Sayonara Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7356875.stm This indicates that desperation is now a factor in Sadr's stratagem.
Aardvark Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7356875.stm This indicates that desperation is now a factor in Sadr's stratagem. The desperate bluster of a bully who is facing defeat. The only thing likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the coalition now is the fifth column tendency in the West. All the 'useful idiots' who would rather see America and her allies defeated because they are so blinded by hatred for GW Bush.
ParanoiA Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 I truly believe there are people on both sides of the issue that have the interests of their country, Iraq and the world at heart. If you want to close your ears to any disagreements and throw manure on them, that is your problem, not mine. First of all, did you think I was responding to you in some way? I wasn't. Second of all, my point stands on its own. I haven't closed my ears at all, in fact, my gripe is about those that DO because they hate GWB more than they care about real life events in Iraq. Nothing earth shattering there.
doG Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 General Petraeus has told Congress that to keep the gains made by the surge, it is going to need to be maintained just a bit longer after the first withdrawals to be made in July. Is this reasonable? He is the one on the ground in charge of the operations there. It is his job to know what he's talking about. Who here thinks they have the time and experience in his position to second guess him here? I know I don't and I'd prefer to see the rest of the airchair-commander-wannabes show the world that they know what they're talking about or shut up!
iNow Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 He is the one on the ground in charge of the operations there. It is his job to know what he's talking about. Who here thinks they have the time and experience in his position to second guess him here? I know I don't and I'd prefer to see the rest of the airchair-commander-wannabes show the world that they know what they're talking about or shut up! While I agree with you completely that his knowledge of the issues far surpasses many who offer online criticism, I would like to show how the point you've made after discussing this really misses the mark. You don't improve things by squelching criticism. You improve things by addressing those criticisms with data, logic, and sincerity. People in their armchairs should challenge anything they want, and if the man they are challenging truly has the attributes of knowledge and experience to which you've ascribed him (and, I quite agree with that he DOES have those attributes), then he should have no problem combatting the misunderstandings of those who "don't know what they're talking about." Ipso facto, no need or reason for people to "shut up."
doG Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 You don't improve things by squelching criticism. You improve things by addressing those criticisms with data, logic, and sincerity. Is that how you would characterize post 2 above? Criticism founded on data, logic and sincerity?
iNow Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Is that how you would characterize post 2 above? Criticism founded on data, logic and sincerity? Sincerity? Yes. Data? Yes. Logic? Yes, although people who are not me do not really have enough information to say one way or the other. Regardless, my point was that the response to criticism should be founded on those things, even if the criticism itself is deemed not to be. Further, it was MY post, and I'm quite happy to address any questions others have about it. I will not tell them they should shut up for knowing so little, or dismiss their comments as those coming from an "armchair-commander-wannabe." Let's not move the goal posts into character attacks, okay?
CDarwin Posted April 20, 2008 Author Posted April 20, 2008 He is the one on the ground in charge of the operations there. It is his job to know what he's talking about. Who here thinks they have the time and experience in his position to second guess him here? I know I don't and I'd prefer to see the rest of the airchair-commander-wannabes show the world that they know what they're talking about or shut up! I would just like to point out the case of the Scottish armchair tactician John Clerk of Eldin. He was an enlightenment gentlemen who, for one, illustrated the geological works of James Hutton. He is also quite famous for his works on naval tactics which, though heavily disregarded, presaged and influenced Nelson's victorious plan at Trafalgar. Now that said, I agree with you. I'm more than inclined to trust General Petraeus's judgment in these matters as he's the military expert and I'm only mediocre at Command and Conquer.
doG Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Sincerity? Yes.Data? Yes. Logic? Yes, although people who are not me do not really have enough information to say one way or the other. Ha. I'd agree that many criticisms of General Petraeus in this thread were made sincerely but I wouldn't label any of them as founded in sound data or logic that disprove the General's opinion.
iNow Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Ha. I'd agree that many criticisms of General Petraeus in this thread were made sincerely but I wouldn't label any of them as founded in sound data or logic that disprove the General's opinion. I can only speak for my own comments, not anyone elses. Perhaps you could point out precisely what about my own posts in this thread you see as unfounded and/or illogical. That way, I may have the opportunity to address those criticisms?
