Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Ah, deja vu is beginning: with Negroponte there, a local CIA-trained and approved Iraqi strongman in place, recruiting of Saddamists for a secret police under way, the death squads can't be far behind. Boy, we sure do know how to nation-build, don't we?

Charles

It doesn't seem to matter one way or the other, since it was always no more than a puppet government. Four more American soldiers killed in the past 24 hours. Negroponte doesn't have any more authority of what is really happening than Bremer did.

If you want a model for how Allawi and Negroponte will get along, take a peek at Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai is the President, but US Ambaddador Zalmay Khalilzad is *at least* unofficial co-President.

Instead of exporting democracy, let's just export the the Bush-Cheney model of leadership!

Here's proof that the media is(n't) liberal:

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/who_said_the_el.html

Egad. I've heard rumors that ambassadors, even US ones, have disagreed with governments in the past. I've even heard that veiled threats play a role in international politics.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, to see a weaker nation defer to the wishes of a stronger nation like this in public. It has never happened before. Not once.

Yes, there is a context of nation building that makes this carry additional implications, but let's not make the childish argument that bowing to American pressure is the same as having no sovereignity.

Jason, we've just pressured the Iraqis into conceding that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life. That will do wonders for their legitimacy.

I don't think nation building is the "context"; I think it's the text. Or, as the sad fact would have it, the pretext.

So you would be in favor of the US demurly nodding if say Yemen gives Osama bin Laden Amensty for the death of both its own citizens and American citizens? Or can we only raise our voices in dissent with fully "legtimate" countries. I think as a precedent letting other countries give blanket amnesty to people who have murdered Americans is generally a bad idea without the full consent of the American executive and judical branches, call me kkaarazzzy.

As for both Allawi and Karzi, neither has yet (both should undergo elections within the next 3-6 months) to be fully legitimized by a democratic process. I would hope that the longest standing and most stable democracy might lend a hand in the interim, much like the EU and America did and are still doing in Kosov and Bosnia. I understand some may view the US presence in Afganistan and Iraq more like the Russian prescense in Chechnya than the situation in the Balkans, I just think its too soon to tell.

Andy,

You are wrong.

We have said that an American life is worth a very great deal.

Allawi has said that an Iraqi life is worth less. And that's his prerogative.

But WE will decide what an American life is worth, he doesn't get to do that.

Glenn,

As a matter of equity, the US government gets to determine conditions on its own soil, while the government of Iraq gets to determine conditions on its soil. Certainly, the US government had better hold the lives of tis own citizens more dear than those of any other country. However, if Iraq were a sovereign nation, it would have the perogative of determining the worth of US and Iraqi lives on Iraqi soil. We might weedle and threaten and negotiate, but not overrule. When the US publicly undermines Iraq's ability to make sovereign decisions, we undermine Allawi's ability to make his government look legitimate to Iraqi citizens. We have the same damaging effect when we prevent Allawi, who certainly knows more about Iraqi sensitilities than Negroponte, from making policy intended to reduce violence in Iraq.

The US dead are dead. Unless one wants to argue that Allawi's scuppered amnesty would have led to more US deaths than no amnesty, the question is now whether we want to support Allawi in the hope that he can bring stability for Iraqis.

Charles,
Negroponte has got his death squad already - Allawi.

"I think as a precedent letting other countries give blanket amnesty to people who have murdered Americans is generally a bad idea without the full consent of the American executive and judical branches, call me kkaarazzzy."

Osama murdered Americans.

But when we invade another country, it seems a bit rich to describe the death of our soldiers at the hands of the locals as "murder".

"I am shocked, SHOCKED, to see a weaker nation defer to the wishes of a stronger nation like this in public."

- Actually, it is not the NATION that is deferring to our wishes; if it were, we would not still be losing soldiers at the rate of 15 a week.

It is the "government" of said weaker nation that has been obliged publicly to defer to us. Bearing in mind that we have installed this government in the devout hope that it will drain away some of the resistance to our presence, this does seem to be counter-productive. Enough of this, and we may eventually find that the NATION of Iraq has become unanimously non-deferential.

