I know haggling is respectful, but there seemed a certain absurdity in the scenario, you know?

Kind of a Hand Solo, "Sorry about the mess," moment.

'...and I'm telling you Farouk, the curtains look better with shrapnel holes. My final offer stands..."

The world is a strange place.

quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
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.

Really? I'd thought it would mark you as working for the Americans, which I've heard is bad for your health.

Pretty much everything is bad for your health there. Paying in dollars is exceedingly common though, regardless of who you work for. The other guys pay in dollars, too.

What do you think will happen there over, say, the next six months to one year?

Or, if you think it will remain much the same (which is my position) what do you think will happen if one of the democrats takes office in 2009?

It will likely continue to get better in many areas, as it has been doing since the end of 2006. Which won't matter at all to the people making the decisions. Where the improvement spreads and how well it takes hold depends on a lot of variables. Baghdad's a total wild card as long as we're there. If we leave, the death squads and militias will find an equilibrium pretty quickly, but I don't think anyone wants that.

What'll happen if the Dems take over? Beats the crap out of me. Nothing that any candidate (except probably McCain) says about their Iraq policy will in any way resemble what they end up doing if they're elected. Even if they think they're telling the truth, their perspective will change entirely once the reins are in their hands.

quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
It will likely continue to get better in many areas, as it has been doing since the end of 2006. Which won't matter at all to the people making the decisions. Where the improvement spreads and how well it takes hold depends on a lot of variables. Baghdad's a total wild card as long as we're there. If we leave, the death squads and militias will find an equilibrium pretty quickly, but I don't think anyone wants that.

What'll happen if the Dems take over? Beats the crap out of me. Nothing that any candidate (except probably McCain) says about their Iraq policy will in any way resemble what they end up doing if they're elected. Even if they think they're telling the truth, their perspective will change entirely once the reins are in their hands.

To think six months ago I would have argued with you over this, Split.

Now, I couldn't agree more.

But ANY new president has a chance of trying something in Iraq (or just getting out), maybe without worrying so much about it weighing on their oh-so-precious legacy.

Today, when I was trying to pull an overweight SUV out of the snow bank, I stuck the downhill truck too. Couldn't go forward or backward and couldn't undo the chain on the tow rope because it was violin tight and the hooks were crammed right into the links on the chain-ends.

So I took a wrench and started backing out that pin on the clevis. I mean this rope is TIGHT. I knew that stored energy was going to do something, so I paused for a moment and thought.

"Well I'm NOT going to walk again and I'm NOT staying here all night. So here. We. Go."

"THWHOOOOOOOOOP!"

"WHAM!"

Hit the bumper on the SUV. Left a mark. Then we set everything back up and tried again and we were out.

If the new president does something in their first year... pulls that pin on that clevis, there's a chance we'll remember them for their later fucking disasters and not Iraq.

But even that is just a chance.

quote:

If the new president does something in their first year... pulls that pin on that clevis, there's a chance we'll remember them for their later fucking disasters and not Iraq.

Maybe. But I hate to imagine what could overshadow Iraq.

I mean, I'm sure we'll come up with something, but I'm not looking forward to it. I like MREs and all, I'm just not sure I like them that much.

quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
It will likely continue to get better in many areas, as it has been doing since the end of 2006. Which won't matter at all to the people making the decisions. Where the improvement spreads and how well it takes hold depends on a lot of variables. Baghdad's a total wild card as long as we're there. If we leave, the death squads and militias will find an equilibrium pretty quickly, but I don't think anyone wants that.

What'll happen if the Dems take over? Beats the crap out of me. Nothing that any candidate (except probably McCain) says about their Iraq policy will in any way resemble what they end up doing if they're elected. Even if they think they're telling the truth, their perspective will change entirely once the reins are in their hands.

Hillary, during the New Hampshire debate, spoke to that issue (though obliquely) when she said that any plan for getting out of Iraq would be far more complicated (and I am paraphrasing) then simply withdrawing troops. She was the only one of the three who hadn't committed to a definite plan as such.

At least in that debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil:

Maybe. But I hate to imagine what could overshadow Iraq.

I mean, I'm sure we'll come up with something, but I'm not looking forward to it. I like MREs and all, I'm just not sure I like them that much.