Realitycheck Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 All the 'useful idiots' who would rather see America and her allies defeated because they are so blinded by hatred for GW Bush. If you ask me, it is idiotic to continue spending 200 billion dollars each year on failed foreign policy. I don't hate Bush, but we have already lost. That should be apparent. All we are doing now is being "responsible" for actions that are not our own. It's time to move on. When that happens, all things will resolve themselves. What this administration proposes it that some time in the near future (hopefully), things will get better and we can start phasing out withdrawal, and then EVERYBODY will continue acting responsibly when we leave. That is a laugh. It's not our fight. Like I said earlier, if we decapitate al Sadr as well, this could have a very beneficial effect, but does anybody really see that happening? Catch 22.
Pangloss Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 If you ask me, it is idiotic to continue spending 200 billion dollars each year on failed foreign policy. I don't hate Bush, but we have already lost. Well if we think we've "already lost" then we have, but not because we couldn't win in the first place. That's exactly the kind of defeatist rhetoric that makes it impossible to accomplish anything. I see no reason to adopt a self-defeating attitude in this country, and a really good reason not to. We need to come together and we've NEVER done that on Iraq -- not EVER. Whatever else we did wrong with Iraq, that was the biggest mistake right there.
Realitycheck Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Oh yeah. Make some serious mistakes leading us into war in the first place. Stay there and spend close to a trillion dollars to fix our mistakes. Oh yeah, we won alright.
Aardvark Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 If you ask me, it is idiotic to continue spending 200 billion dollars each year on failed foreign policy. What would be idiotic, is after spending all that money, and more importantly, all those lives, to NOW pull out, just as victory is finally being achieved. I don't hate Bush, but we have already lost. That should be apparent. No, it's apparent to anyone who wants to see that the democratic Iraqi government is becoming stronger, Al Qaeda is being crushed and the militia are also being defeated. If you can't see that then it suggests wilfull blindness on your part. All we are doing now is being "responsible" for actions that are not our own. It's time to move on. Actually, being responsible for our own actions. We (The West/The Coalition) went in, and we have a responsibility to support the establishment of the democratic government in Iraq. When that happens, all things will resolve themselves. Do you really think in such cliches? What this administration proposes it that some time in the near future (hopefully), things will get better and we can start phasing out withdrawal, Actually, what the administration is saying is that things ARE getting better and that the job needs to be finished before withdrawing. and then EVERYBODY will continue acting responsibly when we leave. Like the way the Iraqi government and army are acting responsibily right now, getting stronger, beating Al Qaeda and the militias and dealing with sectarian issues in a peaceful, democratic manner. That's what will make Iraq a stable and peaceful nation, not abandoning the Iraqis to the gangsters. That is a laugh. It's not our fight.. It's not a laugh, and it very much is 'our' fight. Like I said earlier, if we decapitate al Sadr as well, this could have a very beneficial effect, but does anybody really see that happening? It's what is happening right now. Do you even bother following the actual events in Iraq? You do realise that he is being marginalised, that the people of Iraq are turning against him and his militia is being slowly but steadily destroyed. Catch 22. Apparently you have no idea what Catch 22 means.
Realitycheck Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Assassinate al Sadr, get him out of the way, stoke the holy war. Let him live, let his will keep his own holy war alive. Catch 22. Just a little bit longer. We'll see, one way or the other. Judging by McCain's assessment, I doubt that the Republicans will be able to claim victory, and a Democratic pullout will prove that pulling out is the best way to force an agreeable conclusion. I have nothing more to say on it because it is all nothing but speculation, either way. We'll just have to wait and see.
doG Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 I can only speak for my own comments, not anyone elses. Perhaps you could point out precisely what about my own posts in this thread you see as unfounded and/or illogical. That way, I may have the opportunity to address those criticisms? I don't see any data or logic in any of your posts that seem to refute General Petraeus' opinion, only statements based on your own opinion. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion you shou;dn't expect us to accept it as sound evidence that General Petraeus is wrong in his assessment. I did notice your question in your second post, i.e.: Does the concept of a deadline no longer have meaning in the United States of America? Which do you think is more important, the intermediate goalposts (deadlines) or the end result? We've outed Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and Saddam from Iraq. Do you think it is in our country's best interest to simply let Al-Qaeda take Iraq because they missed a deadline?
