared more about scoring political points than he did about free trade (see also steel subsidies). You obviously disagree about that, and that's fine, but at least do me the courtesy of disagreeing with what I actually say.


Originally posted by Not Bob
I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes that is why so much political (and monetary) capital is put into free trade agreements. Just to punish the unions and the environmentalists. All this money is spent on lobbyists by these large corporations, not to help the bottom line, or benefit their shareholders, but just to make some people a little more miserable. Yes, Bush has limited political capital, and not much time left in his administration to effect his legacy but he is not going to use that time on stuff he wants to accomplish and his legacy, he is going to use it just for sour grapes…..I think this may be the dumbest statement I have heard all year.

Spanky 10-12-2007 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The article itself is a better guide than his credentials,
That is like saying Stalin is better than Hitler. There is no clearer indicator of how stupid someone is, as when they say they say they know exactly what will happen in the future when a certain course of action is taken. The future is always about probabilities not absolutes (otherwise Vegas wouldn’t exist) This guying is sitting in the Midwest ten thousand miles from Iraq yet he knows exactly what is going on and what to do about it.

Not Bob 10-12-2007 07:39 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Was this said by another "not Bob"? Because my statement was a direct and pertient response to this ignorant diatribe.
Dude, you asked why a Democratic candidate would oppose free trade. I gave you a reason -- their constituents were hurt by it. How is this an ignorant diatribe?

(Apropos of nothing, this may be why free trade is in trouble. Supporters of it who happen to recognize that, while it is overall a good thing, it hurts certain segments of the country are accused of launching an ignorant diatribe. Anyway, whatever dude. You can have the last word with a cut and paste from The Economist.)

Oliver_Wendell_Ramone 10-12-2007 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There is no clearer indicator of how stupid someone is, as when they say they say they know exactly what will happen in the future when a certain course of action is taken.
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There would be a massive civil war with lots of casualties.
Indeed.

Spanky 10-12-2007 07:46 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
By this logic, free trade agreements are irrelevant. So why do we need them?
So if factories are not shut down, free trade agreements are irrelevant? Are you kidding? Did you get hit over the head with a baseball bat this morning? It is only opportunistic populist politicians and the ignorant people who believe them that think free trade agreements are only about closing factorys.. So if no factory is shut down they are irrelevant. Ever heard of "comparative advantage"? Have you ever heard of leveraging the existence of comparative advantage so all citizens of two trading partners benefit? Free trade is about cheaper products and raising the standard of living of all the people that live in the free trade area. Just look at countries that turn their backs on free trade (like Burman and Cuba). There are no winner and losers. Just losers.

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
There's also no law requiring the use of lead paint on Thomas the Tank Engine toys. And yet it happens.
Exactly. Free trade agreement don't address the ability of companies to close or open factories and yet with or with out these agreements they open and close them in different countries all the time. The biggest factor in whether a factory opens or clkoses in a certain area is how the local government treats them.

Spanky 10-12-2007 07:51 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Originally posted by Not Bob
I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush has limited political capital, and not much time left in his administration to effect his legacy but he is not going to use that time on stuff he wants to accomplish and his legacy, he is going to use it just for sour grapes…..I think this may be the dumbest statement I have heard all year. [/QUOTE]

You don't think the bottom statement is a direct response to the top statement?

Spanky 10-12-2007 07:59 PM

quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Spanky
There is no clearer indicator of how stupid someone is, as when they say they say they know exactly what will happen in the future when a certain course of action is taken.
________________________________________

quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Spanky
There would be a massive civil war with lots of casualties.
________________________________________


Quote:

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Indeed.
Why did you find it necessary to edit my statement? Why didn’t you include the whole thing…..?



Originally posted by Spanky
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't it pretty much universally agreed that if the US pulled out there would be a huge blood bath and a market increase in violence? There would be a massive civil war with lots of casualties.


