Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Apropos of Nothing
I was under the impression that he was killed while the helicopters were trying to completely destroy the Bradley, so that it would not be salvageable by the Iraqi insurgents. Still a shame, but it doesn't seem like it was an intentional attack on civillians.

Oh, and there was a recent article by Robert Kagan in the Atlantic about the Marines and Fallujah. Good stuff -- I'll see if I can find it online to post a link.

The story says he was "hit by a bullet" -- not a type of ordinance that would be used to destroy an armored fighting vehicle. In addition, the story quotes a military spokesman as saying that helicopters took fire from insurgents and returned fire. Not being there, I'm a little reluctant to question the Army's tactics, but it seems unwise -- at best -- to shoot up the streets of Baghdad from the air in this way. If you're trying to win Arab hearts and minds, that is. It may be a rational decision from a tactical standpoint.

Nothing in the Telegraph article supports the notion that anyone was "looting" anything, but it certainly would be a logical extension of the Administration's war effort for Not Me to make shit up to justify the shooting of civilians and journalists.

Speaking of Fallujah, the WaPo ran an absolutely devastating article over the weekend about White House interference with the Marines in Fallujah. I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet here. I'll find it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The story says he was "hit by a bullet" -- not a type of ordinance that would be used to destroy an armored fighting vehicle. In addition, the story quotes a military spokesman as saying that helicopters took fire from insurgents and returned fire. Not being there, I'm a little reluctant to question the Army's tactics, but it seems unwise -- at best -- to shoot up the streets of Baghdad from the air in this way. If you're trying to win Arab hearts and minds, that is. It may be a rational decision from a tactical standpoint.

I haven't read the piece, and don't know the point in dispute, but: First, the story could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Second -- .50 caliber bullets are used to fight and destroy armored fighting vehicles. They are also with some frequency the ordnance fired from machine-guns mounted on helicopters as well fixed-wing aircraft (not so much anymore). Third, they might have been referring to a 20 mm round -- which I guess qualifies as a "bullet" -- and are certainly used against armor.

If you're fighting with people who are shooting at you, you have to shoot back to win.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Read more carefully.

As I said, I participate in, and buy into, such policy, supporting those programs, as well as charitable stuff. My beef was with the philosophy that holds it to be, not a mark of my social conscience, but my moral obligation to do so. Remember, I was objecting to the phrase "my share of the burden". I think it's fair to call it charity. It's not my burden.

A lot of people view social conscience and moral obligation to be roughly equivalent. I'm not sure I understand the distinction you make -- r perhaps the way you're using the terms. (I would say, for example, that folks are morally obliged to have, and act on, a social conscience.) Seems like a matter of semantics, but OK.

In defense of my reading comprehension, the point you responded with was in your second post on the issue, not the first, and I am notorious for failing to stp.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I haven't read the piece, and don't know the point in dispute, but: First, the story could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

I linked to the piece, which means it's there for the reading. It could be wrong. But is noteworthy that the U.S. Army officer quoted in the story provided a different explanation.

OTOH, making up new facts (e.g., there was "looting") with no apparent basis in what's been reported would, again, be par for the course for defenders of this war. As you said, "It wouldn't be the first time."

Second -- .50 caliber bullets are used to fight and destroy armored fighting vehicles. They are also with some frequency the ordnance fired from machine-guns mounted on helicopters as well fixed-wing aircraft (not so much anymore).

Concur, but I would bet that the armor on a Bradley is sufficient to resist said ammunition.

Third, they might have been referring to a 20 mm round -- which I guess qualifies as a "bullet" -- and are certainly used against armor.

Plausibly. Although if we are trying to win hearts and minds, then returning fire in an urban environment with a 20 mm cannon seems like a particularly poor strategy.

If you're fighting with people who are shooting at you, you have to shoot back to win.

Paradoxically, strategic success may depend on not doing things that might lead to tactical success. If you look at the annals of successful counter-insurgency campaigns, you will find that few of them involved air strikes on urban areas.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• General contested Fallujah operation
  Chief opposed invasion, then the withdrawal
  
  Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post
  Monday, September 13, 2004
  
  Fallujah, Iraq -- The outgoing U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of western Iraq said Sunday he opposed a Marine assault on militants in the volatile city of Fallujah in April and the subsequent decision to withdraw from the city and turn over control to a security force composed of former Iraqi soldiers.
  
  That security force, known as the Fallujah Brigade, was formally disbanded last week. Not only did the brigade fail to combat militants, it actively aided them, surrendering weapons, vehicles and radios to the insurgents, according to senior Marine officers. Some of the brigade's members even participated in attacks on Marines surrounding the city, the officers said.
  
