quote: You're not welcome here, you're not saying anything that hasn't been heard already
Actually what I am saying, if it is not welcome here makes its importance here far greater then it would be on the conservative boards. Think of me as 'reaching across the isle' to pull liberals back to reality.
The charge of 'it has all been said before' is shameful, I am sure that people coming to this list are not going to wade through years of discussion, the fact that you have 'talked out' all the topics means that it is time for you to leave, this is not a 'we are all old friends with secret inside jokes and private meetings group' it is a discussion group. It is time for you to move to a chat room for your clique and stop trying to make this board into one.
posted
Why not -- and this is just a thought, mind you -- avoid wasting our breath pissing in the snow and actually try to discuss things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You're not welcome here not because of what you're saying, but because of how you behave. You cheapen and diminish the community by your presence and behavior, you're certainly not 'reaching out' to anyone-you're deliberately lying when you say that.
You're also not interested in discussion, either. Why are you still here? What pleasure do you get out of this?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually what I am saying, if it is not welcome here makes its importance here far greater then it would be on the conservative boards. Think of me as 'reaching across the isle' to pull liberals back to reality.
I am sure that your faith in your own message is dogmatic and unshakable. However, you are not showing any ability or willingness to understand your faults which sabotage your 'mission.' Whatever faith you have in your own convictions, you are not an effective pulpiteer. You are garbled and haughty and a terrible advocate for your ideology and faith. You persist in holding to untenable sentiments simply on the basis of unshakable axiom, and your sentiments come off as arrogant and willfully blind. You condescend without effort or intent, and in the process, you have been constantly delivering witless one-liners that pretty much assure that (even as you are certain of the unassailability of your position) you are incapable of evoking much but disgust for it. You clam to be pursuing commentary here only through educational intent, as though you have never listened to yourself talk.
Given the terms of your belief and the standards of your 'rationality,' it is unimportant to debate with you. If it's at all important to anyone to do so, it's probably because they realize (correctly) that the more you talk, the more you hurt your own position. Your actions here make you essentially a tool against your own viewpoint being wielded by the people that you pathologically give in to. You're being played like a lute whenever you dismiss others, or are goaded to damage your credibility more on behalf of your ideology. You don't realize that your critical failing is that you are a stow bomb that does not understand how you are doing nothing but hurting your own position and embarrassing people who might also hold it. That is the only possible purpose I can envision for this thread, or the idea that anyone is still paying attention to you. It's fun, and rewarding to your enemies.
It's funny, I've said much the exact same thing about you and others before.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You clam to be pursuing commentary here only through educational intent
Clams are the source of all pearls...
Here is a challenge for you, since there are thousands of Hatrackers on the Left, lets see if you can be persuasive enough to shift me from the Right. GO!
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a challenge. You've already stated you think liberals are brainwashed, and that you know their minds better than they do.
And anyway, there are technically 'thousands' of Hatrackers, but no more than a few hundred at most who are regular participants on a monthly basis...and not much more, I think, than a hundred who participate on a weekly basis.
And I wouldn't say that a strong majority of them are liberal.
I guess this is one of those troublesome small details that gets ignored in your attitude of total certainty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best way for Democrats to win is to allow idiots like BC to speak, as often as they want, as long as their speech is not unopposed.
He makes a beautiful case against the current administration just by being who he is.
I just feel sorry for those who get painted by the same brush because they are also Republicans, although they have as much in common with BC as I do with Bush.
Funny thing is I have voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats in my voting history...but according to the rocket scientist over there I am beyond hope. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Where'd you get that, a book? You don't look up truthiness in a book, you look it up in your gut, and his gut tells him that pearls come from clams.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clams have a pending ACLU case demanding that they be recognized as and have the same rights as oysters...
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that kind of like men bringing an ACLU action to be allowed to bear children?
Like the clams, they're biologically incapable of accomplishing the task in question, but they'd certainly like to have the right.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is a challenge for you, since there are thousands of Hatrackers on the Left, lets see if you can be persuasive enough to shift me from the Right. GO!
It wasn't too long ago that you were railing on people for bandwagon mentality. Now you're making a challenge which is akin to "If there's thousands of people who disagree with me, and I still don't change my mind even then, my point of view must be stronger than theirs!"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just an observer (admittedly not objective), and although I think CB could make stronger arguments, he's still right. The most forcful arguments from the opposition has been: "You're not welcome here," "You're not a mind-reader," and my favorite, "pearls come from oysters."
