A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm just arguing that Bush has been a huge disappointment from a free-trade perspective. No matter who is elected to Congress tomorrow, that tiger is not about to change his stripes.

But at least the (likely) next president of Nicaragua is on the record as supporting a free trade pact with the U.S.

Damn. Times do change.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
there were 200+ divisions of Soviet troops that were, it was feared, ready to roll across the border at a moment's notice.

Was it that many? Really? I think the entire US army had twelve and that was reduced to ten under Clinton and Bush I. I could be a little off but not that far off.

We couldn't be occupying Iraq with more than four or five (I am guessing).

Are you sure it was 200 divisions?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Is there anyone out there who thinks, with 20/20 hindsight, that Rummy made the right choice.

Not me. And there was the Japanese American Army Chief of Staff that was pushed out because he argued we would need more troops. That sucked for him (and us).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Didn't you see the matrix?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But at least the (likely) next president of Nicaragua is on the record as supporting a free trade pact with the U.S.

Damn. Times do change.

S_A_M

You never, never, know. Lula was an avowed socialist, but when he finally got elected president of Brazil he turned out to be completely responisble economically. He even pushed for free trade agreements.

Ortega might surprize us all. Then again, he may set Nicaragua back twenty years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
A bad idea, executed badly.

The distraction from Afghanistan may be the worst part of all this. That was the place to showcase the neocon doctrine. Remove bad people, develop a functioning state, disarm private armies. And kill a lot of terrorists in the process. That would have given the doctrine some credibility.

I think the neocon doctrine was focused more on providing the proper incentives to other nations by making clear that we would take them out if we cared too. Neocons were not particularly focused on the dangers of non-functioning states. Afghanistan was, therefore, an ideal showplace for the doctrine, since the Taliban crossed us and we fucked them over good.

The original theory was, you get in and you get out, keeping your powder dry for the next regime. The assumption was that you can hand over power to someone, anyone, to get out. There wasn't a lot of thought given to making sure that the government you leave is functional and/or democratic. After our years in Iraq, this now looks like a major deficiency.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Was it that many? Really? I think the entire US army had twelve and that was reduced to ten under Clinton and Bush I. I could be a little off but not that far off.

We couldn't be occupying Iraq with more than four or five (I am guessing).

Are you sure it was 200 divisions?

The Soviets had vast numerical superiority. Vast.

Which is why we relied heavily on higher technology, and had incorporated the early use of tactical nuclear weapons into our defensive strategy. I'd bet that we still could not have stopped them short of the Normandy coast.

That's why the real key to the defense of Europe was the threat of mutual annihilation if the Russians invaded. It worked.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Was it that many? Really? I think the entire US army had twelve and that was reduced to ten under Clinton and Bush I. I could be a little off but not that far off.

We couldn't be occupying Iraq with more than four or five (I am guessing).

Are you sure it was 200 divisions?

It wouldn't surprise me at various times, but does seem high for Eastern Europe alone. Your numbers would be low.

Iraq has about 140,000 troops right now - probably about 10 divisions, more or less. (a little google-foo - currently 500,000 troops in 18 divisions in active army; about 700,000 troops in the reserves; not clear how many divisions in Iraq - bits and pieces of many divisions have been deployed).

Estimates of troops deployed during the Prague Spring run as high as a half million - assuming an average of 15,000 per division, that would be about 33 divisions. And the most heavily occupied was always East Germany.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the neocon doctrine was focused more on providing the proper incentives to other nations by making clear that we would take them out if we cared too. Neocons were not particularly focused on the dangers of non-functioning states. Afghanistan was, therefore, an ideal showplace for the doctrine, since the Taliban crossed us and we fucked them over good.

The original theory was, you get in and you get out, keeping your powder dry for the next regime. The assumption was that you can hand over power to someone, anyone, to get out. There wasn't a lot of thought given to making sure that the government you leave is functional and/or democratic. After our years in Iraq, this now looks like a major deficiency.

how come no one answered my question about Afghanistan?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky You also said that Bush wasn't pushing on the Doha round and he was to blame. You sliced up the quote from the Economist to try and and make it look like the economist was saying Bush was at fault for the collapse of the Doha round Actually, if you read the whole quote it is clear the Economist is not blaming Bush. The article also give Bush kudos for being a strong free trader.

"The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies. This is ironic, because America has been one of the grave men pushing hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003. Despite high-profile deviations, such as slapping tariffs on imported steel, Mr Bush has largely been a committed free trader."

And what was Bush's alleged crime Trying to make the Doha round actually cut more subsidies. Making the deal more beneficial for free trade. And you say Bush isn't committed to free trade? Please.

You have accused me of two different things.

First, you said that I "spliced" a quote. That is flatly wrong, and I'm waiting for you to admit it. I quoted one sentence from the Economist, verbatim. I didn't splice anything. Show some class and admit you were wrong.