Oh wait, if you included the whole statement that would show that you are full of it. Nice try. Better luck next time.

ltl/fb 10-12-2007 08:04 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Dude, you asked why a Democratic candidate would oppose free trade. I gave you a reason -- their constituents were hurt by it. How is this an ignorant diatribe?

(Apropos of nothing, this may be why free trade is in trouble. Supporters of it who happen to recognize that, while it is overall a good thing, it hurts certain segments of the country are accused of launching an ignorant diatribe. Anyway, whatever dude. You can have the last word with a cut and paste from The Economist.)
I don't think that the Economist even would be saying you were blathering an ignorant diatribe. You are correct.

Spanky 10-12-2007 08:11 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Anyway, whatever dude. You can have the last word with a cut and paste from The Economist.)
That was actually from Statfor. The Economist usually doesn't blather on so much. I just liked the article because it showed that I am exactly where I belong in the political spectrum. Evangelical Republicans and Democrats are against free. That is why I am a moderate Republican.

Not Bob 10-12-2007 08:14 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Not Bob:
I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.

Spanky 1:
Bush has limited political capital, and not much time left in his administration to effect his legacy but he is not going to use that time on stuff he wants to accomplish and his legacy, he is going to use it just for sour grapes…..I think this may be the dumbest statement I have heard all year.

Spanky 2:
You don't think the bottom statement is a direct response to the top statement?
Now that you've edited your post to only that, yes.

Not Bob 10-12-2007 08:18 PM

Lorries queued up for petrol and tyres.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think that the Economist even would be saying you were blathering an ignorant diatribe. You are correct.
Aw, you're such a sweetie.

SlaveNoMore 10-12-2007 10:20 PM

Larry Kudlow
 
While Cramer blows up - in several ways - all over the media. Kudlow keeps reminding us of sobering stats.

Today, from the Corner

Quote:

I’m surprised that today’s Wall Street Journal story on income inequality failed to mention that while the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earned 21.2 percent of all incomes in 2005, they now pay nearly 40 percent of all taxes.

In 1980, before the Reagan supply-side tax-cut revolution was launched, the top 1 percent earned 8.5 percent of all income and paid 19.1 percent of all taxes. So while the rich are getting richer, the rich are also paying the lion’s share of the taxes.

As others have pointed out, the top 5 percent of income earners pay 60 percent of the taxes. The top 25 percent pay 86 percent of taxes. And the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all taxes.
Now Uncle Charlie wants to tip the scales even more. Sheesh.

Hank Chinaski 10-12-2007 11:30 PM

Larry Kudlow
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
While Cramer blows up - in several ways - all over the media. Kudlow keeps reminding us of sobering stats.

Today, from the Corner



Now Uncle Charlie wants to tip the scales even more. Sheesh.
i thought you guys didn't like quotas?

Tyrone Slothrop 10-12-2007 11:48 PM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So then you disagree with Not Bob when he says " that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade."?
I think Not Bob was observing that the administration cares more about free trade as a political weapon than out of principle, and that's what I was saying too.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-12-2007 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
This guying is sitting in the Midwest ten thousand miles from Iraq yet he knows exactly what is going on and what to do about it.
How could he be so oblivious? Meanwhile:
  • The former U.S. commander in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, has delivered a withering indictment of the the White House's handling of the war, telling a gathering of military journalists that "America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

    “There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” said Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces from June 2003 to July 2004.

    "After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said, adding that a military-only strategy will simply "stave off defeat," not achieve victory. “From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power.”

    He also also assailed government officials of being “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power."

    "The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable."

    Sanchez is the most senior military officer to criticize the administration's prosecution of the war. He said he did not he speak out sooner because officers take an oath to carry out the orders of the president while in uniform.

    “The last thing that America wants, the last thing that you want, is for currently serving general officers to stand up against our political leadership,” he said.

    No immediate comment from the White House.