"Osama murdered Americans.

But when we invade another country, it seems a bit rich to describe the death of our soldiers at the hands of the locals as "murder"."

Okay. If UN peace keepers with blue hats and rifles are killed by a warlord while handing out food in subSaharan Africa, are they murdered or not?

Were US Rangers in Mogadishu an invading force, so we can't apply the term 'murderer' to the people who dragged their bodies through the street?

I don't think it is that straight forward.

I think as a precedent letting other countries give blanket amnesty to people who have murdered anybody is generally a bad idea...

unfortunately, Negroponte and the WH will almost certainly cave on this. they have no choice. Allawi's biggest value-add is that he can damp down the ex-Baathi insurgents by embracing them in the new regime and using them against the Shiite militias. meet the new boss indeed.

the ex-army insurgents are (apparently) the ones who pose by far the greatest immediate tactical threat to US troops. taken with the burning, desperate desire on the part of the Bush admin to see things in Iraq calm down before the election regardless of future expense, we can pretty safely expect that some gentlemanly agreement will be reached shortly... Negroponte may ask for some rephrasing to save face, but Allawi will get his way.

Pithy isn't it all.

As a matter of realpolitik, the amnesty is really the only way to go, unless we're simply going to settle down in Iraq for the foreseeable future, treating Allawi as Diem. If you think any amnesty at all is a bad idea, you're entitled to your opinion, and we're all lucky you're not running Iraq.

Conceding the need for an amnesty, an amnesty that (1) lets killers off the hook for murdering Iraqis but (2) excludes those who killed U.S. soldiers, is political nonsense for an Iraqi gov't. The Iraqi people do not, by & large, care much about dead Americans. Their opposition to the insurgency rests almost entirely on their wish for security, i.e., their hopes of not becoming dead Iraqis.

Whatever we may call it, the situation in Iraq is a war, and taking the attitude that we're going to subject every enemy combatant to trial for murder is just, to coin a term, "kkaarazzzy." Imagine if we had conducted the war in Vietnam on a similar basis.

A general amnesty is the best route to cooling the country down, isolating the diehards so they can be addressed by the limited security resources Allawi has available, and getting our troops the hell out of the quicksand. Forgoing revenge for already-dead Americans is a necessary step towards limiting the number of future dead Americans.

Iraq is not Mogadiscio. That's one of the reasons noboby honest trusts the USA.

DSW

'Okay. If UN peace keepers with blue hats and rifles are killed by a warlord while handing out food in subSaharan Africa, are they murdered or not?'

Yes if it takes place when they're handing out food. Not if it takes place during a battle.

'Were US Rangers in Mogadishu an invading force, so we can't apply the term 'murderer' to the people who dragged their bodies through the street?'

gruesome as it might be, that was part of a battle, so it would not be called murder. We cannot call any of the warlords milita murderers for that reason, but we may do so for other reasons. And US Rangers were not an invading force in Mogadhisu in general.

Sometimes I get sad and frustrated reading (presumably) American comments on things like this.

Given the scale of the resistance to the occupation (or insurgency or whatever you want to call it) it seems clear that an amnesty of some sort is required to bring it to an end. It is one of the oldest way of splitting up violent oppositionist groups (The Spanish used it against ETA for examle) Then the question is why on earth would killers of Americans NOT be included in such an amnesty, I can't see a reason.

Not including killers of American troops means the amnesty is effectively useless, and therfore is only prolonging the insurgency (presuming it would have worked anyway). Remember from an IRAQI point of view the killers of US soilders have MORE legitimacy than the killers of Iraqis.

Look, Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket. If the way to stop it is to offer an amnesty, that should be done. Even if it only slows things down but gives time to get plans together, it should still be done.

'So you would be in favor of the US demurly nodding if say Yemen gives Osama bin Laden Amensty for the death of both its own citizens and American citizens?'

