A classy thing to do would be to check before accusing me of misrepresentation. Another classy thing to do would have been to check when I said you were wrong.

Here's post #10, where I quoted the July 24 Economist article:

You said -- cluelessly, I might add -- that the U.S. was blameless for the collapse of the Doha round, so I quoted the Economist to point out that you are wrong.

Here is that article on the Economist's website. The first sentence of the third paragraph reads:

• The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies.

You'll note that I quoted it verbatim, splicing nothing. Ctrl-C, Cntrl-V.

I don't like being accused of misrepresentation. To do it so sloppily shows a real disregard.

You truly can't read, can you? The article points out the irony in Bush getting blamed not because he was blameless -- the article points out that the U.S. "resisted a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies" -- but because the U.S. had "push[ed] hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003.

Here is the full text of the article. You tell me where it says that Bush "insisted on . . . full revocation of farm subsidies."

• IT IS nearly five years since the latest round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations was born in the brilliant daylight of Doha, Qatar. For much of that time, however, the sun has been setting on ambitious plans for agricultural liberalisation, economic development, and global poverty reduction. As in Dylan Thomas’s poem, the wise men and the grave men have raged against the dying of the light, but their struggles have come to naught. On Monday July 24th, Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the WTO, said he would suspend discussions after a marathon 14-hour negotiation session between the big trading powers—America, the European Union (EU), Japan, Australia, Brazil, and India—failed to produce agreement on the contentious issue of cutting agricultural protections.
  
  Though there are wan hopes of restarting the round, at best it looks likely to be years before the sun rises again on the WTO talks. With Monday’s collapse, there is not enough time to get the details of an agreement hammered out before George Bush’s fast-track trade authority expires in July next year. This forces Congress to vote “yes” or “no” on trade agreements without amending them. Without it, no substantial agreement would survive the approval process. Given his administration’s myriad political problems, it is unlikely to be renewed, even if his party manages to hold onto both houses of Congress in the autumn mid-term elections.
  
  The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies. This is ironic, because America has been one of the grave men pushing hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003. Despite high-profile deviations, such as slapping tariffs on imported steel, Mr Bush has largely been a committed free trader.
  
  But his successor may well not be. Protectionist and anti-immigration sentiment is rising in both big parties in America, thanks partly to stagnating median wages. This will make fertile ground for protectionist politicians. Even those who are committed to free trade may find it wiser to suppress their liberalising urges. Mr Bush has found it difficult, politically, to expand trade and bring illegal immigrants into legal jobs. And whatever his instincts on trade, the next president will face a Congress much more hostile to open markets than those that gave Bill Clinton and Mr Bush authority to negotiate deals at the WTO. Without leadership, and concessions, from America, it is hard to see how the WTO can go much further.
  
  This is a tragedy, especially for the developing world. Last year, the World Bank estimated that global gains from trade liberalisation would equal roughly $287 billion, of which $86 billion would accrue to developing nations, lifting at least 66m people out of poverty. Activist groups including Greenpeace and Oxfam were quick to condemn both Washington and Brussels for intransigence over agricultural subsidies, saying that rich-world self interest is leaving the poor to suffer.
  
  Without further progress at the WTO, those keen on liberalising trade will focus on regional and bilateral agreements. These are already proliferating (see chart): just about every one of the WTO's 149 members is a party to a regional trade agreement of some sort.
  
  But these smaller agreements are a poor substitute for global progress. While they improve flows within the deal, they distort markets by favouring certain countries over others, even if their goods offer less economic value. The proliferation of special regulations, which companies must spend time and money to understand, does nothing to free up trade generally. And such deals sap the will for broader progress in multilateral talks. This is particularly harmful to smaller and poorer countries, which lack the economic muscle to win concessions from behemoths like America and the EU unless they are part of a broad negotiating consortium. With the sun finally setting on the hopes for Doha, there may be very dark times ahead for trade.

In fact, the sentence I quoted says the exact opposite of what you think the article said. "America . . . resist[ed] . . . caps on its own agricultural subsidies." If I inscribed it on a two-by-four and clubbed you in the forehead with it, you still wouldn't get it.

