Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
There is no doubt that Bush & co. made a mistake in Fallujah, and you thinking it was a wise move is silly. Its just one more in a series of mistakes they've been making since the beginning, and it all ties in to elections etc.

The mistake was assuming they could do the occupation on the cheap, and failing to plan to have enough troops on the ground. That meant that we'd be talking about "going in" to Fallujah instead of being there already. We just didn't have enough troops to properly occupy the country and maintain order, and what happened to the ex-SEALs was the predictable result. If the argument is whether to level the town or stand idly by, you're losing either way. I happen to think we lost worse this way, but YMMV.

Agree that it all ties into elections. Why did they fuck the occupation up? Part of it has to be the desire to do it on the cheap, with no domestic sacrifice. General Shinseki said they'd need many, many more troops there, and he got canned for it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Does it matter for this purpose?

It matters if your premise is that tax cuts do not cost as much dynamically as statically. That is, a $500B tax cut is really only $400B because of the Laffer effect. If the growth would occur independent of the cuts, then you're reducing the deficit solely by sitting still and there's no justification for tax cuts on that ground.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 John Kerry, as President, won't actually fight. So, who is personally braver isn't really that big an issue. Maybe you could say his time in combat gives him some insights that would be valuable in making decisions re. the troops, but frankly that level of decision is probably below the Preident.

All else equal, I'd much rather have a President who has been there and knows what it's like.

2 John Kerry's Vietnam service doesn't seem like it was actually driven by a sense of duty.

The Columbia Journalism Review just ran a story about how when Kerry was being considered for VP by Gore in 2000, the major media ran all these stories about his charisma and good looks. Four years later, he's been hit with the Ugly Stick. I personally was never fond of the guy, but it's so clear that those of you who are laboring hard to find something wrong with his Vietnam service wouldn't bother if he was, say, a Republican.

3 What is important to me is that the President make decisions based opon what should happen and stick to those decisons.

Impressively put, except that we're talking about Fallujah, where he talked tough and then waffled. Big words about how they'd hold the murderers of those SEALs responsible, and then they back off and turn the city over to an Iraqi brigade run by an ex-Baathist and with its ranks full of the people who were shooting at the Marines days earlier. Or haven't you noticed that the people who killed those contractors and desecrecated their bodies have never been "brought to justice," as Bush might say?

4 Falu(?) can be handled by being isolated, can't it? Over time, might not that be the better decision than killing tons of people good/bad now?

"Handled" in the sense of managing the November election? Yes. Might it be better not to level the city? Sure. As Hello remembers, I already said that. But then enough with the tough-guy bluster.

5 If aliens invade, like in Independance Day, then who is braver for battle matters. Maybe then we'd be better with JFK, but remember W is the fighter pilot.

Unless we're fighting them with boats. The aliens might be smart enough to see that movie, adjust, and try something nautical.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The mistake was assuming they could do the occupation on the cheap, and failing to plan to have enough troops on the ground. That meant that we'd be talking about "going in" to Fallujah instead of being there already. We just didn't have enough troops to properly occupy the country and maintain order, and what happened to the ex-SEALs was the predictable result. If the argument is whether to level the town or stand idly by, you're losing either way. I happen to think we lost worse this way, but YMMV.

Agree that it all ties into elections. Why did they fuck the occupation up? Part of it has to be the desire to do it on the cheap, with no domestic sacrifice. General Shinseki said they'd need many, many more troops there, and he got canned for it.

but why the need to level the town? A few months ago I posted a quote from the Chicago Tribune, where a reporter layed prone on a base rooftop with two marine snipers as they took shots every few minutes at armed men. When the call to prayers got on their nerves, they turned up the Metallica on their radios.

There are a lot of good shots in the marines, and a few weeks of people not going to go outside with guns or beards, or basically without carrying around white flags with both hands, would eliminate the myth that a bunch of bearded whackos beat the world's only superpower. Its Rummy and Wolfy that are beating the world's only superpower. I'd love to see a poll of military personnel on whether they a.) plan to vote for Bush, b.) plan to sit out, or c.) plan to vote for Kerry.

Because unless things change very soon and very drastically, I think a.) is not the plan right now. People are pissed.

In other news, the training units at Fort Irwin (CA?) and whereverville LA are supposedly both getting rotated into Iraq and being replaced with national guard units. I'll PM you with something related.

Hello

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I have the continuing-hangover exemption. Why do people tempt me with alcohol on a work-night?