USA Today

Hank Chinaski 10-13-2007 12:08 AM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think Not Bob was observing that the administration cares more about free trade as a political weapon than out of principle, and that's what I was saying too.
on another note, the talk radio station that i would listen to on my drive to/from work changed to sports.

i'm listening to chubby guys who never played sports second guessing professional football coaches. i just keep thinking "who the fuck are you to have such strong opinions when you ain't got clue 1." sorry to break the convo away from your very insightful comments.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-13-2007 12:31 AM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
on another note, the talk radio station that i would listen to on my drive to/from work changed to sports.

i'm listening to chubby guys who never played sports second guessing professional football coaches. i just keep thinking "who the fuck are you to have such strong opinions when you ain't got clue 1." sorry to break the convo away from your very insightful comments.
Listen carefully to some of President Bush's speeches and you may start to grasp this whole democracy business.

Hank Chinaski 10-13-2007 12:33 AM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Listen carefully to some of President Bush's speeches and you may start to grasp this whole democracy business.
translation: i watch david letterman when he mocks some stump speech by comparing it to "ask not what your can do for your country", of course i've blocked out from my mind the w speeches after 9/11.

Atticus Grinch 10-13-2007 02:29 AM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's a little odd to see an advocate of free trade insist that so many people are irrational.
If we shut up and stopped confusing them as to their best interests, they would doubtless become more rational.

Atticus Grinch 10-13-2007 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That is like saying Stalin is better than Hitler.
Is this the PB's first double-Godwin? That's gotta be like winning an Oscar and a Nobel.

Atticus Grinch 10-13-2007 02:35 AM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The biggest factor in whether a factory opens or clkoses in a certain area is how the local government treats them.
The existence of Silicon Valley, as well as the persistent economic success of California generally, would tend to disprove your point.

Atticus Grinch 10-13-2007 02:38 AM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i'm listening to chubby guys who never played sports second guessing professional football coaches.
If it's radio, how do you know the callers are chubby, or do you just sorta figure because it's Michigan?

Hank Chinaski 10-13-2007 09:57 AM

Democrats and Social Conservatives = economic morons
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If it's radio, how do you know the callers are chubby, or do you just sorta figure because it's Michigan?
i mean the other meaning of "chubby" and i guess i just assumed.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-15-2007 06:32 PM

It's hard to understand how Blackwater could have been allowed -- paid, actually -- to do what it's been doing for so long.
  • Blackwater and me: A love story it ain't

    By Robert Bateman
    October 12, 2007

    I know something about Blackwater USA. This opinion is both intellectually driven as well as moderately emotional. You see, during my own yearlong tour in Iraq, the bad boys of Blackwater twice came closer to killing me than did any of the insurgents or Al Qaeda types. That sort of thing sticks with you. One story will suffice to make my point.

    The first time it happened was in the spring of 2005. For various reasons, none of which bear repeating, I was moving through downtown Baghdad in an unmarked civilian sedan. I was with two other men, but they had the native look, while I was in my uniform, hunched in the back seat and partially covered by a blanket, hoping that the curtains on the window were enough to conceal my incongruous presence, not to mention my weapons. It was not the normal manner in which an Army infantry major moved around the city, but it was what the situation called for, so there I was. We were in normal Baghdad traffic, with the flow such as it was, in the hubbub of confusion that is generated when you suddenly introduce more than 1 million extra vehicles in the course of two years into a city that previously had only a few hundred thousand vehicles, and no real licensing authority.

    As we approached one semi-infamous intersection along the main route used by Blackwater between the International Zone (a.k.a. the Green Zone) and the Ministry of Interior, one of Blackwater's convoys roared through. Apparently, Blackwater's agents did not like the look of us, the main body of cars in front of them. Their response was, to say the least, contrary to the best interests of the United States effort in Iraq. Barreling through in their huge, black armored Suburbans and Expeditions, they drove other cars onto the sidewalk even as they popped off rounds from at least one weapon, though I cannot say if the shots were aimed at us or fired into the sky as a warning. I do know one thing: It enraged me ... and Blackwater is, at least nominally, on our side.