Learn to read before you accuse other people of lying.

When you start making sense about the word 'liberal," I'll take your views on the meaning of "free trade" seriously. Until then, it's pointless semantics. Even after then, actually. Have fun with the other "true free traders."

I can recognize that some environmental and labor protections are really just protectionism in disguise, but if this is your standard, you've got a big, big problem.

I want China and Indonesia and India and Mexico to stop building cheap poluting factories and paying their workers subsistance wages, the first because polution knows no borders and the second just because it is morally right (and negotiating a treaty seems like a less drastic way of ameliorating a wrong than invasion. YMMV.)

Liberals
 

"Liberal" is a subjective term. I'm not sure any one person's definition is completely in agreement with another's.

But I do know this for certain about "liberalism" - it's dead. Right now, millions of voters are throwing Republicans out of office because they spent like Democrats. The Democratic Party has adopted huge chunks of the classic GOP platform to win. Just look at the Democrats who are poised to take over battleground states - they're all moderates.

Don't blame Bill Clinton for sentencing the liberals to death and forcing the Dems to the center. That's putting the chicken before the egg. The voters had already rejected liberalism - Bill was just being a smart politician and following public sentiment.

In many regards, Karl Rove is right - the GOP can't lose today. The funny thing is, it'll be the Old GOP - the real Republicans - that win. So some of them will be Democrats. So what? That's just a name.

Liberals
 

So, Dr. Dangerfield, what's the prognosis on conservatism?

Watch what you say, they'll be calling you radical.
 

Great. Now, in addition to Geddy Lee singing "I will choose free trade!" in my head, I also have Phil Ochs singing "love me, love me, love me -- I'm a Rockefeller Republican." (Though that one doesn't scan as well.)

Can we have kippers for breakfast?

Show me the motto!
 

Um, Greedy, NotBob helpfully identified the German terrorists (Baader-Meinhof gang, aka and later known once the principals were kaput as RAF - Red Army Faction or somesuch, who were a (somewhat delayed, but still angry) reaction to post-War times - communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist. They certainly targeted American military for those reasons. In 1981, for example, they bombed Ramstein Air Base, which was Headquarters of the Tactical Air Command in Europe, if I recall correctly, killing 3 American military personnel and injuring others. And IIRC, this was accomplished through a car bomb in a parking lot on the base. I do know they also shot guns in the course of their activities, though perhaps not that specific instance, the bomb being somewhat of a deterrent to standing there to watch, I suppose, but that was just one late example of their (successfully) targeting American troops. Vietnam was cited as a reason for their activity, once there was that hook to grab, but that wasn't the primary motivation by any stretch, I don't think. As I said, their justifications evolved with the times.

Liberals
 

I don't know. I wasn't offering a prognosis on Liberalism - I was citing a fact. When you look at the slate of candidates and the prevailing cultural winds in this country, and the near certainty we'll have a Republican president in 2008, extending gridlock into the future indifintely, you can't reac any conclusion but that liberalism has no future.

My hope, which I will give you, is that Right Wing Conservativism dies the same death Liberalism has. I think this election is a rejection of fanaticism from both sides. Unfortunately, the GOP does not move to the center as quickly as the Dems do, largely because the GOP has too many "true believers" who support their often noxious social planks.

I think in times of economic trouble, which the coming years will provide in heaping portions, the country wisely decides to vote for reasoned moderation. Reasoned moderation means no more Liberals and no more James Dobsons. So my hope and prediction is that the two parties will spar as always to differentiate themselves, but when elected, compromise more than they have in the past. Which I think is a win for everyone.

Show me the motto!
 

Umm, remind me again, what are we disagreeing about?

Show me the motto!
 

You were suggesting that we were crazy to go into Iraq because, unlike with Germany post WWII, it was obvious that we would face years of dissident attacks during post-war occupation.

Show me the motto!
 

you tried to distinguish WWII and Iraq by saying 3 years after the war was over we had removed all troops. I pointed out that you were wrong. then all of you guys started making distinctions of how the troops were being treated.