  The comments by Lt. Gen. James Conway, made shortly after he relinquished command of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force on Sunday, amounted to a stinging broadside against top U.S. military and civilian leaders who ordered the invasion and the withdrawal. His statements also provided the most detailed explanation -- and justification -- of Marine actions in Fallujah this spring, which have been widely criticized for increasing insurgent activity in the city and turning it into a no-go zone for U.S. troops.
  
  Conway arrived in Iraq in March pledging to accelerate reconstruction projects as a way to subdue Anbar province. But he was soon confronted in Fallujah with the killing on March 31 of four U.S. private guards whose bodies were mutilated by a celebrating mob. Conway said he resisted calls for revenge, and advocated instead targeted operations and continued engagement with municipal leaders.
  
  "We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah: that we ought to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge," he said after his change of command ceremony. "Would our system have been better? Would we have been able to bring over the people of Fallujah with our methods? You'll never know that for sure, but at the time we certainly thought so."
  
  He echoed an argument made by many Iraqi politicians and U.S. analysts -- that the U.S. attack further radicalized an already restive city, leading many residents to support the insurgents in the face of a U.S. assault. "When we were told to attack Fallujah, I think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed," he said.
  
  Conway would not say where the order to attack originated, only that he received an order from his superior at the time, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Some senior U.S. officials in Iraq have said that the command originated in the White House.
  
  "We follow our orders," Conway said. "We had our say, and we understood the rationale, and we saluted smartly, and we went about the attack."
  
  The Marine assault on Fallujah in April ended abruptly after three days with six Marines killed. Conway expressed displeasure at the order he received from Sanchez to cease offensive operations, a decision that culminated in the formation of the Fallujah Brigade.
  
  "When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," he said. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed."
  
  Although the order to stop the fighting and seek an alternate solution was made above Conway, he was responsible for placing Iraqis in charge of security. He formed the Fallujah Brigade after the head of Iraq's intelligence service, Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, brought a handful of former Iraqi army generals to the Camp Fallujah Marine base. The generals offered to set up a force of more than 1,000 former soldiers from Fallujah who would control the city and combat the insurgents. In exchange, the Marines pledged to withdraw from the city.
  
  But the brigade never developed as planned. Instead of confronting insurgents, the former soldiers initially manned traffic checkpoints leading into the city. After a few weeks, even that ended.
  
  Marines believe that threats, tribal ties and other influences led many of the soldiers to tacitly support the insurgents. Eventually, the 800 AK-47 assault rifles, 27 pickup trucks and 50 radios the Marines gave the brigade wound up in the hands of the insurgents, according to Marine officers. Some Marines manning a checkpoint were shot at by gunmen wearing Fallujah Brigade uniforms.
  
  With no security forces in Fallujah now -- U.S. troops do not patrol inside the city limits -- the area has become a haven for insurgents, Marine officers said.
  
  Conway's successor, Lt. Gen. John Sattler, suggested that another incursion into the city would involve the joint participation of Iraqi troops. "When we approach it next time, we will approach it a little bit differently," he said.
  
  But he said he is unwilling to tolerate an insurgent-controlled city. "The status quo," he said, "is unacceptable."

SF Chronicle

In other words, the White House flip-flopped.

[pony_trekker]

Message moved to fashion board because of user f u.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Read more carefully.

As I said, I participate in, and buy into, such policy, supporting those programs, as well as charitable stuff. My beef was with the philosophy that holds it to be, not a mark of my social conscience, but my moral obligation to do so. Remember, I was objecting to the phrase "my share of the burden". I think it's fair to call it charity. It's not my burden.

This would be a much more compelling argument if you had read the original post closely enough to realize that this makes you sound like a complete bigotted ass.

The "burden" is not tax and spend social services. The "burden" to be born is to [GASP! THE HORROR] accept Section 8 vouchers. Yes, that's right, to take money FROM the government.

I realize this is asking too much already, so it's hardly worth mentioning the real long term solution: intellegently designing communities such that they provide for a variety of income levels in close proximity, such that the guy who cuts your lawn (or for that matter, teaches your kid) can live close enough to work that he can spend some time enriching his life (say through education) rather than commuting.

But no. You and your NIMBY bretheren can't be in the same proximity with the unwashed masses. It's not your "burden." It's enough to perform the charity of letting them through the gates to clean your house.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OTOH, making up new facts (e.g., there was "looting") with no apparent basis in what's been reported would, again, be par for the course for defenders of this war. As you said, "It wouldn't be the first time."