    But imagining that incident from an Iraqi perspective made it clear to me that though Blackwater USA draws its paycheck from Uncle Sam, it's not working in Uncle Sam's best interests. If I was this angry, I can only imagine the reactions of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who encounter Blackwater personnel on a regular basis.

    Iraq operates on the basis of an honor culture. Honor is, arguably, more important than Islam. Being dishonored, in word or deed, or even by implication, is enough to set the average Iraqi man to plotting his revenge. This is a culture in which political assassinations (usually based on honor issues) are not an abstraction but an everyday occurrence. Every time one of those Blackwater convoys drives an Iraqi civilian off the road because the most important thing in the world is the protection of their "principal," they make a new enemy for the United States. Every time they ram another car to clear the way (and, yes, I've seen them do that), so that they could maintain their own speed and thereby minimize their exposure to "improvised explosive devices," they make another enemy. Every time they kill innocent civilians, or wound them, they make whole families of new enemies.

    This understanding of the backlash effect from dishonoring an Iraqi is included in a past military counterinsurgency manual, "Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq during World War II," recently re-published by the University of Chicago Press. But the reality is that Blackwater USA, from top to bottom, just does not care.

    What employees of the private security firm care about, and I have heard this from the Blackwaters with whom I interacted in Iraq, is their paycheck. They care about their huge compensation packages, and about getting home alive to spend them. Blackwater USA has already taken in more than $1 billion from the public coffers.

    All in all, that's not a bad take for Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater and a Naval Academy dropout who served less time under the colors of the nation, in uniform, than my most recent pair of boots.

    ----------

    Robert Bateman is a historian and U.S. Army infantry officer. He served in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. His most recent book is "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident."

Chicago Tribune

Cletus Miller 10-15-2007 06:54 PM

Larry Kudlow
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
While Cramer blows up - in several ways - all over the media. Kudlow keeps reminding us of sobering stats.

Today, from the Corner

[Kudlow on Taxes]

Now Uncle Charlie wants to tip the scales even more. Sheesh.
If it's so obvious, then why the need to say "taxes" when the statistics he cites to are for "personal income taxes"?

Hank Chinaski 10-15-2007 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Iraq operates on the basis of an honor culture. Honor is, arguably, more important than Islam. Being dishonored, in word or deed, or even by implication, is enough to set the average Iraqi man to plotting his revenge. This is a culture in which political assassinations (usually based on honor issues) are not an abstraction but an everyday occurrence. Every time one of those Blackwater convoys drives an Iraqi civilian off the road because the most important thing in the world is the protection of their "principal," they make a new enemy for the United States. Every time they ram another car to clear the way (and, yes, I've seen them do that), so that they could maintain their own speed and thereby minimize their exposure to "improvised explosive devices," they make another enemy.
I would think, if I were a Iraqi citizen, that I would want a Blackwater convoy to push past me rather than sit behind me in traffic for any length of time. IEDs are not smart bombs.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-15-2007 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I would think, if I were a Iraqi citizen, that I would want a Blackwater convoy to push past me rather than sit behind me in traffic for any length of time. IEDs are not smart bombs.
Much as Poles doubtless were happier with the Blitzkrieg, as it meant that the Wehrmacht kept right on truckin' instead of reaching town and hanging around.

andViolins 10-15-2007 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Much as Poles doubtless were happier with the Blitzkrieg, as it meant that the Wehrmacht kept right on truckin' instead of reaching town and hanging around.
Blackwater wasn't hired to win the hearts and minds. Blackwater was hired to protect the principal. Sounds to me like they do a hell of a job. So who's at fault?

aV

Tyrone Slothrop 10-15-2007 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
Blackwater wasn't hired to win the hearts and minds. Blackwater was hired to protect the principal. Sounds to me like they do a hell of a job. So who's at fault?
Whoever hired them, mostly, although I'm also inclined to fault Blackwater for indiscriminately shooting at Iraqis. YMMV.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com