quote:

Which part?

The cynical resignation part:

quote:

In that contest the people shouting the loudest, or at all, win.

People aren't listening to the republicans because they are strong on defense but because their message is clear, consistent and immune to all attacks of reason or intelligence.

BUSH: "Iran has no program to make nuclear weapons. Iran is still an enoromous nuclear threat. I loved it, it was much better than Cats, I'm going to invade it again and again...."

I'm not a big fan of determinism.

On second thought, maybe I'm reading too much into a casual observation. I can't argue with this part:

quote:

Ehh... I see the real problem not that the Republicans seem the go to for defense but rather they are the only go to for a descision, however bad it may be.

It has nothing to do with determinism. I don't know how you see that. Unless you are equating Bush's "mandate from God" with determinism in some fashion.

It isn't resignation it's an observation of why Bush gets his way. If the democrats would look at the reasoning I am advocating, they might form opinions, present them and answer questions in their debates.

Sorry, I guess I was still reading it in terms of the War Is Chaos argument. You do have a habit of speaking in ultimatums.

Major Andrew Olmsted posted his last blog entry after he died on January 3rd in Iraq:

http://andrewolmsted.com/

Split posted that days ago.

I can't win.

It's okay, it's not a race. I buried it in the Random thread iirc. Likely missed by most.

I read it. It was ... touching. No complaint about seeing it posted again.

So that's why the surge is working!

US is paying 70,000 insurgents $10/day to not be violent.

quote:

"Segregation works is effectively what the U.S. military is telling you," Macgregor says. "We have facilitated, whether on purpose or inadvertently, the division of the country. We are capitalizing on that now, and we are creating new militias out of Sunni insurgents. We're calling them concerned citizens and guardians. These people are not our friends, they do not like us, they do not want us in the country. Their goal is unchanged."

Macgregor, a decorated combat veteran and a former administration adviser, articulates a view that is privately shared by several former and current officers. It's not that they believe the plan isn't working. It's that they see it as a dangerous one with potentially destructive consequences.

But McCaffrey argues that at $10 a day, the gamble is worth taking.

"We can pay them that for 10 years if we had to," he says.

Christ now they'll be looking for the container....

Maybe you could all get together and pay me not to post?

quote:

Originally posted by theminx:
Christ now they'll be looking for the container....

I doubt they're paying them in U.S. hundreds, seeing as there's not a lot of places the average Iraqi can safely spend them.

quote:

US is paying 70,000 insurgents $10/day to not be violent.

Works with my kids.

More expensive but the same general principle.

I'm sure there's some brass in the Pentagon who still think it's better to drop a million dollar Tomahawk on their arses instead.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:

quote:

Originally posted by theminx:
Christ now they'll be looking for the container....

I doubt they're paying them in U.S. hundreds, seeing as there's not a lot of places the average Iraqi can safely spend them.

Um, you'd be surprised. There are a lot of them over there. Lots of counterfeits too, naturally. Moreover, in a lot of places they still buy food and fuel and such on a kind of ongoing tab system. So popping in to clear your tab with Mr. Franklin is not so far-fetched.

I liked, early on, when they were giving US soldiers sheafs of money and having them go into neighborhood xyz and pay off the Iraqis who had their businesses and such bombed. It was interesting as the appeared to be bartering for how much their blown up shit was worth.

I suppose haggling is that deep in the bones.

I knew GIs were paying Iraqis for small jobs, in cash. Clearing weeds under bridges that might hide IEDs, that sort of thing.

quote:

Originally posted by lithos:
I knew GIs were paying Iraqis for small jobs, in cash. Clearing weeds under bridges that might hide IEDs, that sort of thing.

"Asps, very dangerous. You go first."

quote:

Originally posted by ContritePuppy:
I liked, early on, when they were giving US soldiers sheafs of money and having them go into neighborhood xyz and pay off the Iraqis who had their businesses and such bombed. It was interesting as the appeared to be bartering for how much their blown up shit was worth.

I suppose haggling is that deep in the bones.

Haggling is a sign of respect. If you don't take the time to haggle with them, it shows you don't value them enough to talk to them. In any transaction more consequential than buying vegetables, haggling in proper form is as essential to social cohesion as observing the proper etiquette at weddings in the West.

Nowadays there are offices where the aggrieved appear to fill out paperwork and do a formal kind of haggling with US reps over reimbursement. Many Iraqi 'lawyers' run businesses facilitating these transactions and engage in varying levels of fraud (manufacturing documents proving the existence of people or businesses which never existed, then requesting reimbursement for their death/destruction during known engagements). If they're in good with the local tribal leader, then they'll get away with the fraud. If not, things don't go so well for them.