Pangloss Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Aardvark, let's watch the personal invectives, please. People are entitled to their opinions, and casting aspersions with words like "idiotic" don't add anything to the discussion. That's not an argument in post #39, it's an attack, and some of your replies to john5746 are in the same vein. You can do better than that.
iNow Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 I don't see any data or logic in any of your posts that seem to refute General Petraeus' opinion, only statements based on your own opinion. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion you shou;dn't expect us to accept it as sound evidence that General Petraeus is wrong in his assessment. You seem confused. I haven't suggested any such thing in any of my posts. This is more than mere rhetoric, but a statement of fact. Perhaps you'd be willing to prove me wrong and quote one where I did? 1
Aardvark Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Aardvark, let's watch the personal invectives, please. People are entitled to their opinions, and casting aspersions with words like "idiotic" don't add anything to the discussion. That's not an argument in post #39, it's an attack, and some of your replies to john5746 are in the same vein. You can do better than that. I responded exactly in kind. If someone uses the word idiotic to describe an opinion, i fail to see why my using the exact same word in the exact same context to describe an opinion should be singled out. Assassinate al Sadr, get him out of the way, stoke the holy war. Let him live, let his will keep his own holy war alive. Catch 22. Kill al Sadr, his little 'holy' war ends. Leave him alone, his 'holy' war continues. No Catch 22 there. Just a little bit longer. We'll see, one way or the other. Judging by McCain's assessment, I doubt that the Republicans will be able to claim victory Despite the fact that victory is actually being achieved, you doubt that the Republicans will be able to claim victory. That opinion is difficult to understand. and a Democratic pullout will prove that pulling out is the best way to force an agreeable conclusion. Force an agreeable conclusion by refusing to use any force but instead to run away. There is an obvious contradiction in your argument there.
Pangloss Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 I responded exactly in kind. If someone uses the word idiotic to describe an opinion, i fail to see why my using the exact same word in the exact same context to describe an opinion should be singled out. That would more accurately be his excuse and Psybers, not yours. He did exacerbate the invective, but there's no doubt in my mind that you initiated heated, personal invective designed to provoke a confrontation (posts 19 and 22). You were spoiling for a fight, and you got one. That's not what we do here. So knock it off.
Realitycheck Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 On the other hand, I noticed that Iraqis are doing all of the fighting, which is promising.
john5746 Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 Except my example was a perfectly relevant use of a historical parrellel. Unlike yours. Maybe you need to recheck in to reality. I am in reality, talking about this war, not wars in the past. Let's just drop a couple of A-bombs on them. Worked before. That will save us from having to stay there 100 years. You're the one who wrote that the main aim of the surge is to reduce American casualties. Very weird priorities, and very revealing about your character. I'd have thought most people who actually care about victory would have thought that the aim of the surge was, you know, that thing called victory. There are millions of people out there depending on that. . Nope, I was saying the contrary, hence the irony that we were concentrating on soldier deaths. Relavent, but not primary. Try to improve your reading comprehension. It may save you from arguing with yourself. So what is victory to you? When a republican president says it's time to come home? We have had nothing but military victories since the start, so how are we losing? Is it measured in any way or just a gut feel? Is there a certain level of violence that is Ok or is it when only Iraqis do the fighting or is it low unemployment or when the Iraqi government says so? When can we say Victory? And it is very very obvious that there are millions of people out there who do not have the interests of their country , Iraq and the world at heart. People so blinded by hatred for GW Bush that they'd prefer to see defeat in Iraq. A huge number of people are very invested in the idea of defeat, which is why they react so badly to any positive news from Iraq. I agree, but I am not one of them. I already consider Bush one of the worst Presidents, right up there with Carter, even if he finishes Iraq this year. I think Bush had good intentions, but that is not enough. I hope Iraq the best, hopefully as a friend to the US, but I recognize they may need to be friendly with Iran and Syria as well. I don't want to continue dragging all the terrorist into that country so we can battle them there. It is a global war on terror, not a funnel them into Iraq war on terror. Awwww, did i hurt your feeling? Grow up.. I was responding to Paranoia, whom I respect, not you. I am grown up and mature. Let the evidence in this thread reveal who has acted childishly.
Pangloss Posted April 21, 2008 Posted April 21, 2008 "Try to improve your reading comprehension?" That's not "grown up and mature", and I'm disappointed that you ignored my request, john. I asked you guys to play nice and it's pretty clear you're not able to do that at the moment. I don't think this thread is serving any other purpose at the moment, having covered the subject pretty well before it was ressurected for some ideological grinding, so I think I'm just going to close it. Bah.
Recommended Posts