We certainly seem to have done that in Saudi Arabia for Al Qaeda members.

'We have said that an American life is worth a very great deal.

Allawi has said that an Iraqi life is worth less. And that's his prerogative.'

How do you think normal Iraqis (who seem to object to Iraqi deaths by insurgents a lot, and to object to American soldier deaths by insurgents very little) will react at being told by their supposedly independent PM that he does otherwise ?

The fact is that governments strike amnesties with such groups all the time. Britian pardoned Gerry Adams, the IRA leader, despite his record of killing innocent civilians.

As I think on this, I believe Andy and Tadhgin are correct. It may be that Iraq will have to pardon murderers to cool things down, and in that light the deferential treatment of Americans is bad (and the PR is worse). As Andy mentions, this is realpolitik, and it therefore should not be conflated with the separate argument of whether or not car bombers are murderers. I can accept that amnesty is the most utilitarian course to follow, and I agree after some thought that we should not be seeking the American amnesty.

I don't agree with prof. De Long that sovereignity is brought into question merely by our staking out a position, I am now just saying that the position we chose was poorly thought out.

What I really object to is this whole notion that there is some kind of understandable justice when the flunkies of a deposed tyrant blow up their own people and the force that deposed them. These aren't freedom fighters, they are self interested thugs clinging to ill gotten power.

As implied by comments like Antoni's, many folks seem perfectly willing to overlook the nature of the tyrant and simply presume that he is in some way representative of his people. There is NO difference between the warlord dujour in Mogadishu lording over his petty dictatorship at gunpoint and Saddam doing the same over a larger area. Saddam had NO sovereignity, and his people didn't either because they had no say in thier governance. I blame the UN for the confusion. We should stop pretending that dictatorships are real governments. They should have to beg to speak to a global body that consists of solely of real representative governments.

Arrgh.

This:

"I agree after some thought that we should not be seeking the American amnesty."

Should be this:

"I agree after some thought that we should not oppose amnesty for the killers of Americans."

[[[we've just pressured the Iraqis into conceding that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life. That will do wonders for their legitimacy.]]]

not at all. what we've done is allow the iraqis to decide for themselves what they want to do with insurgents who have affected their own civilians, yet reserved the right to punish appropriately those who have harmed americans. that has nothing to do with valuing one life over the other

[[[However, if Iraq were a sovereign nation, it would have the perogative of determining the worth of US and Iraqi lives on Iraqi soil.]]]]

obviously you are unfamiliar with the various status of forces agreements that the US military has throughout the world, unless of course you would also consider south korea just another US puppet

Jon,

The status of forces agreements are quite specific. My comment quite general, so unless you can quote chapter and verse from a SOFA that contradicts my comment, you are not doing much more than throwing big words around. In general, SOFAs do not let the host government extend legal authority over US troops or bases, but neither do they allow US forces to extend legal authority over the citizens of the host government. It is the latter situation that we are discussing here. So I think you have drawn a completely inapt comparison. Which is to say, you are obviously not familiar with various status of forces agreements, but pretend that you are.

Iraq lessons from Central America

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/111303.html

THE KILLER REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC ARGUMENT

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/the_killer_repu.html

OFF-TOPIC: DOW Dips Below 10,000

The DOW this morning dipped below 10,000. That is more pyschological than substantive. Still, the DOW is doen since the beginning of this (election) year and it is down even more from when Bush took office. A lot of people with 401(k)s and other investments surely are noting this, even if the media are not.

Arthur,

I am reluctant to wander into stock market analysis, but my chartist buddies are very concerned that the Dow, S&P and Nasdaq have all broken below their 200-day averages. All three posted losses yesterday, despite Intel's announcement of a massive transfer of cash to stock holders. When good news can't generate price gains, traders tend to worry.

kharris,

It is more the political fallout of falling stock prices that interests me. As Bush campaigns around the country touting his economic policies, folk with 401(k) money and other investments -- not just those with wage stagnation and fuel and food inflation concerns -- will have good reasons to doubt Bush's message. I do not, however, see evidence that the media are paying attention. And Kerry, perceived as a wealthy investor, would seem too self-interested to raise the issue himself.

