Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
We just need to kill the insurgents faster.

Watch Falujah tomorrow.

Along those lines, one of the media reports indicated that the Black Watch was told their redeployment would last no more than 30 days.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Cite for the proposition that he sold his copyrights?

Slightly outable, but what the hell.

In an odd coincidence, not only have I met John Hall of Orleans, but I have had a conversation with him about copyrights. He does still own his stuff, at least the compositions.

Not that that makes a difference for a public performance of that type, as one does not need explicit advance permission for such public performances (using it in a movie or television program is another matter). He's signed with BMI, and as long as the venues are paying their license fees, they're in the clear (although I believe he still can technically refuse the use of the song if he's aware of the use - it's been a while since I've looked at that aspect). I'm sure Orleans had a standard record contract that assigned the rights in the sound recording over to their lable, but he couldn't stop it anyway because there's no public performance right in the sound recording. He still might be able to pull off some sort of false endorsement claim, especially in the 9th Circuit.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Slightly outable, but what the hell.

In an odd coincidence, not only have I met John Hall of Orleans, but I have had a conversation with him about copyrights. He does still own his stuff, at least the compositions.

Not that that makes a difference for a public performance of that type, as one does not need explicit advance permission for such public performances (using it in a movie or television program is another matter). He's signed with BMI, and as long as the venues are paying their license fees, they're in the clear (although I believe he still can technically refuse the use of the song if he's aware of the use - it's been a while since I've looked at that aspect). I'm sure Orleans had a standard record contract that assigned the rights in the sound recording over to their lable, but he couldn't stop it anyway because there's no public performance right in the sound recording. He still might be able to pull off some sort of false endorsement claim, especially in the 9th Circuit.

Or he can go to the media and let the rest of the country know that he dislikes Bush and wishes the guy wouldn't play his song duing his re-election bid. Just sort of to embarrass Bush. Oh, wait...

(I thought that something similar to this happened last presidential election. Am I imagining this?)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
In an odd coincidence, not only have I met John Hall of Orleans, but I have had a conversation with him about copyrights.

Okay, this may be absolutely stupid, as I know nothing about this area, but, if Hall's songs are typically bought by people who fit a Dem profile, and Bush's wrongful use of that song causes people to associate it with Republicans, and the song stops selling completely, does he have a claim against Bush for wrecking his established market?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Or he can go to the media and let the rest of the country know that he dislikes Bush and wishes the guy wouldn't play his song duing his re-election bid. Just sort of to embarrass Bush. Oh, wait...

(I thought that something similar to this happened last presidential election. Am I imagining this?)

Well, yeah, there's that.

I don't think the Boss was all that fond of Reagan using Born in the U.S.A., but may have let it slide for the irony.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Otherwise, if you want to avoid even the hint of stories like we've seen the last year, you would need 2/3rds of America's military and police forces (several million people) keeping a lid on a country that is as heavily armed as Iraq.

Which is to say, my original criticism still stands, but there is no way we ever could have sent enough people to keep a lid on all of the dangerous arms in Iraq.

Theres a lot of truth to this, but I draw an additional criticism out of it.

We set our strategy based on the assumption that we would be seeking to move quickly in battle against assembled forces, and that by defeating these forces we would secure control of the country. Those assembled forces dissipated, remaining in place only long enough to put up some token resistance and slow us down. They didn't stay and fight.

The real strategy seems to have been to hold fire and wage an insurgency, and my bet is that there are forces in Iraq we still aren't hearing from that are ready to make military moves for control. We didn't prepare for this kind of war; if we were preparing for it, we would have placed a higher priority on securing arms caches and we would have had very significant special forces deployed with a seek and destroy mission.

Why did we go into Iraq with the wrong strategy? Because Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had something to prove (that they haven't). This wasn't the military's strategy.

The Yankees should keep Joe Torre. But Rummy and Wolfowitz have to go.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Contra John Kerry, who thinks that the insurgents/terrorists that kill the American/Pole - not the munitions - are the actual "nuisance"

Your intellect is dizzying.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Or he can go to the media and let the rest of the country know that he dislikes Bush and wishes the guy wouldn't play his song duing his re-election bid. Just sort of to embarrass Bush. Oh, wait...

(I thought that something similar to this happened last presidential election. Am I imagining this?)

Bruuuuuuuuuce! was unhappy about the Gipper's use of "Born In The USA" in 1984, and Bobby McFerrin was displeased about Bush the Elder using "Don't Worry/Be Happy" in 1988. Offhand, I don't remember anyone being unhappy in 2000. Music-wise, that is.

I think that Fleetwood Mac was ok with Clinton using "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" in 1996 (eta or 1992?). And 10,000 Maniacs (well, at least Natalie Merchant) sang at the inaugural in 1993, so I assume that they were OK with Bill using "These Are The Days" in the 1992 campaign.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
For me, it's not about the 380 tons of explosives that have disappeared (though believe me, I'm not happy about it). It's that this whole scandal shows how poorly thought through the entire Iraq war has been. It shows how we ignored international bodies who were monitoring the situation. It shows how we were totally unprepared for the insurgency. It shows how we didn't have enough intelligence on Iraq. It shows how the administration doesn't have a clue what's going on over there. It's been four days since the story broke and no one can keep the stories straight.

RT, you felt that each of the sentences following the first was true long ago, and so you find the first sentence provides more evidence of each of your following points.

And for any dickhead who happened to first come here recently, and think I'm some goose stepping Bush yes man; I am not. I am one of the very few people who will criticize the administration. I just think on this one you guys are trying to create something out of nothing. I am a practical man, and good with numbers. Here's some problems with the story being a Bush fuck up.

