Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry I have been AWOL a while. Work and all.

3) We were so unbelievably successful in Afghanistan that it seem a little ripe to complain about what our military did there. So the campaign went only 98% correctly. I think we should be happy with that and stop the second guessing.

Is part of the 2% the part where we didn't find and/or kill the guy who started this mess? I wish my professors graded like you.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
ObL is 98% dead?!?! This is good news!

Would you have preferred it that we caught Osama Bin Ladin but that our troops were mired in an Afghan civil war like the Russians were?

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Spanky
Would you have preferred it that we caught Osama Bin Ladin but that our troops were mired in an Afghan civil war like the Russians were?

I'm pretty sure she'd have preferred 100% dead.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
I'm pretty sure she'd have preferred 100% dead.

Didn't your momma ever tell you you can't have everything in life.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Would you have preferred it that we caught Osama Bin Ladin but that our troops were mired in an Afghan civil war like the Russians were?

Well, no, but that doesn't really follow, does it?

I sense this discussion heading down the road to a screaming conclusion of "And You People Just Wanted Saddam To Stay In Power, Too!," am I right?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
ObL is 98% dead?!?! This is good news!

I think that per rules set forth in the Princess Bride, 98% means he can be brought back.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
ObL is 98% dead?!?! This is good news!

BTW - The Empire of the Word was a little tedious for the first 250 pages (that pretty much killed Saturday). The guy was a little detailed and my interest in Aramaic, Persian, Sanskrit and Chinese isn't all that intense. But once he gets into Greek, and the fight between the Celtic, Slavic, Germanic and Romance languages it gets real interesting. I guess I am pretty Occidental centric. Soon as I finish it I am going to get the Jared book. Did you think the second book was as good as the first (Guns, Germs and Steel)?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
BTW - The Empire of the Word was a little tedious for the first 250 pages (that pretty much killed Saturday). The guy was a little detailed and my interest in Aramaic, Persian, Sanskrit and Chinese isn't all that intense. But once he gets into Greek, and the fight between the Celtic, Slavic, Germanic and Romance languages it gets real interesting. I guess I am pretty Occidental centric. Soon as I finish it I am going to get the Jared book. Did you think the second book was as good as the first (Guns, Germs and Steel)?

I think Collapse is better than GG&S. Not so repetitive on the theory stuff. That said, the portion of the book devoted to the Greenland Norse has sort of dragged for me. I have one more chapter on them to read before I hit the next case study.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, no, but that doesn't really follow, does it?

I sense this discussion heading down the road to a screaming conclusion of "And You People Just Wanted Saddam To Stay In Power, Too!," am I right?

The speed with which we won that war was amazing. The fact that our casualtys were so low was also amazing. Do you realize how many of the Northern Alliance troops had died before we got involved. That had lost pretty much the whole country. We turned it around and in no time took the whole country back, and with very little casualtys. It was pure military genius. Do you know how hard it is to capture one man. We have enough trouble in this country doing it. In Afghanistan there were whole swaths of the country we did not control. Foreign leaders, if they don't want to be caught, are almost never caught unless they decide to stay. Saddam took out Kuwait in less than a day but the royal family escaped. It is not to hard to slip out when a country is at war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I think Collapse is better than GG&S. Not so repetitive on the theory stuff. That said, the portion of the book devoted to the Greenland Norse has sort of dragged for me. I have one more chapter on them to read before I hit the next case study.

Greenland Norse? - I can see how that would get a little old. Anway I will probably hit it at the end of this weak. Better than GG&S. That is quite a compliment.

Was I right about Jared's voice?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry I have been AWOL a while. Work and all.

1) T-Rex you never did tell me why almost every business organization would be for CAFTA (and say that CAFTA promotes free trade) when CAFTA wasn't really a free trade deal.

What is a "free trade deal", in your book? I keep asking you to explain what CAFTA actually does, and you just say that business likes it, so it must be good.

Here's a free-trade supporter explaining why he voted against CAFTA:

• CAFTA Is A Step Backward For U.S. Trade
  Thursday July 28, 2005
  
  I have voted for every trade agreement since coming to Congress in 1987. I have cast these votes -- often difficult ones -- because I fundamentally believe that trade has the potential to generate economic growth and raise standards of living.
  
  The key is to ensure that we realize that potential. Unfortunately, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), as presented to Congress, actually weakens U.S. law with regard to basic labor standards. As this article goes to press, the House is expected to vote on CAFTA before adjourning for its month-long August recess.
  
  In my view, ensuring basic labor standards is a critical component of any trade agreement because they ensure what we say we care about most: improving living standards, establishing middle-class societies that strengthen young democracies, strengthening U.S. national security, and creating new markets for American goods and services.
  