Arthur

Arthur,

Agreed. One reason I pointed out the apparent precarious situation among stock indices is that the press needs a spectacle to write a headline. Stocks have done not much all year. It they produce a spectacular slump, headlines will follow. Households do respond to stock prices, but not always strongly - unless they are told it is time to worry. So if the chart guys are right, we may be in for a spectacle.

"Were US Rangers in Mogadishu an invading force, so we can't apply the term 'murderer' to the people who dragged their bodies through the street?"

As a matter of fact, they WERE an invading force. The Rangers were sent on a pointless mission into an extremely dangerous part of the city in a hare-brained and badly planned scheme to kill Mohammad Aidid, a local militia leader who wouldn't follow U.S. orders because he had the strange idea that Somalia was his country and not the U.S.'s. The locals didn't want the U.S. army in their country, so some of them fought back when they were INVADED.

It was not murder to kill those Rangers, any more than it's murder when the militia in Fallujah kill a Marine who's trying to kill them. Dragging them through the street afterwards was nauseating, but understandable when you consider that the Rangers killed over 500 people during the battle, and the locals were not in a forgiving mood.

And, of course, Aidid got away scot-free.

Sigh. Even some here don't seem to get it. When US troops are on foreign soils P{eople there have the RIGHT to kill them!!! Okay??? Deal with it!!

Basharov:

Some of the people didn't want us there. Those people were very interested in maintaining their kleptocracy. Invaded the territory legitimately owned by whom? How did the people from whom food aid was taken feel? Aidid's victims?

You are saying that any sitting force, irrespective of how they attained power and irrespective of what they do when they attain it, should properly be considered freedom fighters and protectors of the homeland when attacked by a force intent on eliminating a tyrant?

That Aidid got away scot free was a catastrophic failure of military will, which OBL frequently cites in his "paper tiger" rhetoric. The man should have been dead like fried chicken.

Right guys. What investors really want is higher taxation on dividends, higher labor costs for the companies they invest in, and less profitability because it is evil.

"That Aidid got away scot free was a catastrophic failure of military will, which OBL frequently cites in his "paper tiger" rhetoric. The man should have been dead like fried chicken."

Posted by Jason Ligon at July 22, 2004 11:45 AM

'Should' is correct. And maybe, just maybe, if Bush had handled the Iraq war with competancy, those Iraqi guerrillas wouldn't get away with killing Americans.

'You are saying that any sitting force, irrespective of how they attained power and irrespective of what they do when they attain it, should properly be considered freedom fighters and protectors of the homeland when attacked by a force intent on eliminating a tyrant? '

Lets turn that around. You're saying that a foreign force, irrespective of other ulterior motives they may have, irrespective of how many civilian casualties are caused, has the high moral ground if they intend to depose a tyrant.

The truth lies somewhere in between these 2 extremes.

'That Aidid got away scot free was a catastrophic failure of military will, which OBL frequently cites in his "paper tiger" rhetoric. The man should have been dead like fried chicken. '

The fight in Mogadhishu had already killed hundreds of civiians. We were going to demonstrate our moral superiority by undertaking an operation that would almost certainly have killed further hundreds (probably thousands of civilians), might not have got Aidid (who had a long history of civil war fights and was not exactly an easy target), and would probably not have helped the Somali people (since the other thugs on the ground were as bad as Aidid). Tragic as the deaths of the marines were (and nauseating as their being dragged dead through the streets was), it was a battle in which they killed hundreds (including armed civilians who had no real connection to Aidid).

I also know its said time and again that Bin Laden thought that Americans would not take casualties from this incident. Its also worth pointing out that if we had tried to take out Aidid, there would have been deaths of thousands of Muslims, which would have inflamed Muslim passions in other parts of the world and not reduced the terror threat at all.