All those bleating about the failure of the USA's "moral compass" can now be silenced. Torture? Abuse? Profiteering? Pah. The nation has a firm grasp on what is truly reprehensible in wartime.

quote:

"This is a shocking and deplorable video that is contrary to the high standards that we set for every Marine. We will investigate this and take appropriate actions," Marine Corps spokesman Maj. Chris Perrine said at a news conference Monday night.
He said the Marine is being kept safe in view of the anger over the alleged incident.

Okay, noted... puppy tossing is out, torture and abuse is in. I'm glad that is sorted.

"Torture"
"Abuse"

In the states we call it "Hazing".
It was meant in a good way.
In a "bring the team together" kind of way.

That's the kind of thing that makes us understand why US is always making war. If their troops are consisted of this kind of psychotics, then its obvious people think it's better to keep them far... far away US.

10% of adult US population is kept in prisons. If all the wreckos like those in this movie and the others in Al Gharib photos were sent to mental institutions, the burden to American society would be enormous...

Pshaw. It's nothing to do with the US any more than it's to do with getting a high volume of men with aggressive purposes into a concentrated area.

You take any army in the world and put them into a situation like Iraq and you'll see some crazy shit emerge.

I wonder if the puppy thing is even real, it kind of feels like a hoax, but we'll see.

In any event, you go to war long enough and you're going to see cruelty, it isn't about the soldiers being American. It's about soldiers being human and exposed to madness for too long.

It's simplistic to blame it on a nationality unless it's pervasive, for which there isn't much evidence.

quote:

It's simplistic to blame it on a nationality unless it's pervasive, for which there isn't much evidence.

Yeah. I agree... Last post was impulsive. But you must agree that it is not reasonable to send people to do what they're doing in Iraq and to keep them there after knowing what they're doing, that the arguments for their presence there were all faked and forged, etc...

Currently the presence of "coalition troops" in Iraq is costing more than the oil that was secured to some companies. And there's no way of bringing troops back without letting a bloodshed happens in that region. But the ones who caused damage must pay for fixing it. What is lacking is wisdom to do that without the resources of military presence.

When I was young I had a rule of thumb: don't enter places if you don't know how to get out of there (in one piece). Now I see it is a wise rule.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
Pshaw. It's nothing to do with the US any more than it's to do with getting a high volume of men with aggressive purposes into a concentrated area.

...

It's simplistic to blame it on a nationality unless it's pervasive, for which there isn't much evidence.

But the thing is the Americans keep sending the troops into parts of the world that want nothing to do with them.

How many countries in the modern era can honestly be said to have initiated as many military actions as the United States?

Even when there's no direct military action taking place it's deemed acceptable to refuse to talk to, or even acknowledge the legitimacy of, representatives of nations that the U.S. dislikes.

Which is without mentioning the embargoes on countries which make it harder for them to feed their populace and to acquire medical supplies for treatable conditions.

The problem very much is the United States, although I don't think that their soldiers behave dramatically worse than the soldiers of other countries would if thrust into their position.

you're just pissed we'll be pwning j00 for the next century. If you need an army, you play our game. Just the way it is. The only way to change it is to become us.

Be careful when looking into an abyss.

I think that China will be owning us soon enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Witness:

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
Pshaw. It's nothing to do with the US any more than it's to do with getting a high volume of men with aggressive purposes into a concentrated area.

...

It's simplistic to blame it on a nationality unless it's pervasive, for which there isn't much evidence.

But the thing is the Americans keep sending the troops into parts of the world that want nothing to do with them.

How many countries in the modern era can honestly be said to have initiated as many military actions as the United States?

Even when there's no direct military action taking place it's deemed acceptable to refuse to talk to, or even acknowledge the legitimacy of, representatives of nations that the U.S. dislikes.

Which is without mentioning the embargoes on countries which make it harder for them to feed their populace and to acquire medical supplies for treatable conditions.

The problem very much is the United States, although I don't think that their soldiers behave dramatically worse than the soldiers of other countries would if thrust into their position.

But your argument has nothing to do with torture or puppy tossing. Your arguing that the United States is the problem, but the problem for what?

What are you positing we are to blame for? All the troubles in the world?

The 20th Century?

The whole of the 21st century?

The United States being wrong is a pervasive statement that, specifically, means nothing. it's extremely popular and easy to blame "everything" on America, could you be more specific?

Overall, I wouldn't say America acts any worse than any other country ever has in it's unique position as dominant known world power.

quote:

Originally posted by Witness:
I think that China will be owning us soon enough.

And you'll wish the Americans were back in charge!