Still Hating America.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Does he tell you how stupid you are every time he rolls on a point?

Exactly. He can't believe he's giving in to me on the pony express thing, given just how wrong I am. And don't I know that the mail box rule in Delaware specifically deals with the problems I raised with pony express delivery? Because everyone knows that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
We are in a war on terror and we are only spending four percent of our GDP on defense. Not much of a war.

You guys are pathetic. A few years ago, you were crowing about what a "cakewalk" the war in Iraq was, how it demonstrated the sheer brilliance of the neo-con, and how Syria (or maybe Iran) were "next."

Now, all you can say is "we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP than the US did in the wars that defined previous generations."

Is this your measure of victory? Again, how pathetic.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Negative self-talk is bad, Spanky. You shouldn't say things like this to yourself.

Why would the absolute cost of a war by definition go up? If GDP is increasing, and the absolute cost of a war is staying even, the cost of a war as a percentage of GDP falls, and this seems like it should be true. The cost of WWII (which was a global, multi-front war pursued by large numbers of entire nations) doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the cost of the war against terrorism or the wars in Iraq/Iran; Vietnam (a geographically limited war) seems more apropos.

I don't even think the Economist is saying what you seemed to be saying it was saying, which is why I quoted the rest of the partial paragraph you quoted and the paragraph after it. To put your quote in, like, context.

Literally.

No, no. You judge the size of a war by the percentage of GDP it consumes. Thus, the civil war in Sierra Leone was larger than World War II and the Cold War combined, since it consumed about 100% of Sierra Leone's GDP.

Get it?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Free trade is not in the interest of most voters because most voters get most of their money from wages and free trade with low wage countries bids down the price of labor. China's minstry of commerce estimates that 30% of US white collar jobs will be offshored by 2010. China intends to transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy by taking these jobs.

Corporate profits in the US are at a historic high because wage competition from other countries has depressed wage growth for most workers. The democrats are right to oppose free trade with low wage countries like China. It's not in the interest of most voters.

Article on how US companies want Indian and Chinese engineers because they're cheaper than US engineers. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/i...urced_to_India

You assume that it is even possible to maintain a wage gap between the U.S. and other countries.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hillary has apparently seen enough of the "Rise of the Obama" - as she now steps to the left to appease the true heart and soul of the Democrat party.

Re-presenting, "Cut and Run" :

Feb 17, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday...

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hillary has apparently seen enough of the "Rise of the Obama" - as she now steps to the left to appease the true heart and soul of the Democrat party.

Re-presenting, "Cut and Run" :

I'm curious -- seriously -- about what you think the effect of a US pullout would be. Right now, we are trying to stand between factions that are determined to bleed each other. We aren't holding the country for ourselves, we are holding it with the idea of turning it over to people who seem unwilling to restrain (if not complicit in) the slaughter.

Assuming that the Iraq War has anything to do with the war on terrorism (it didn't when it started, but now we've made it the recruiting poster and the training ground for terrorists, so maybe it does now), will al Qaeda suffer or benefit if US troops leave and the government-supported Shiite militias are left free to merrily slaughter Sunnis? Will al Qaeda focus on winning that battle, and generating a wider Sunni/Shiite battle?

Put differently -- can you explain what US troops in Iraq are actually there to accomplish? Can you define "victory," in terms that suggest that the objective is actually within the realm of possibility (i.e., I assume you've dropped the idea, originally touted by the neo-con crew, that war in Iraq will bring a wave of democracy across the middle east, and leave israelis and palis singing kum-ba-ya together).*

See if you can answer without the generic platitudes ("allowing democracy to function in the US will embolden our enemies") and the general diatribe ("Democrats hate America!!")


*Of course, I don't mean to belittle the extraordinary victory of keeping the cost of ruining American credibility to a smaller percentage of GDP than the Second World War cost.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm curious -- seriously -- about what you think the effect of a US pullout would be. Right now, we are trying to stand between factions that are determined to bleed each other.

I can't address everything in your post, but I'll offer a couple of thoughts.

(a) If the US were to pull out quickly at or around this time, it seems likely to me that the factional fighting and reprisals would intensify significantly, before the Shi'a ultimately "won" the civil war by beating the Sunnis into submission. There would be another million or so Iraqi refugees. The resulting Shi'a-dominated Iraq would be allied with Iran.

We would also endanger our alliances with Saudi Arabia and all the Gulf States -- all of whom were at best lukewarm on our invasion, but none of whom want a rapid withdrawal now.

The wild cards here include:

(1) what would the Kurds do? Secession would be a huge geopolitical problem for us, and can't be ruled out..