And for what ? So we would spend a lot of money rebuilding Somalia ? Otherwise, whever we left it, the militias would have started up again.

Jason,

As soon as you start putting words in the other guys mouth ("so you're saying..."), alarm bells go off. When the words you put in the other guys mouth have the effect of creating a straw man for you to knock down, you really aren't in a discussion with the other guy any more. All the moralizing and spinning in the world don't change the actual facts.

We are talking about the killing of US military forces, in what is still a combat situation, regardless of what our president said months ago on a diverted aircraft carrier. Should we be unconcerned over their deaths? No. Should we try to pretend that terms normally reserved for criminal behavior have any relevance when there is very little chance that a code of criminal justice will be applied in dealing with the killers? Can't see why we should.

There are, in fact, codes of criminal behavior that apply during war time. They cover war crimes. I don't think that killing armed soldiers qualify as war crimes in very many instances. Killing civilians unnecessarily does constitute a war crime. So does torture. As things stand, I think accusing Iraqis of crimes against US soldiers is just way beside the point. If we want to stop the killing of US soldiers in Iraq, Iraq needs to be stabilized. Alawi was apparently trying to do just that. We undermined him.

I wonder whether there are many in the insurgency who would seriously believe an offer of amnesty. (I don't think I personally would go for it.) After stories of rape and torture of children, would you expect your occupiers, or their puppet government, to be honorable in their treatment of you? And would one who took amnesty be called traitor by his fellows?

It seems to me that amnesty has only worked in a few instances where a recognized force structure could lay down its arms en masse--and even not always then.

It also seems to go against the general attitude of the Koran. I think even "secular" Arabs (like Baathists) might not be inclined to give up to an infidel coalition + quislings, unless they got the Muslim clerics to specifically sanctify the act of surrender.

If you can look beyond the U.S. headlines and opinions, you'll see an intensifying war, and it might be unwise to lower your gun at this moment...

Y'all need to disabuse yourself of this American cult of celibrity, and this American delusion of democracy as rule by the majority. It's a fraud.

George Bush and Dick Cheney are not celibrity. They are businessmen, and ruthless politicians. George is front-man for an oil and arms cartel, and Dick is his enabler, and advantage-taker. There is no honor in US foreign policy. It's merely civilized warfare, strong eating the weak. The American people are being straddled, pinned down, and gang raped by these folks.

So let's get a few things straight, right out.

First, Saddam was offed for three reasons, and three reasons alone:

1) Iraq has (had) one of the lowest costs of oil production in the world, less than $15 bbl in 1990 dollars. It was because of this one fact that oil prices pre-GWI sank to that level, and threatened the global oil industry, not just Papa Bush and his oil patch boys, but Saudis, UAE's, Bahrainis and Qataris who rule Big Oil.

Saddam was faced with a brutal reality. Kuwait, which lent Saddam arms monies to fight Iran and fundamental Islam on their behalf, demanded those arms monies back again. So much for the Islamic "my word is ironclad, whether the price be dear or fair". Kuwait is not Islamic, it's secular despotic royalty. Kuwait hired Oklahoma wild-catters to drill horizontally under the Iraqi borders into the Iraqi oil fields. This isn't speculation, it widely recognized fact, a fact flaunted openly in Saddam's face at OPEC. Faced with a Janus-faced oil-rustling neighbor, Saddam sought to restore the honor of Iraq, with the CIA and White House deference, by invading Kuwait in 1990.

Saddam calculated wrong, Bush Sr's ploy worked, and the sagging price of oil shot back up above the cost of West Texan crude. Oil profits soared in the next decade under so-called sanctions, (really one drug cartel cutting off another drug cartel's pipeline, destroying them piece by piece, villa by villa, family by family).

By the pure serendipity of the hyped-up Internet hysteria, and Middle East oil profits chasing that hysteria in the American stock market, the 1990's were very, very good for the oil cartels and the Bush family. Anyone who has forgotten the 1990's, and insider trading, and stock pump- and-dump, is a fool and a traitor to reality. Americans lost $10 TRILLION dollars in that scam.