I think the gist of what Samprimary is saying (in his earlier post, not the one directly above) is that CB is wrong because he won't change is mind. And when he says: "It's funny, I've said much the exact same thing about you and others before," it makes me think of the time(s) he's said basically the same thing to me. I find it humorous that your criteria for intellegence and worthiness for debating with seem to be how quickly one is convinced and admits you are right. This goes for all of you, not just Samprimary.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here is a challenge for you, since there are thousands of Hatrackers on the Left, lets see if you can be persuasive enough to shift me from the Right. GO!
No. I'm not going to be your monkey.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
The most forcful arguments from the opposition has been: "You're not welcome here," "You're not a mind-reader," and my favorite, "pearls come from oysters."
Can anyone say 'strawman'? Go read page 1.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I think the gist of what Samprimary is saying (in his earlier post, not the one directly above) is that CB is wrong because he won't change is mind.
Actually, the gist of what Samprimary was saying (if I may interpret) is that by spouting dogma and not being amenable to rational argument, he's doing his cause more harm than good.
Page 2 and 3 of this thread has been mostly meta-discussion; discussion about the way the discussion has been and should be conducted. On page 1 on the other hand, you'll find some very detailed posts refuting Bean Counter's claims.
Take, for example, the 1221 word post in which Bob explains some of the flaws in BC's reasoning and the current strategy in Iraq. To that, BC replied, "My way of holding it together was to enlist."
Bob then took the time to respond even to that, with a post thanking him for serving his country and explaining that he believes the reconstruction of Iraq is not a job the military is best suited for. To that BC replied, "leveling cities is the job of the Air Force, the Infantry is capable of somewhat more subtle action", ignoring, as Bob pointed out, the substance of the post. BC finally responds with a post starting with "If there are real points I will be satisfied to answer them."
And consider Lyrhawn's response to another statement of BC's:
quote:
quote:I cannot imagine what people think soldiers are for if it is not to fight, how does 'bring those boys back home' make sense when the boys are a professional army made up of volunteers? It is like showing your support for baseball by canceling the season. Lets show our support for plumbers by digging wells and hauling water.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. First of all, people LIKE baseball, they don't like war, unless they are sick and twisted. War might be what soldiers do best, but an army isn't a 'use it or lose it' force. Saying we should just keep letting them fight because fighting is what they like to do and it's what they are good at isn't a sufficient reason to continue a war. If the war isn't one we should be fighting, I couldn't care less on what the army wants to do. We show our support by only sending soliders into combat when they need to, not on a whim, and we bring them home when there's no longer a really good reason to be there, it's part of the trust between a state and their army, especially one run by a civilian government.
You're a bit too bloodthirsty and gung-ho for my taste BC. We don't kill to make the army happy.
BC's response, culminating in an attack on free speech:
quote:More often the civilian government lacks the will or stomach or practical knowledge to accept the consequences of a military intervention. Most of Europe cannot even find the will to engage in its own security.
What would this generation think of a Sgt York or any of the heroes of previous wars responsible for dozens of kills in close combat? I suspect that far from cheering them in parades they would be shunned and people would demand to know they were 'safe' before they were released into contact with the populace. In fact you see much of that now. It is a long fall from greatness, but it starts with a failure to keep the values that won you greatness in the first place.
All the worst violence in Baghdad could be done by an energetic company sized element, cheering when we crush a battalion and put the leader of a brigade sized element on the run (and perhaps put a bullet in the new AL queda leader) is not blood thirsty, it is being happy that we are meeting objectives that are big steps toward victory and stability (a state where life is safe for the real innocents). It is cheering for lives saved and a better life for those secured. It is cheering a triumph of America.
As for this not being best described as a surge, the fact that it matters at all to some, that words must reflect negatively on our countries chosen course is a cancer in our society that will inevitably spread and prove fatal if not treated.
BC, apart from arguing that civilian authorities should leave war up to the military (even though the army was created to serve the union rather than determine its foreign policy, and despite the President being the C-in-C), that liberals are delusional cowards, that the war should be supported because the primary function of an army is to fight, what are you saying? Put something on the table and its not unlikely that a group of patient Hatrackers will grace your post with a reasoned response, as they have earlier in this thread.
But before you do, since you imply that you are concerned about the moral implications of debates like this, consider that the position people adopt on this issue could have a bearing on how many American and Iraqi lives are lost in the future.
This kind of oversimplified dismissal and refusal to consider alternative courses of action (even working towards the same goal) reeks of moral irresponsibility:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: During President Bush's speech the other day, he said that one can support the troops, support the country, and love both, while disagreeing with, and attempting to change the strategy chosen.
Bush is a Statesman, I do not have the lifetime of political instincts to make me feel the need to make fools feel good about themselves to keep them from stabbing me in the back.
And when Rakeesh said "You're not welcome here, you're not saying anything that hasn't been heard already", he was most likely referring to the fact that you yourself were repeating your dogma rather than addressing the arguments of others.