(2) To what extent would the Iraqi Civil War become even more of a proxy battle than it is already (i.e. to what extent would the Saudis prop us the Sunnis fighting in Iraq)? I think they would render a great deal of assistance, which could alow the Sunnis to fight to a stalemate in some areas.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Assuming that the Iraq War has anything to do with the war on terrorism (it didn't when it started, but now we've made it the recruiting poster and the training ground for terrorists, so maybe it does now), will al Qaeda suffer or benefit if US troops leave and the government-supported Shiite militias are left free to merrily slaughter Sunnis? Will al Qaeda focus on winning that battle, and generating a wider Sunni/Shiite battle?

I think that, when the US pulls out, Al Qaeda in Iraq will lose much of its influence, and would be sucked into fighting for its survival against other Iraqi groups seeking vengeance.

This is a separate issue from al Qaeda as a whole.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Put differently -- can you explain what US troops in Iraq are actually there to accomplish? Can you define "victory," in terms that suggest that the objective is actually within the realm of possibility. . .

Seeking to stabilize the situation in Iraq to the point where: (a) the country can hold together in the medium to long-term and (b) a power-sharing structure between the main sects/ethnic groups can survive the insurection. Requires diminishing greatly the powers of the militias on all sides. Security is the sine qua non.

Also requires very substantial economic and civil affairs progress --people with electricity, jobs and some basic safety in their daily lives are much less likely to fight.

I think it is still _possible_ to accomplish these goals, and that even if we can't get all this done, we could make it better than it is now before we go -- which would be good for all concerned.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

See if you can answer without...........the general diatribe ("Democrats hate America!!").............*Of course, I don't mean to belittle the extraordinary victory of keeping the cost of ruining American credibility

Are you a sock?

I liked the other day when you claimed "Bush fucked up Afghanistan" then laid out your detailed plan for cleaning out the Pakistan border areas. Unfortunately that post got deleted- maybe you can redo it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Free trade is not in the interest of most voters because most voters get most of their money from wages and free trade with low wage countries bids down the price of labor. China's minstry of commerce estimates that 30% of US white collar jobs will be offshored by 2010. China intends to transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy by taking these jobs.

Corporate profits in the US are at a historic high because wage competition from other countries has depressed wage growth for most workers. The democrats are right to oppose free trade with low wage countries like China. It's not in the interest of most voters.

Article on how US companies want Indian and Chinese engineers because they're cheaper than US engineers. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/i...urced_to_India

There is no way to stop this trend. The only thing we can do is strap in and ride it. Or move.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


I think it is still _possible_ to accomplish these goals, and that even if we can't get all this done, we could make it better than it is now before we go -- which would be good for all concerned.

S_A_M

I think the big question is whether any improvements we make before we go will last evena few weeks after our departure.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you a sock?

I liked the other day when you claimed "Bush fucked up Afghanistan" then laid out your detailed plan for cleaning out the Pakistan border areas. Unfortunately that post got deleted- maybe you can redo it?

I responded to your question. I pointed out that cleaning out the areas inside Pakistan is not the issue. The issue is that we do not have, and have not ever had, enough troops in Afghanistan to provide even basic security or stability within the country.

Recently, I heard that we also don't have enough troops to repel the Taliban's anticipated spring offensive. (Again, that would be inside Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.) On this point, I acknowledge that the person who said this is a demonstrated incompetent when it comes to issues of military planning and strategy, so if you say he's wrong I suppose I'll believe you.

Or, instead, you could just keep asking the same question and pretending that I didn't answer.

[Sidd Finch]

So this morning I read that McCain claims that he always knew that Iraq would be a tough slog. (Kind of like some people I know here....)

Yet, in 2002, he told Larry King it would be easy. (Kind of like some people I know here... except the Larry King part, of course.)

So, I have two questions:

1. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

2. How many Rs will respond by yelling at me, saying "oh, another "bush lied" diatribe," and a host of other crap before any eeven try to acknowledge what McCain's changing stories actually means?

[SlaveNoMore]

y Sidd Finch
2. How many Rs will respond by yelling at me, saying "oh, another "bush lied" diatribe," and a host of other crap before any eeven try to acknowledge what McCain's changing stories actually means?

It means he sounds like each and every other jackoff in the Senate.

No surprise there.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It means he sounds like each and every other jackoff in the Senate.

No surprise there.

Bullshit. He's rewriting history -- claiming that he knew all along that the war would be tough, and those who claim otherwise are being dishonest (or simply didn't realize what they were voting for).

Yet he said repeatedly that it would be easy, we would have overwhelming victory, we'd be greeted as liberators, blah blah blah.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It means he sounds like each and every other jackoff in the Senate.

No surprise there.

None at all. His recent comments on Roe were the most unorignal I've seen in quite some time. Made me sad to see this "mavrick" saying the same damned thing as everyone else in order to get to people who aren't going to vote for him no matter what he says.