Ummm, you may not be aware of this Ty, but this story was widely reported by the mainstream liberal media and they reported it as looters looting the Bradley. The fact that the Telegraph didn't put that fact in their story doesn't mean it didn't occur or that we made it up. What it does mean is that the Telegraph is even more liberally biased than the liberally biased US media.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by baltassoc
This would be a much more compelling argument if you had read the original post closely enough to realize that this makes you sound like a complete bigotted ass.

The "burden" is not tax and spend social services. The "burden" to be born is to [GASP! THE HORROR] accept Section 8 vouchers. Yes, that's right, to take money FROM the government.

I realize this is asking too much already, so it's hardly worth mentioning the real long term solution: intellegently designing communities such that they provide for a variety of income levels in close proximity, such that the guy who cuts your lawn (or for that matter, teaches your kid) can live close enough to work that he can spend some time enriching his life (say through education) rather than commuting.

But no. You and your NIMBY bretheren can't be in the same proximity with the unwashed masses. It's not your "burden." It's enough to perform the charity of letting them through the gates to clean your house.

This planned community / zoning shit seems popular with both you and Ty, though I like your version better than his (since you're letting the guy who mows the lawn live in the 'hood, without, I assume, putting him in the carriage house).

I think the real answer, though, is different: Trailers. Inner city folks need to discover what rural people have known for years - a trailer is a fine home, especially a double-wide, and can be had for relatively little money. When the day comes when Trailers are welcome everywhere, the housing crisis will be solved.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think the real answer, though, is different: Trailers. Inner city folks need to discover what rural people have known for years - a trailer is a fine home, especially a double-wide, and can be had for relatively little money. When the day comes when Trailers are welcome everywhere, the housing crisis will be solved.

Though, as countless Floridians will tell you, the insurance crisis will only be exacerbated.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This planned community / zoning shit seems popular with both you and Ty, though I like your version better than his (since you're letting the guy who mows the lawn live in the 'hood, without, I assume, putting him in the carriage house).

I think the real answer, though, is different: Trailers. Inner city folks need to discover what rural people have known for years - a trailer is a fine home, especially a double-wide, and can be had for relatively little money. When the day comes when Trailers are welcome everywhere, the housing crisis will be solved.

Ironically, they always seem to put them in the path of tornados and hurricanes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This planned community / zoning shit seems popular with both you and Ty, though I like your version better than his (since you're letting the guy who mows the lawn live in the 'hood, without, I assume, putting him in the carriage house).

I think the real answer, though, is different: Trailers. Inner city folks need to discover what rural people have known for years - a trailer is a fine home, especially a double-wide, and can be had for relatively little money. When the day comes when Trailers are welcome everywhere, the housing crisis will be solved.

46. Hi-Fi Gilligan


Gilligan's mouth becomes a radio after he is accidentally hit on the head. When their regular radio is broken, Gilligan becomes their sole source of information on the approaching typhoon.


b: 25-Nov-1965 w: Mary C. McCall, Jr. d: Jack Arnold

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This planned community / zoning shit seems popular with both you and Ty, though I like your version better than his (since you're letting the guy who mows the lawn live in the 'hood, without, I assume, putting him in the carriage house).

I think the real answer, though, is different: Trailers. Inner city folks need to discover what rural people have known for years - a trailer is a fine home, especially a double-wide, and can be had for relatively little money. When the day comes when Trailers are welcome everywhere, the housing crisis will be solved.

Please let me know if either of you take concrete steps to put this into law. I will want to sell my property well before then.

The question I have for all of you is who is going to make the determination as to who is permitted and not permitted to live where? And are you going to have compulsory acceptance of the vouchers? Seems to me you would have to in order for this to work. Also seems to me to be a taking, but as has been documented here before I'm no con law scholar.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please let me know if either of you take concrete steps to put this into law. I will want to sell my property well before then.

The question I have for all of you is who is going to make the determination as to who is permitted and not permitted to live where? And are you going to have compulsory acceptance of the vouchers? Seems to me you would have to in order for this to work. Also seems to me to be a taking, but as has been documented here before I'm no con law scholar.

I don't know what y'all are talking about. I'm talking about making sure that Section 8 vouchers are accepted all over a city, so that poor people don't all end up together in a few neighborhoods. My point -- and it's hardly original with me -- is that neighborhoods work better when they have a variety of uses.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know what y'all are talking about. I'm talking about making sure that Section 8 vouchers are accepted all over a city, so that poor people don't all end up together in a few neighborhoods. My point -- and it's hardly original with me -- is that neighborhoods work better when they have a variety of uses.

Yes, but who has to accept them?