Now comes Saddam, emboldened by UN food-for-oil frauds and embezzlements, and makes two errors:

2) Saddam openly offers $20,000 rewards to the families of jihad martyrs in Israel, violating the secular code of Big Oil to deplore the Palestine situation, but aid it only in private.

3) Saddam offers oilfield deals to France and Russia, and jostles for valuation of oil in EU's instead of US$'s, as they are valuated today.

By the pure serendipity of Ken Lay and Enron, and the end of the Net bubble, the party came to a crashing end as Bush Jr was elected in 2000.
Faced with near repeat of the Great Depression, and rapidly falling global oil prices, control of US foreign policy by Israeli sympathizers, and sheer hysteria about EU-valuated oil, the Big Oil cartel had only one option. Invade Iraq.

Anyone who thinks this hinged on bad intel is a babboon. Anyone who believes these commission reports is an ass. This is all pure white-wash.

"The past is prelude," someone once said. This was not about WMD's. Both China and Russia have enough nukes aimed and armed and pointing at the US to end the world several times over. This is not about Saddam's cruelty to his people. The current rulers of China and Russia have snuffed out and tortured far more lives than Saddam's mere 5,000 confirmed bodies. Hell, the US itself is responsible, each and every American citizen are responsible, for the deaths of millions and millions of innocent civilians around the world through our self-aggrandizing foreign policies.

"We have met the enemy and they are U.S."

The US invaded Iraq for one purpose alone. Oil. Possession of oil, control of oil, monopoly of oil and so the ability to *limit supply of oil*.
Limit supply, and gain a supply capable of being produced at half what it costs to produce in USA.

World oil profits today are *huge*. UAE, Saudi, Bahrain and Qatar companies report annual profit growth averaging 40%-50%, while here in the US, we're lucky to be beating inflation, and in real world currency terms, we've just about gone into an Argentinian meltdown, held off only through massive Fed banking intervention.

The war has nothing to do with anything in the media. As Saddam has observed, this is all a big puppet show, a cacophonic theater of absurdity.

And for us, the so-called intellectuals, to sit here in blog-land and debate the war's pretext, Wilson, Negroponte, Cheney, Halliburton, Bush versus Kerry like that makes any difference, is buffoonery. We are traitors to the Socratic method, to Aristotlian truth, and to the will and intent of our Founding Fathers.

It's as if Paul Revere had just come riding by, but we're all still here in blogland, debating whether it was the Indians or the Federalists who dumped the tea in Boston Harbor, and whether the King should be allowed to tax our salt next!
Get off your frontal lobes! To arms! To arms!

"The next great energy source will be slavery."

If you can't see that, you deserve the chains.

Republican Tax Cuts Create Jobs and Democrat Tax Cuts Don’t

...Proposed Democrat tax cuts (I say proposed because no Democrat has ever actually passed a tax cut in 40 years although they’ve promised plenty) are always temporary give-aways to their middle, low and no income constituents and are supposed to “stimulate” the economy when they are spent at McDonalds or Target. From a long term perspective these illusory Democrat promises are never more than noise...

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/republican_tax_.html

Excerpted - click for full article ^

kharris:

You spectacularly missed my point. I have been arguing that the nature of the tyrant gives them no claim whatsoever to the land they hold or people they govern at gunpoint. My 'strawman' example was a very direct restatement of Basharov's comments to the effect that tyrant or no, if you are kicked out of power, you can plant all the roadside bombs you want without being called a murderer. All you have to do is say, "I was invaded."

Calling a statement a strawman doesn't make it one, and you didn't address the question. Is the nature of the tyrant and associated flunkies irrelevant when considering what actions are deemed murder? Is there a differece between legitimate defense of the homeland against an invading force and some guy trying to maintain his right to rape and steal from 'his people'?