I ignored the distinctions, since it was post hoc. nnonono, however, pointed out that even your distinctions were bullshit.

hope this helps.

Show me the motto!
 

A minor point at best. I'm just bored with sugar farmers.

Liberals
 

22222!!!

The time is nigh upon us, all of all y'all must decide one simple question:

do you love America and freedom or do you hate America and freedom?

For me, its easy, I will vote against the twin evils of Islamofacism and nanny-state paternalistic DNC plantation-style socialism as the same is propigated by faux-intellectual elitists,and for America. And freedom. Straight ticket Republican.

Join me. And Spanky. et. al.

God Bless my fellow citisens on this histouric day and may God have mercy on the haters!

Peace!

Penske

Show me the motto!
 

Umm, no. How were your reading comprehension scores on those standardized tests Spanky doesn't think you were required to take?

Show me the motto!
 

which type of sugar?

eta: ooops, this was more of a FB post. Please ignore (for those who don't have me on ignore-hi Less!) :blush:

Show me the motto!
 

Found the post:

So, anyone want to argue that we were "occupying" Germany for an extended period after the war? (FYI, formally, occupation ended in '48, with Berlin being a special case). Or that we did not have a strong plan for dealing with Germany post-war? Or, perhaps most to the point, because it's what this was really all about, that we had a good plan for dealing with Iraq?

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

Didn't take long for the moonbat Left to start trying to steal votes:

Show me the motto!
 

1) The marshall plan was not developed until 2 years after the war was concluded in Europe.

2) But, more to the point, relevance? Are you saying that the majority of Iraqis would be better off, long-run, with Saddam Hussein still in power? Should we do what he did, which is round up certain ethic groups and kill them?

Show me the motto!
 

Okay, back in the circle? There were certainly those in Germany who felt (and still feel) we are some sort of "occupying force." That's not particular to our presence somewhere post-any-war. You will find the same sentiment all over the world, by certain peole - see, eg., the Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Or are you suggesting that we should have had or could have had as relatively simple a time in Iraq as in Germany? The point I'd make is that nothing is ever that simple, and even in Germany, a much easier row to hoe than Iraq for myriad reasons, there was long-term resistance that we took seriously, armed against, drilled for and suffered as a result.

When exactly did we get out of Berlin, anyway?

Show me the motto!
 

We are still occupying Germany. When the last troops leave it will be over. then we focus our attention on disengaging from Skorea.

Show me the motto!
 

Shouldn't we leave Japan before that? And the south Pacific? FIFO and all . . .

Oh, and the South.

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

It's votin' time in Philadelphia. Oh, the sun also rose this morning.

Show me the motto!
 

I'm suggesting that the Bush administration should have planned more realistically and thoroughly for how to deal with the transition to post-Saddam rule in Iraq -- they should have had a clear plan, understood what they intended to do.

It was the neocons who though Iraq was going to be quite easy -- that we would be welcomed with open arms.

Show me the motto!
 

I stand corrected. well played, playa!

Show me the motto!
 

can we get time extension in Iraq for the 3 years it took to beat Germany?

Show me the motto!
 

i invented that

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...578#post282578 but dropped the "didn't" instead of a "did."

Show me the motto!
 

Son, you may think you're occupying the South, but haven't you noticed that we took over your army?

All your bases belong to us.

Show me the motto!
 

There is absolutely no comparison between the way US troops were treated in postwar Germany and in Iraq. Yes, there were occasional attacks on them (though I think that the targets were primarily the West German government, just as the Italian government was the target of the Red Brigades, and the Spanish government was the target of ETA). And, yes, we kept troops there for a long time.

But the troops weren't there to maintain order or to prop up the German government against any sort of underground Nazi movement. They were there for the simple reason that there were 200+ divisions of Soviet troops that were, it was feared, ready to roll across the border at a moment's notice.

And our troops in Germany didn't live exclusively in fortresses, unable to leave their bases except in armored convoys. Sure, the bases were secured, but many soldiers and their families lived in civilian German areas.

