Politics: J'accuse!

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"toe the line ...

I so have a crush on you right now.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You mean Waco?

I don't recall any standoff that was stymied because it was on an Indian reservation. The folks up in Idaho, who shot a couple FBI agents and were themselves shot (while using their baby as a shield), were simply resisting arrest.

Or maybe it was the RI tobacco sellers who refused to submit to state taxation rules for sales to non-Indians?

Or something altogether different?

Maybe Hank was thinking about the Mohawks. In the late 80s/early 90s, they had a spat with the Canadian government (and an armed stand-off with the Canadian army), and an internal dispute (almost a civil war) over the operations of their casino on their reservation in New York. New York State Police set up check points going in and out of the reservation to try to keep the peace, but did not enter.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Me
The other thing that people in this state have to accept is that they have enjoyed practically free high quality universities and the state can no longer afford that. Students in most other states pay a much larger share of their tuition. These students figure out a way to do it, even in states with lower average and median incomes.

That's because low in-state tuition only benefits the wealthiest families. Financial aid is based upon ability to pay. In theory, at least, if one can afford $1500 a year in tuition, that is what one pays whether one goes to Stanford or Cal or some community college, unless of course, the amount of tuition is actually less. So if one pays less than full tuition now, in theory a tuition hike doesn't impact one at all. In reality, the impact varies much by state and how they calcualte financial need. So a tuition hike only impacts those who can afford to pay more. I say go for it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Porn workers have no parallel quota.

I am guessing that this was merely unfortunate phrasing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If it were merely "toe the line or you will lose the next election because you're wrong on this issue with your constituents," I would agree. But does your state have an initiative process? Unless the answer is "yes," you're talking out of your ass.

Ah. You are referring to initiative only. That wasn't clear. I thought you were disputing whether it was governance, not merely calling it bad governance.

FWIW, I tend to agree.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Here's what Juan Cole says about this:

"Rather, looks like infiltration of Iraqi fighters from Fallujah."

Given my understanding that the cordon around Fallujah is actually pretty effective, the idea that a fairly organized armed force of 1000 could sneak out to stage an action elsewhere seems ... unlikely. The 10,000 captured Cole describes appears to include all captured insurgents, throughout Iraq, which seems of little value in discussing a specific raid in a specific location. Contra, Dekba reported that the Husayba fighters were a mixed bag and not predominantly Iraqi. (They also concluded that the raid was Syrian backed. I tried to find a working link but couldn't, but I put about as much value in Debka's spin as I do Cole's anyway, except to the extent their choice of spin supports my supposition that "our people" delivering a slap to Syria would likely be the Israelis.)

[ltl/fb]

I am curious what people on here think about the use of private companies/contractors in Iraq -- not just as basic civilian support, but as security guards who apparently actually fight quite a bit. Here's an editorial discussing the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21WED2.html. Please don't aim beefs you have with the editorial at me; I'm merely providing the link as background material.

I seem to recall that there were armies for hire in Europe in the 13th/14th/15th/16th century, somewhere in there, maybe even later. Apparently it's much more lucrative to provide security services than it is to be in the military for real. Is this anything like where employers who are under budget constraints classify some workers differently than they otherwise might just to have them show up on a different budget line-item? Hm.

Anyway, comments welcome, or you can ignore the topic, whichever.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am curious what people on here think about the use of private companies/contractors in Iraq -- not just as basic civilian support, but as security guards who apparently actually fight quite a bit. Here's an editorial discussing the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21WED2.html. Please don't aim beefs you have with the editorial at me; I'm merely providing the link as background material.

I seem to recall that there were armies for hire in Europe in the 13th/14th/15th/16th century, somewhere in there, maybe even later. Apparently it's much more lucrative to provide security services than it is to be in the military for real. Is this anything like where employers who are under budget constraints classify some workers differently than they otherwise might just to have them show up on a different budget line-item? Hm.

Anyway, comments welcome, or you can ignore the topic, whichever.

Well I guess you have your answer.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Well I guess you have your answer.

I killed the board. Dammit! Maybe they have me on ignore. If I post and no one can read it, do I exist?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I killed the board. Dammit! Maybe they have me on ignore. If I post and no one can read it, do I exist?