I'd say the same thing but I am in training to go in-house at a vinyard. As a litigator. FWIW.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's be clear. I still stand by my assertion that we could make the cuts and not be any worse for it. I've been fuzzy on the details, for sure, but give me some time.

2. The wine made me fuzzy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It matters if your premise is that tax cuts do not cost as much dynamically as statically. That is, a $500B tax cut is really only $400B because of the Laffer effect. If the growth would occur independent of the cuts, then you're reducing the deficit solely by sitting still and there's no justification for tax cuts on that ground.

That is my premise and I am very familiar with the Laffer effect, though perhaps not with those precise numbers.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unless we're fighting them with boats. The aliens might be smart enough to see that movie, adjust, and try something nautical.

Ahh, when it happens they'll be using Macs instead of PC's; nothing else matters anyway.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally written by Andy Bufalo, MSgt USMC
Before the current politically correct climate enveloped our culture one of the recruiting slogans of our band of brothers was "The Marine Corps Builds Men." You will soon find out just how true that is. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women.

Ooooh, burn!

I wonder why MSgt Bufalo has no interest in ever again encountering a woman? Why, Bilmore, why? NTTAWWT.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
I'd say the same thing but I am in training to go in-house at a vinyard. As a litigator. FWIW.

And a lesbian no less! Very controversial.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ooooh, burn!

I wonder why MSgt Bufalo has no interest in ever again encountering a woman? Why, Bilmore, why? NTTAWWT.

Sheesh Atticus, try opening your mind outside of the box of your self-imposed politically correct myopia. In Arab countries for a man to be called womenish is a high insult. The highest. Or lowest. Depending. Anyway, I digress, the point being, its an insult, unlike in your country, as one can evidence by nothing else but my recently announced (on the FB) conversion to lesbianism.

So, bottom line, MasterSgt. Bufalo was being culturally enlightened in his use of this insult. Please respect the same as such.

Aside, Sgt.Club, do you know this soldier? Are you guys in the same unit?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Sheesh Atticus, try opening your mind outside of the box of your self-imposed politically correct myopia. In Arab countries for a man to be called womenish is a high insult. The highest. Or lowest. Depending. Anyway, I digress, the point being, its an insult, unlike in your country, as one can evidence by nothing else but my recently announced (on the FB) conversion to lesbianism.

So, bottom line, MasterSgt. Bufalo was being culturally enlightened in his use of this insult. Please respect the same as such.

Aside, Sgt.Club, do you know this soldier? Are you guys in the same unit?

As Atticus pointed out to me and bilmore, mostly bilmore, but me a little, althought mostly people were yelling at me what with talking about head gear, but i digress; Atticus pointed out the disparate treatment of women is only in some countries and Iraq isn't one. Mr. buffalo probably needs a little senstitivity training so he canlearn to be more insulting.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As Atticus pointed out to me and bilmore, mostly bilmore, but me a little, althought mostly people were yelling at me what with talking about head gear, but i digress; Atticus pointed out the disparate treatment of women is only in some countries and Iraq isn't one. Mr. buffalo probably needs a little senstitivity training so he canlearn to be more insulting.

Yes, perhaps a seminar in CMCH?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is my premise and I am very familiar with the Laffer effect, though perhaps not with those precise numbers.

Then it matters for the conversation whether the projections are based on tax-cut-stimulated growth or exogenous growth. Unless you want Ty to posit that increased wasteful federal spending also increased tax revenues.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This sounds like a terrific use of government money:

The Department of Homeland Security this year gave $19.3 million to the American Trucking Associations...to recruit a volunteer "army" called Highway Watch. So far, 10,000 truckers have signed on to become amateur sleuths....

Highway Watch members are instructed to look for certain kinds of behavior — not certain kinds of people. "Profiling is bad. Bad, bad, bad," Beatty said.

So far, so good. But, uh oh. Sounds like we either need to spend more money on this,* or less:

...two newly initiated Highway Watch members...explained how easy it is to spot "Islamics" on the road: just look for their turbans. Quite a few of them are truck drivers, says William Westfall of Van Buren, Ark. "I'll be honest. They know they're not welcome at truck stops. There's still a lot of animosity toward Islamics." Eddie Dean of Fort Smith, Ark., also has little doubt about his ability to identify Muslims: "You can tell where they're from. You can hear their accents. They're not real clean people."

The article, in Time via Unfogged, goes on to point out that most turban wearers in the U.S. are Sikhs, not Muslims.

etft

*$19.3 million for 10,000 volunteers -- say, that's $1,930/volunteer. How can I get a piece of that money? At two grand a pop, I could go find some truckers to volunteer.