Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I agree with this. The military campaign to knock over the Taliban was extremely well-executed.



Aw, c'mon, spanky. Remember Bush's oath? "Dead or alive?" I mean, I'm a Democrat, and seeing our president, steely-eyed, his face a mask of determination -- well, it made my loins tingle. Don't tell me it didn't do yours as well! Hell, Penske's STILL tumescent about it.

Well, just imagine our communal disappointment when not only have we not caught him in a manhunt that's lasted longer than WWII, but Bush -- having rediscovered the advantages of "containment" -- now says he doesn't even care if we catch him. Now, think about the hurt that made for us all. Two percent, my ass. If we're gonna give up on something just because it's hard, why say we're gonna do it in the first place? That's just not The Bush Way, right?

I think when he said it we all wanted to hear but at the time I knew it was a dangerous thing to say. Hunting one man down in a planet that we don't have complete jurisdiction over was always going to be tough proposition.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you read Emma's War? Seems particularly relevant right now, with John Garang's death and the violence since then.

I bought it but haven't read it yet. It is in line after Jared.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think when he said it we all wanted to hear but at the time I knew it was a dangerous thing to say. Hunting one man down in a planet that we don't have complete jurisdiction over was always going to be tough proposition.

I'm having a hard time aligning this with the "W is a man of conviction - he means what he says" mantra that characterized the 2004 election.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm extrapolating, since you weren't kind enough to use the right phrase and instead used a deceptively precise percentage thingy.

I think the situation changed also when he found out true luv was involved. I am still trying to figure out how that applies to Afghanistan. Maybe Bush doesn't love the Afghan people enough. Or maybe Bush and Rumsfield don't love eachother enough.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Everything is relative. What is going on there right now is a tea party compared to what was going on before. I think at one point the russians were losing two thousand men a month.

Of course, at the time we WERE giving the mujahadeen all the Stingers they could carry - bit of an unfair comparison.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think when he said it we all wanted to hear but at the time I knew it was a dangerous thing to say. Hunting one man down in a planet that we don't have complete jurisdiction over was always going to be tough proposition.

And its a simplification to lay the Islamofacist problem at his feet. Even if he is dead, its not like Facist Italy collapsing with Mussolini or Nazi Germany collapsing with Hitler. The War on Terror will continue apace with or without bin Laden as long as freedom hating Islamofacists are allowed to exist in Gaza, Syria, Iran, Yemen and France et al.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Here's his Wikpaedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

Not overly helpful with the speech thing.

I hate to admit it but it kind of bugged me. It is a mystery we may never solve.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I hate to admit it but it kind of bugged me. It is a mystery we may never solve.

Just like the mystery of what happened to the WMDs.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'll toss in 200 euros for one-way plane tickets

What, is it bonus time around the Penske law firm? First you donate to Cindy Sheehan, then you're going to finance my European vacation?

Either way, I'll take PayPal or a personal check. Just don't try postdating the check.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK now you are changing your tune. You said before that CAFTA wasn't really a free trade agreement. You said you could be pro-free trade but against this agreement. Now you are acknowledging it is a free trade agreement, but that you don't like the treaty for other reasons. Nothing to do with free trade. And I am glad you have acknowledged that.

I still don't understand what you mean by "free trade." Just lowering or eliminating tariffs? If so, that's fine, but most other people mean other things, too.

So I'm not sure what I have acknowledged.

CAFTA is a standard free trade agreement the only problems that the Democrats have is that it doesn't include enough labor provisions and environmental provisions.

You seem to have misunderstood the Financial Times piece entirely. Try reading it again.

The ironic thing about this is that these free trade agreements used to never include this stuff. Over the years more and more of these riders have been attached to appease liberals. If you are really pro-free trade then you would endorse this bill without any riders. If you won't support the bill that is because you place these riders in higher prefernce to the bill.

I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. Liberals and conservatives are equally capable of understanding that there are barriers to trade apart from tariffs. You don't understand that, apparently, but everyone else does.

If you are for free trade, and think reducing tariff barriers is good, you would endorse this bill. Otherwise you think reducing tariff barriers is only good if you put in labor and environmental standards. That is fine but don't try and claim to be a free trader.

You still don't know what the treaty actually says, do you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Of course, at the time we WERE giving the mujahadeen all the Stingers they could carry - bit of an unfair comparison.

Definitely a valid point. Did anyone read Charlie Wilson's war? It is about a whoring coke snorting congressman from rural Texas whose fundamentalist puritan constituents kept reelecting him because he kept asking for redemption. This Congressmen was pretty much responsible for us arming the Mujahadeen. It is one of those books where every other page you are thinking - no way is this true - not even hollywood would come up with this because it is not believable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Everything is relative. What is going on there right now is a tea party compared to what was going on before. I think at one point the russians were losing two thousand men a month.

I'll tell her that, too. I'm sure she'll feel lots better.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Just like the mystery of what happened to the WMDs.

Since you guys are so keen on paying attention to British intelligence re the WMD, why not consider what the British Foreign Minister said just before the war:

• For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam’s forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I still don't understand what you mean by "free trade." Just lowering or eliminating tariffs? If so, that's fine, but most other people mean other things, too.

So I'm not sure what I have acknowledged.



You seem to have misunderstood the Financial Times piece entirely. Try reading it again.

I understood it and I don't think you did. As I said his only gripe is about labor standards.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry, but that's horseshit. Liberals and conservatives are equally capable of understanding that there are barriers to trade apart from tariffs. You don't understand that, apparently, but everyone else does.

Now I see the problem. You don't understand what a NTB (non-tariff trade barrier) is. Yes there are other barriers to free trade, so called non-tariff trade barriers, but that is not what the article is about and that is not what these labor and environmental provisions are about. NTBs are generally recognized as regulations that are cloaked as environmental, safety and labor protections. The Japanes are the king of these. They say they need to have barriers on rice from California because Califonria rice is not healthy for the Japanese. They banned American cars because they polluted to much even though they had higher pollution standards than Japanese cars. Inspectors holding up fruit for inspection until it rots etc. Also regulation on services is another classic NTB. Foreigners are not allowed to start an accounting firm, business consultants must be citizens, Japanese lawyers may not work for a foreign law firm etc. So yes there are other barriers to trade but environmental and labor riders are not reducing NTBs. They are actually increasing barriers.

If we won't trade with CAFTA because they don't have the right labor standards, that is an NTB. Not the other way around. You have got it backwards. Free trade is about reducing barriers and these riders increase the barriers. We will not buy your products because you damage the environment- that is increasing trade barriers not reducing it.

You may agree with these policies but they increase barriers. If California stopped accepting products from Alabama because they had a lower minimum wage (which they do), less safety regulations (which they do), and less environmental regulations, that would be considered a trade barrier. Not a reduction in trade barriersl.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You still don't know what the treaty actually says, do you?

I haven't read the whole treaty. It is very thick but I have read some summaries. The main thing is it reduces tariffs. It reduces some NTBs. Yes the enviromental and labor standards increase trade barriers but the benefits out weigh the costs.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll tell her that, too. I'm sure she'll feel lots better.

Can't win your argument so you bring in the emotional toil of a friend. Weak. Since when am I responsible for making her feel good. She may have feelings but that doesn't change the facts. Riding on a commerical airlines is a lot safer than driving on an interestate. That is no consolation to the people that have lost loved ones in plane accidents, but that doesn't make it any less true just because it won't make someone feel good.