Any innocent happening along, ignorant of economics, should be alerted that this is the PUREST KIDOOLEYOON, unsupported by theory or reality. In a RECESSION, tax cuts for the wealthiest won't give the fastest recovery, because capital investment isn't as important, because existing capacity is massively under-utilized. Indeed under Bush's tax cuts, job growth was DELAYED for over two years: the worst performance coming out of any recession in history.

And why is the economy choking again? Or is it just a little cough?

Jason,

No, I didn't miss your point. Read again. You know, all that business about where murder fits into the split between civilian criminal codes and war time acts. To be perfectly explicit, no, Saddam's nature as a tyrant has absolutely no relevance to whether a killing is a murder.

Argumentation often comes down to defining terms conveniently. Calling the killing of US soldiers murder makes it easier to argue against amnesty. That does not mean the killing of US soldiers is murder. Murder is murder. Death in combat is death in combat. Negroponte may well win the definitional war, but that doesn't change the reality of what has happened. Once again, the worry is that it will change what will happen, that by denying amnesty, we reduce the incentive for peace.

So, is DeLong, like, AWOL? Was his Guard unit called up? Is he still in a trauma after being on a plane with (gasp) Syrians on board? Just hasn't finished reading the 9/11 Report yet?

"Is there a differece between legitimate defense of the homeland against an invading force and some guy trying to maintain his right to rape and steal from 'his people'?"

So, Jason, it would be acceptable to remove Bush and co. by force of arms?

Are we still defining war as a conflict between two lawful combatants as defined in the Geneva convention? While the convention might not explicitly outlaw exploding chevy caprice's as illegal weapons like shotguns or serrated bayonets I am guessing they don't fit. If you want to define anyone who picks up a gun or a c-4 belt as a lawful combatant then yes then you can define any attack on any American in uniform as a combat fatality. Personally I still believe in the convention, so I can draw a distinction between a murder and a combat death.

As for Lips little comment about retaing his right to over throw Bush by force of arms, I hope he is attending his NRA meetings. The second amendment is the ultimate safety device designed just for that purpose, so I hope hes not in favor of gun control.

Sry for going back, missed a few posts in here. I can only assume that Lee A. was arguing in the face of excess capacity utilization was for greater consumptive stimulus? I think there was already plenty of short term stimulus from the Fed, the key was to incourage investment (investment being a multi-year process)in sectors that were not suffering from overcapacity (there were a few). Gearing the tax stimulus for short term would likely have done more to spook the bond markets about inflation and cut off long term investment. Some portion of a purely consumptive stimulus would also likely have fed more imports dulling the effect on reducing excess capacity. The stimulus package was inspired by what the Japanese did wrong during the prior 10 years.

Jason, I notice that you changed your opinion from something that did not make sense to something that to me did make sense.

I want to congratulate you. Far too many people would stick to their original claim and defend it with whatever sophistry they could find. While I still don't exactly agree with you I admire your ability and will to think it out and try out something better. I hereby resolve to follow your example and rethink the next time I see my opinion leading to results I don't want to own.

OK, Negroponte got asked a lot of questions and he fielded all of them except this one. Everything else he said it was up to the iraqi government.

So, one slip and he looks bad. He and Allawi could handle that kind of thing if they want to. They could make up issues, and Allawi could make an announcement about one of them, and Negroponte could dispute him, and Allawi could repeat his position, and Negroponte could back down. They could make up things to do that about, and do it maybe once a week or so. It would reassure the iraqis that Allawi was independent. But it might not work in a US election year; maybe it's more important that US voters think iraq is doing what we want.

So if Allawi is actually a puppet then it will be important to make it look like he isn't. But if he's actually independent then they won't have to trick people into thinking so, he'll actually do independent things that will make it plain. And he dropped the ball on this one, if he hadn't backed down and he had a big public argument with Negroponte on it, everybody would have been happy -- provided Negroponte didn't actually met out much punishment.

5748 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

3082 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

4051 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

Erase this message and you will never see it again.

8641 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

5407 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com