A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The Supreme Court today struck down significant aspects of the federal sentencing guidelines. I don't particularly have a view as to whether this decision is right or wrong -- I'm inclined to say right, but you could persuade me otherwise -- but I do know that it means a lot more work for a lot of people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I personally think the "insurgency," which is really a misnomer, is being blown out of proportion. We are talking not only about a very small portion of the population, but also a very small portion of the geography. No shadow government, no popular support. In other words, it's a dead end.

Plus, the recent reports in Newsweek that we're planning to set up death squads in Iraq (John Negroponte is going to do for the Middle East what he did for Central America) can leave us all confident that the war is finally on the right course. Giblets approves:

• the US military is considering starting up "Special Forces-led assasination or kidnapping squads" in Iraq, and it's about damn time. As one military source told Newsweek, "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation." Very true. Right now the only price Iraqis are paying is a wasted infrastructure, a looming civil war, and a civilian death toll of at least fifteen thousand bodies. If they're gonna cry over that spilled milk, then let's give 'em something to really cry about! Giblets bets they'll be just begging to go back to chemically-burnt genitalia once they've had a couple weeks of roving death squads killing their friends and relatives!
  
  The same old liberal pansies are gonna say "oh but I do not like killing lots of people because I am a great big girl." But if we don't go slaughtering Sunnis en masse in an organized terror campaign, how will they ever learn to respect their boundaries, obey their elders, and become a stable pro-Western democracy? This is the same lesson America learned from George Washington when he ended the Whiskey Rebellion by crucifying half the state of Pennsylvania on his front lawn....

Nuns pray over the bodies of four American sisters killed by the military in El Salvador in 1980

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Generally, foreign powers have done poorly against guerrilla campaigns in developing countries - the only one I can think of won by the Europeans was the Boer war, where much of the war was between two colonial settler groups.

The British successfully defeated the (indigenous) communist insurgency in Malaya after WWII. The only successfully suppressed communist insurgency ever, I believe.

Doesn't detract from your point, but I figured I was duty-bound to throw that one out there since a relative by marriage was the head of the imperial police at the time. Though we might have more success in Iraq if we adopted his tactics.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Supreme Court today struck down significant aspects of the federal sentencing guidelines. I don't particularly have a view as to whether this decision is right or wrong -- I'm inclined to say right, but you could persuade me otherwise -- but I do know that it means a lot more work for a lot of people.

It's the right decision, and it has enormous implications. It's unclear from the blurb whether this means past sentences are up for review.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
The British successfully defeated the (indigenous) communist insurgency in Malaya after WWII. The only successfully suppressed communist insurgency ever, I believe.

Doesn't detract from your point, but I figured I was duty-bound to throw that one out there since a relative by marriage was the head of the imperial police at the time. Though we might have more success in Iraq if we adopted his tactics.

I have some reading to do. Thank you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The Iraqi Interior Minister may be full of crap, but he said earlier this week that the Iraqi government now estimates the insurgency as involving up to 200,000 participants, with 40,000 "active" participants.

I hope those numbers are high, but if correct they represent about .8% of the Iraqi population as participants, with about .2% "active" in the resistance. Seems small?

Not small relative to our forces there, but very small as an indication of whether this is a true insurgency.

It is true that the vast bulk of its support comes from Sunni Arabs, who are about 25% of the population of Iraq. That is not a "very small" portion of the population. Hopefully enough will decide to support an elected government that we can avoid a full-fledged civil war.

Why is this 25% number relevant?

You've apparently missed some reporting on intel discussing large-scale coordination meetings, and "shadow governments" in some some towns and cities (particularly in isolated rural areas) -- levying taxes, etc. The insurgents are apparently engaging in their own "law enforcement" in Mosul.

You're right, I have not read anything on this. Do you have cites?

eta: Why do you think the word "insurgency" is a misnomer? All indications are that a very large proportion of those involved are Iraqis engaged in a battle against an occupying power. The forces of religion, tribalism, etc. all play roles -- but that doesn't mean its not an insurgency.

At its heart, I don't think this is a battle against the US. I think it's a battle against other Iraquis, a battle that is not winnable for the reasons stated in the article I posted. The best they can hope for is long term chaos, but by sheer numbers and economics, they are never going to win nor garner anywhere near a majority to back them. It is also not based on ideaology, but rather, sheer power.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why, yes. Gosh, I'm blushing.




I'm not sure that's my theory, but let's take a look at the facts here. According to the article you posted, the deficit for 2005 thus far is $114 billion. $16 billion less than it was for the same period last year.

So, if the supply-side theory is that lower taxes will result in greater growth so as to offset any deficit effects... well, let's just say you're off by $114 billion. This year. So far.

And off by a cumulative $8 trillion since Reagan initiated the theory, despite the gains we made during the Clinton era of fiscal prudence.

My understanding is that supply side theory says that lower taxes will result in increased revenue. It does not say that it will wipe out all deficits, which is what I think you are suggesting.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not small relative to our forces there, but very small as an indication of whether this is a true insurgency.

200,000 is too small to qualify as a "true insurgency"?


I find the idea that 200,000 people -- or even 40,000 -- are willing to fight against US troops pretty astounding.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
I find the idea that 200,000 people -- or even 40,000 -- are willing to fight against US troops pretty astounding.

You had at least that many lefties marching down Market Street chanting "No Blood for Oil" and "Bush = Nazi"

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You had at least that many lefties marching down Market Street chanting "No Blood for Oil" and "Bush = Nazi"

Well, Bush lied. I mean, what else were we gonna do?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My understanding is that supply side theory says that lower taxes will result in increased revenue. It does not say that it will wipe out all deficits, which is what I think you are suggesting.

You haven't posted anything that a reasonable person would construe as suggesting that lower taxes will result in increased revenue. There are all sorts of other reasons why corporate tax revenues might have been higher in December than they were a year earlier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
200,000 is too small to qualify as a "true insurgency"?

Maybe he also doesn't think that our 150,000 troops (+/-) qualify as a true occupation.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You had at least that many lefties marching down Market Street chanting "No Blood for Oil" and "Bush = Nazi"

And you equate that to being willing to take up arms against the most powerful military the world has ever seen?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Well, Bush lied. I mean, what else were we gonna do?

Interesting that you would make that comment today.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

(Spree: Search for WMD in Iraq officially over. None found. They were destroyed in the early 90s.

Remember when the Admin was telling us how strong -- nay, incontrovertible -- the evidence was? Remember when the right wing on this board was telling us that?)

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
And you equate that to being willing to take up arms against the most powerful military the world has ever seen?

You forget about all the "Blue State" secession talk after election day?

Quite a few of those articles spoke of civil war.