  Over the last several decades, we have focused more attention in the United States on non-tariff barrier issues. We currently are working hard on protecting intellectual property and services. The United States also has been a leader in getting basic international labor standards included in past trade agreements. Few Americans want products coming into the United States that are made in violation of child labor standards. I feel the same way about other international labor standards that have been issued by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and accepted by virtually every nation in the world.
  
  As a result, I have joined other members of Congress in pushing for trade agreements that meet the most basic international standards of common decency and fairness. These five basic standards include the right to organize and bargain collectively, and bans on discrimination, exploitative child labor and slave labor. These basic standards should be a priority to our nation and should be reflected in the trade agreements we negotiate.
  
  For more than 20 years, we have made significant progress on these important issues. In 1984, when we enacted the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) under President Reagan, we made it very clear that making progress toward international labor standards was a condition for the trade benefits. If a country violated that condition, the United States had the right to apply trade sanctions by removing the benefit. In 2000, we strengthened that condition to require that countries actually achieve these basic labor standards.
  
  That's the law today regarding Central American countries, and it’s critical that -- at the very least -- we maintain these minimum standards. The CAFTA agreement that has been submitted to Congress repeals the CBI standards for Central American countries and puts in place only the requirement that countries enforce their own labor laws — however weak those standards may be.
  
  The U.S. Department of State and the ILO have reported that labor laws in CAFTA countries fail to meet ILO standards in at least 20 areas. And, if a Central American country does not enforce its labor laws, the CAFTA “remedy” is a very ineffective fine that is paid back to the country that violated the provisions.
  
  If this bill becomes law, the United States will not be able to use trade sanctions or the threat of trade sanctions — as we have done successfully in the past — to press other countries to improve their labor laws and enforcement practices. If the bill is defeated, it should be taken as a sign that Americans support trade agreements that improve living standards around the world.
  
  The Bush Administration has failed to make workers’ rights a priority. Many Republicans are clearly troubled by the agreement, and the President visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday to keep the pressure on members of his party who may be wavering in their support.
  
  I support a strong free trade agreement for Central America, but, unfortunately, CAFTA is not that agreement.
  
  I want a free trade agreement that will improve the standard of living in these countries so that these nations have a real chance to improve economic opportunities and offer a better way of life to theirs citizens. Such an agreement would help Central American countries and would also provide grater market access to U.S. manufacturers, producers and farmers.

Rep. Benjamin Cardin (D.-Md.), originally published in the Financial Times

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
The speed with which we won that war was amazing. The fact that our casualtys were so low was also amazing. Do you realize how many of the Northern Alliance troops had died before we got involved. That had lost pretty much the whole country. We turned it around and in no time took the whole country back, and with very little casualtys. It was pure military genius. Do you know how hard it is to capture one man. We have enough trouble in this country doing it. In Afghanistan there were whole swaths of the country we did not control. Foreign leaders, if they don't want to be caught, are almost never caught unless they decide to stay. Saddam took out Kuwait in less than a day but the royal family escaped. It is not to hard to slip out when a country is at war.

And the reason we went in there at all was.....what again?

We destroyed terrorist training camps. Great. Set them up for elections. Yippee. How much better it would have been if we had just put a few more boots on the ground in Tora Bora and captured/killed/anally gang-banged the man personally responsible for 9/11 and his loyal henchmen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Would you have preferred it that we caught Osama Bin Ladin but that our troops were mired in an Afghan civil war like the Russians were?

We're there, aren't we?

The husband of one of my wife's co-workers is serving in Afghanistan right now. She'll be so happy to hear that there's no fighting going on. She's been so worried.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
BTW - The Empire of the Word was a little tedious for the first 250 pages (that pretty much killed Saturday). The guy was a little detailed and my interest in Aramaic, Persian, Sanskrit and Chinese isn't all that intense. But once he gets into Greek, and the fight between the Celtic, Slavic, Germanic and Romance languages it gets real interesting. I guess I am pretty Occidental centric. Soon as I finish it I am going to get the Jared book. Did you think the second book was as good as the first (Guns, Germs and Steel)?

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

[Spanky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What is a "free trade deal", in your book? I keep asking you to explain what CAFTA actually does, and you just say that business likes it, so it must be good.

Here's a free-trade supporter explaining why he voted against CAFTA:
[list]CAFTA Is A Step Backward For U.S. Trade

1) I already explained before that it will immediately reduce by eighty percent, the tariffs on goods already being traded and will pretty much eliminate all tariffs in the next twenty years. That is what free trade is all about.

2) You were shocked before when I said I couldn't see a reason why business would support the deal if it was not a free trade agreement. You said you would provide one and never did. I am still waiting for that reason (like I said before, who has the most to gain from free trade - american business. So if it really wasn't a free trade deal it would be in the pecuniary interest to support it).

3) That article you cited only talks about labour standards. There I thought it was going to be about free trade but it was not. You said before that it really did not increase free trade. It reduces almost all the tariffs.