I think there was a similar discussion about a week ago. But everyone ignoring my religous underpinnings of wife-beating post? Shocking!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am curious what people on here think about the use of private companies/contractors in Iraq -- not just as basic civilian support, but as security guards who apparently actually fight quite a bit. Here's an editorial discussing the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21WED2.html. Please don't aim beefs you have with the editorial at me; I'm merely providing the link as background material.

I seem to recall that there were armies for hire in Europe in the 13th/14th/15th/16th century, somewhere in there, maybe even later. Apparently it's much more lucrative to provide security services than it is to be in the military for real. Is this anything like where employers who are under budget constraints classify some workers differently than they otherwise might just to have them show up on a different budget line-item? Hm.

Anyway, comments welcome, or you can ignore the topic, whichever.

I read an article by Tucker Carlson recently where he traveled with one of the security outfits. DOD decided to outsource "security services" to save money (mainly in long-term veterans benefits). They are essentially mercenaries and they are highly resented by the Iraqis. They lack specific ROE but can return fire when fired upon, which is often.

They are constantly under attack so that the security services mainly provide security to themselves. When traveling by car, they are extremely vulnerable. They drive fast and don't stop for anything. Iraq has very few places for them to refuel, so there are always long lines. The security forces, to protect themselves, must commandeer the fueling station at gunpoint, angering those who have been waiting for hours.

To me, outsourcing security on such a large scale seems like an awful waste of money. Basic security needed to be established initially by U.S. troops. You just can't do nation building on the cheap.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I killed the board. Dammit! Maybe they have me on ignore. If I post and no one can read it, do I exist?

Of course you do, cupcake. And your post reminded me of the Condottieri and Sir John Hawkwood, which reminded me of a lass I had a crush on in that class in college, so it's all good.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am curious what people on here think about the use of private companies/contractors in Iraq -- not just as basic civilian support, but as security guards who apparently actually fight quite a bit. Here's an editorial discussing the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21WED2.html. Please don't aim beefs you have with the editorial at me; I'm merely providing the link as background material.

I seem to recall that there were armies for hire in Europe in the 13th/14th/15th/16th century, somewhere in there, maybe even later. Apparently it's much more lucrative to provide security services than it is to be in the military for real. Is this anything like where employers who are under budget constraints classify some workers differently than they otherwise might just to have them show up on a different budget line-item? Hm.

Anyway, comments welcome, or you can ignore the topic, whichever.

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2539816
http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2575454

Two Economist articles on the subject (sorry, they're subscription, but then, anyone with sufficient interest in world politics to hang out in this cesspool but doesn't subscribe to the Economist and the NYT (and/or WaPo) should probably be put on ignore, anyway. Then again, the NYT is only just coming up with this? They usually try to co-opt other news agencies' leads rather faster than that; a 2 week lag following something as mainstream as the Economist is pathetic).

Yes, mercenaries are members of an old, old profession, much older than the 13th century. Nice trivia point: the Pope is still guarded by mercenaries, the only Swiss citizens permitted by Swiss law to be hired as such.

My understanding is that mercenaries' increasing use in Iraq (by the coalition itself) stems in part from (i) limited coalition troop numbers, (ii) better skills & efficiency than the usual gov't trained troops, (iii) they're cheaper than using your own army (no gov't bloat, competition), (iv) better morale (better paid and no illusions about "how dare they send me into actual service just because I signed up!") and (v) easier to deploy because not subject to the military chain of command. (Why they would be used by private firms seems too obvious to go into.)

ETA: re: re-instituting the draft: (ii) above reminded me, IMHO, it will never happen. Not because congress wouldn't approve it or the public outrage would be so high, but because the technical skills required of even grunt-troops at this point are so high that the US will never really be able to have an army of conscripts again. In fact, they've been having trouble for some years getting troops with the necessary skills even with volunteers, college programs and the like.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.memri.org/video/segment8_program.html

I so have a crush on you right now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Maybe Hank was thinking about the Mohawks. In the late 80s/early 90s, they had a spat with the Canadian government (and an armed stand-off with the Canadian army), and an internal dispute (almost a civil war) over the operations of their casino on their reservation in New York. New York State Police set up check points going in and out of the reservation to try to keep the peace, but did not enter.

I figured he was thinking about Wounded Knee.