Second, you are suggesting that the Economist is not blaming Bush, and that it gives him credit for being a free trader. To this, I'll say three things:

(a) You are flatly misreading the article and misunderstanding reality if you think that Bush was "trying to make the Doha round cut more [agricultural] subsidies." That Economist article says the opposite. The U.S. wanted to cut agricultural tariffs but was unwilling to cut agricultural subsidies. If you are not understanding this, read it again. Or, to take just one example from many on the web, this:

• This round collapsed, as many before it did, in a deadlock between farm import tariff users and farm subsidy users. Washington continued to argue for steep cuts in farm import tariffs, which are used by the European Union, India, and Japan, while refusing further cuts in its agricultural subsidies. Four of the six negotiating parties blamed U.S. intransigence as the downfall of this last round of talks. Brazil, usually aligned with the United States on farm tariffs, began earlier this year to shift its position away from that of the United States and toward the European Union, after Brussels was held to blame for the lack of progress at the December ministerial meeting in Hong Kong. Only Australia neglected to single out the United States for the failure.

(b) Notwithstanding (a), you are correct that the Economist gives Bush credit for being a free trader. It points to the "irony" that people blame the U.S. for the recent collapse, since the U.S. pushed to get the talks back on track after the Cancun failure. This does not contradict the point I made with the Economist article, which is that the U.S. was not somehow blameless for the Doha collapse, as you suggested. My failure to agree with every point in the Economist article does not mean that I misrepresented it when I accurately quoted it in part.

(c) Moreover, I would suggest that (a) and (b) are absolutely consistent with my criticism of Bush on free trade, which is that he pays it lip service but has not invested political capital in it. Bush paid no political price whatsoever for pushing foreign countries to return to the table after Cancun, which is what the Economist praised him for. But he was not prepared to make the case domestically to limit agricultural subsidies -- for which he would have paid a price politically -- and so the Doha talks failed. When it cost him nothing to be for free trade, he was for it. When he would have had to invest something, he wouldn't ante up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The bold deal Bush was promoting would have eliminated our subsidies and Europes subsidies.

Per my post above, if you believe this then you are getting your news about free trade from some sort of hallucinogenic drug, and not the Economist. Bush has never been prepared to eliminate U.S. agricultural subsidies, and the U.S. had taken this position in the Doha round I would be truly impressed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Pretty sure the southern Democrats were the unbeaten, untied champions of voter intimidation.

Pretty sure they're Republicans now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are being incredibly dishonest about this whole thing. When CAFTA came up you argued with me for pages pointing out the problems with CAFTA. And none of the problems you had with CAFTA concerned its free trade provisions (often free traders will criticize these agreements because they include tariffs or other things that don't promote free trade or they criticize the agreement for not going far enough - eliminating enough trade barriers) but you argued it did not have enough environmental or labor provisions (a criticism no free trade group would ever make - you would never see the CATO group, the FT, the Economist, the BR, ICC etc. come with that kind of criticism). Only Unions and Environmental groups that have agendas other than free trade, come up with problems like that.

I specifically remember one exchange where you said that free trade deals should only be instituted on a "level playing field". I can't quote it because it was from over a year ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday. You said that if the other countries environmental standards or labor standards were not up to ours, then that was not a level playing field. I pointed out that under those rules, a free trade agreement could never go through. The level playing field argument is not an argument of a free trader. It would be similar to saying you are a capitalist, but the only capitalist system you would accept is one where every one has the same income. No organization with any credibility in free trade would ever use the term "level playing field". Free traders know there is no such thing as a level playing field.

After showing you really don't care about free trade, you try and criticize Bush for not doing enough on free trade. That would be like saying that Bush has not cut taxes enough for the rich after initially taking a position against Bush's tax cut. And you think you have standing to criticize Bush because sometimes the FT has criticized Bush on trade: please.

First we have not seen the FT's criticism of Bush. The one article you can come up with that criticizes Bush on free trade actually praises Bush's commitment to free trade, and points out the only real criticism on Doha that can be level against Bush is he pushed to hard for a more substantive agreement. In addition, it points out that Bush pushed really hard on Doha, reviving it many times when it was having trouble.

Posting that sentence from the Economist without the subsequent "ironic" section was misleading and dishonest. When I take the time to post the quotes and painstakingly point out how you were dishonest, you ignore that post. When I make a brief summary of the prior post (in which I don't go through all the evidence because I have already done so) you quote that post (ignoring the prior post) saying that I am being sloppy in my criticsim. That was also dishonest.

You are obsessed with Bush and it is obvious to everyone but you. You criticize him for pushing through a free trade agreement and then argue he has not done enough for free trade. Only a mind completely blinded by passion and hate could try and justify such hypocrisy.

If you re-read our exchanges with the notion in mind that we seem to mean different things by the term "free trade," maybe you'll stop accusing me of being dishonest. I.e., if you pull your head out of your ass, maybe you'll see the light. We disagree on policy, and it would be more interesting to discuss the policy than our competing understandings of the term "free trade."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how come no one answered my question about Afghanistan?

I was busy reading back issues of the Economist.

[SlaveNoMore]

baltassoc
As I'm about to advise my client: there is some question whether or not this violates the law, but it is certain that the people who have gone to the effort of putting their name on the DNC list are going to be annoyed by the call regardless.

I'm on a DNC list. I also received 47 calls this week - all from left leaning candidates and groups (and 1 from Ahnold).

Who can I sue?