Start with there were 600-800000 Tons of explosives in Iraq. We invade. The advance troops were attacking. I have no idea how many of those advance troops would have to stop to "guard it all."

The new story starts with 380 Tons are missing. One problem I have is that 380 Tons would take one big assed convoy to move. It wouldn't be "looting" it would be a big big project. I can't possibly see how it couold have been done AFTER we took over. Concession: I've not been to Iraq so I don't know how disorganized it is. Still, I cannot imagine our military could fail to see such a convoy.

Over the past few days stories come out that it was gone when we got there, or that the really bad stuff was only a few Tons. A news clip shows a few barrels were there when we got there. A few barrels doesn't prove there was 3 tons when we got there, and certainly doesn't prove 300 Tons. Simply, the story is far too shaky to be taken as proven. Without a partisan slant from the start, you can't point a finger here.

But really, in a country with 600000 Tons of explosives, if a few hundred are missing that's not bad percentage wise. Is it bad that troops will die from it? Of course, but keeping the lost explosives to possibly as little as .05% seems to me good. That doesn't mean I don't feel for dead soldiers Thurgreed. I do as much as the next guy.

To make a story of this is to say that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it was too well-armed.

ps lgf had a link to a story about a press conference at the Pentagon where a soldier claims we took alot of it out. Can't find it anymore

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, this may be absolutely stupid, as I know nothing about this area, but, if Hall's songs are typically bought by people who fit a Dem profile, and Bush's wrongful use of that song causes people to associate it with Republicans, and the song stops selling completely, does he have a claim against Bush for wrecking his established market?

Not that I can see. Of course, maybe in the 9th Circuit. Or it might be part of the damages phase of a false endorsement claim.

But I think the music of Orleans is probably equally enjoyed by both sides of the isle.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
More on what went wrong -- it wasn't just the failure to deploy enough troops, it was the bone-headed reliance on Ahmed Chalabi et al.:

• Al Qaqaa was on a classified list of Iraqi weapons facilities that the CIA provided to Pentagon and military officials before the invasion, said the U.S. intelligence official.
  
  But when the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command produced their own list of sites that a limited number of U.S. "exploitation teams" should search, priority was given to those identified by exiled Iraqi opposition groups, he said. Al Qaqaa wasn't one of them.

from Knight-Ridder, via blogs

I love this "The press can't report anything negative about Bush until every single possible scenario has been outlined because they may be wrong." That's bullshit. The NYT was not irresponsible in reporting this story. They reported what they had. Sure, conclusions were drawn one way and the other. That's what happens.

When the story broke, people on both sides explored what might be the cause. And because the story was so important and because both sides were digging, more information came out. That's the way it works. If the NYT sat on the story until they themselves could dig up every single fact (including ABC's footage that they didn't have) before going to press, they might as well have buried it forever.

If Clinton had been President and Bush was challenging and this was being reported, I doubt the same people would be throwing a fit about how irresponsible the Times was being. But of course, their stock response will be: "The Times would have sat on it if Clinton were President." But we all know that's bullshit.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Contra John Kerry, who thinks that the insurgents/terrorists that kill the American/Pole - not the munitions - are the actual "nuisance"

You're purposefully being misleading about what he said. I did no such thing with your stupid statement.

TM

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Your intellect is dizzying.

So is trying to understand Kerry.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So is trying to understand Kerry.

I was reading some interesting polling data - I'll have to try to find it - that indicated that Bush's flip-flop theme basically worked as long as voters didn't feel they knew Kerry. Now that most voters feel like they know Kerry, every time it gets used Bush's credibility takes a dive.

So, you may want to keep making this point.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
RT, you felt that each of the sentences following the first was true long ago, and so you find the first sentence provides more evidence of each of your following points.

And for any dickhead who happened to first come here recently, and think I'm some goose stepping Bush yes man; I am not. I am one of the very few people who will criticize the administration. I just think on this one you guys are trying to create something out of nothing. I am a practical man, and good with numbers. Here's some problems with the story being a Bush fuck up.

Start with there were 600-800000 Tons of explosives in Iraq. We invade. The advance troops were attacking. I have no idea how many of those advance troops would have to stop to "guard it all."

The new story starts with 380 Tons are missing. One problem I have is that 380 Tons would take one big assed convoy to move. It wouldn't be "looting" it would be a big big project. I can't possibly see how it couold have been done AFTER we took over. Concession: I've not been to Iraq so I don't know how disorganized it is. Still, I cannot imagine our military could fail to see such a convoy.

Over the past few days stories come out that it was gone when we got there, or that the really bad stuff was only a few Tons. A news clip shows a few barrels were there when we got there. A few barrels doesn't prove there was 3 tons when we got there, and certainly doesn't prove 300 Tons. Simply, the story is far too shaky to be taken as proven. Without a partisan slant from the start, you can't point a finger here.

But really, in a country with 600000 Tons of explosives, if a few hundred are missing that's not bad percentage wise. Is it bad that troops will die from it? Of course, but keeping the lost explosives to possibly as little as .05% seems to me good. That doesn't mean I don't feel for dead soldiers Thurgreed. I do as much as the next guy.

To make a story of this is to say that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it was too well-armed.

Bullshit. If you have a list of places with dangerous explosives and you don't secure the place with dangerous explosives, it's a big deal. I don't care if a bunch of other explosives were destroyed. The point is, they knew about the stuff and either "spaced" it or didn't have enough troops there to secure it.

And don't give me that idiotic numbers argument. If they 1 billion tons of explosives and we missed one million tons, sure, we'd be doing okay as far as percentages go. But there are still one million tons of explosives out there.

And I don't know why you think what I believe I posted directly to slave has anything to do with you. Must be your guilty conscience. The footnote telling you to shut up was something unrelated to the rip on Giuliani.

TM