You want a historical analogy? Use the Philippines. We "liberated" them pretty quickly in 1898 when Admiral Dewey blasted the shit out of the Spanish fleet in Manilla, and then fought a brutal decade-long guerrilla war with insurgents who didn't like the fact that we had replaced the Spanish as overlords. Any US soldier found wandering alone after dark would likely have had his throat cut -- read some of the memoirs of the times. And the Philippines didn't get independence until 1946 and we occupied huge bases there until quite recently.

Show me the motto!
 

Well, Bush has two more years to figure it out. I'm afraid you'll have to ask the American people for any kind of extension beyond that time.

Maybe he should listen to the editorials in all those military papers yesterday as one good way to start.

Show me the motto!
 

So you think we should have been able to go in and get out of Iraq in 1/50th of the time it took to get out of Berlin, and 1/infinity (so far) of the time it's taken us to get out of everywhere else? The only place we got in and out of that quickly was Haiti, and how's that going?

You say it was the neocons who were naive about the process of total reconfiguration not only of a government and a country, but also the famous "hearts and minds," but now it's your arguments that suggest we've somehow failed by virtue of still being there. So, which is it: our plan was poorly thought-out and/or not executed effectively, or it was wrong to try to facilitate what we did?

Show me the motto!
 

we don't want an analogy. GGG did, and now you're all back pedelling. Not Bob, a sock is known by the company he keeps. You are thoguht of as far better than this lot- piece of advice? don't be seen as GGG's toady.

Show me the motto!
 

How many times did you post here before 2006? You could be in line for rookie newber of the year.....

Show me the motto!
 

2. BFF...

Show me the motto!
 

I didn't create the analogy. Someone suggested that the Marshall Plan was better than what we are doing in Iraq, as evidenced by the fact that we were out very quickly. The points have been made that a) we weren't out quickly and b) expecting one to behave like the other in any event is unrealistic. Germany was an easier place to be, and yet we remain there for a variety of reasons. Is it not possible that there are a variety of reasons for us still to be in Iraq?

Vote early and often - Part 1
 

I'm trying to figure out why my (republican) county government decided to change at the last minute the location of my (mostly democrat) precinct's voting location from it's normal location in the (overwhelmingly democrat) retirement community to the library half a mile a way.

I'm sure there was a good reason.

But it doesn't change the fact that I had to spend an extra 15 minutes figuring out where to go this morning and then - worse - listen in line to a gaggle (a pod?) of seniors bitch about having to go out in the cold to vote.

Show me the motto!
 

I was opposed to going into Iraq; once in, however, it must be done right. Bush provided inadequate forces and supplies and inadequate support for the Iraqi economy to recover, and had no plan for how to deal with millenia old ethnic conflicts; his choice of advocating a continued centralized federal government for the country comes with a significant cost, for us and the Iraqis, and he has failed to manage the situation effectively. Much of this comes from their attempts to apply half-backed theories like the Rumsfeld Doctrine (remember that one?)

Our plan was poorly though-out and not effectuated effectively. In addition, the choice to go in has distracted us from critical battles against terrorists, including in Afghanistan. The lack of clear domestic alliances, like the Northern Alliance, to build on resulted in the lebanization of the Iraqi constitution - and we know how Lebanon turned out.

So, yes, the bright guys down in DC, Wolfy, Rummy, Chenny and Bush, got us into this in a half-assed fashion and have run it in a half-assed fashion.

Show me the motto!
 

It all comes from Slave's comment that we would have been better off without Normandy. Let's go back to ignoring Slave.

Rumsfeld v. Powell and Franks
 

Anyone still ready to defend the Rumsfeld Doctrine?

Rummy used less than 100,000 troops in the invasion of Iraq; the Pentagon projected 400,000, mainly based on peace-keeping needs (e.g., securing ammo depots in the short term, preventing the establishment of militia in the media term, plain old fashion police work over the longer term).

Is there anyone out there who thinks, with 20/20 hindsight, that Rummy made the right choice.

Show me the motto!
 

Who is back-pedaling? You seriously want to compare my father in law's stint in Munich 1949 to my nephew's stint in Fallujah 2005?

Shoot, I have no idea how this started. At any rate, arguing with nono makes my head hurt. I still can't believe that I let a waitress come between us.