If you like, why not respond to Lyrhawn's post; about how the surge is too insignificant in size to attain America's goals in Iraq, and that if the commitment to 'victory' can't be made, there is no sound reason to keep US soldiers in harm's way.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be interested in what people think of the timeline I linked to (see post in the middle of all that silliness about oysters). Most of that stuff I knew already and have taken it to be a mostly true summary of events and rationales.
I'd be interested in rebuttals, though, views of why some of the more ignoble chapters in our history of military use really were necessary and good after all. Especially the propping up of South American, African, and Middle Eastern regimes that tended toward totalitarianism.
Oh, btw, there are several bivalve mollusc species that form pearls, so it's not JUST oysters. I think they may even be a clam species with that "capability." Oysters are just the prime source of commercial/jewelry-grade pearls.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing which you didn't get in the thread you chickened out on, and you're not getting here either, Reshpeckobiggle: people are much less likely to trust you enough to seriously discuss something with you if you've got a history of approaching serious discussions like a rude jerk who doesn't argue intelligently or honestly. Who makes sweeping generalizations as though they were hard scientific fact, and then when called on them, completely ignores the criticism and pretends his point has been made.
Bean Counter has a history of this. Months and months, at least. His methods clearly have not changed. You started your own little history like that in your bigoted, homophobic, and sexist thread which you squirmed away from 'because you don't spend so much time on Internet forums'
posted
I took the time once on this thread to dismantle a post, I would rather people reach inside to their inner conservative and do it for themselves. Spending all my time doing it is not building anything, so again I will say, if a point cries out worthiness by my standards I will reply at length, otherwise you are correct in assuming I thought it was weak.
Like the previous post with a recap, long and not too useful since it is a all just a few lines up. ... and then she said... and then he said... and that is so just like him... Junior High much?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I found that timeline fascinating, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on many of the listed interventions to be able to analyse it's accuracy. It seems like a broad topic; perhaps worthy of a new thread?
posted
Do you disagree with any specifics of the recap, BC, or just the fact that it exists? I thought the recap was in general very accurate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just an observer (admittedly not objective), and although I think CB could make stronger arguments, he's still right. The most forcful arguments from the opposition has been: "You're not welcome here," "You're not a mind-reader," and my favorite, "pearls come from oysters."
They actually weren't the most forceful arguments at all. Didn't you see the threads where we were doing things like "pointing out something that CB said is completely untrue" and watching him "not assert or acknowledge this point further?"
It happened like ten times. Go back and read through the thread. I refuse to believe that you are near-totally illiterate.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is an issue of what we consider important, traditionally peace has been a state achieved when you identify and crush your enemies, that is tribalism. The logic of genocide is simply a matter of practicality, why make your great grandchildren fight the 'whoever' when their numbers and belligerence reemerge. However war today must be guided by a morality higher then expedience. We are not just killing, we have to match the level of violence to the lessons we are teaching.
One lesson that has clearly been learned, the US military in attack mode is to be feared. (Hence Sadr runs again) My own unit took the initiative in our areas and with the same number of troops put six times as many patrols out in our own mini surge then the Unit we replaced. How? The 10th Mountain was patrolling six hours a day, we put out three (yes three) twelve hour shifts. The result? No loss of life and the bad guys ran or were captured except two who turned themselves out of exhaustion (true story) because they had not slept for a week or so. We stayed on the attack for my whole deployment.
Did the people hate us? Not at all, we were always at their villages, in there homes and bringing gifts and medicine and treating them with respect. They took cell phones we gave then and called us when high value targets showed up. They called us with tips on plots and IED locations and they came to us and begged us not to leave (our unit) because the 'bad guys' would come back.
The Unit that replaced us did not have the same idea about how to do things so they had problems but you can hardly expect a regular Army unit to listen to a National Guard Unit no matter how successful they were.
Still our operational success and success at creating the expectation in the people of stability, generosity and honor from troops shows that it can be done, and done over a large area with a relatively small number of troops. It is all about engaging in the mission. The possibility of a better life is in those people now, especially the kids, we had literally dozens of boys who wanted to know how they could become US soldiers we helped one of our interpreters do just that.
They wanted to be us, protectors. The seeds of a better life are there, that is what is making the insurgents attack civilians, that is where the dangerous infection is for them.
As for the ridiculous claim that 20,000 troops cannot make a difference, a few things need to be understood. First much of the ground being searched had no troops in it at all before, the regular patrols had not even been in there. Just opening those areas to the troops would have accomplished a great deal. Second the troops being sent in are for the most part infantry. (Marines and so on) most of the troops in Baghdad are support, like 75% never patrol. So in effect the number of troops engaging the enemy has doubled. Third, by penetrating the Iraq Units their effectiveness will more then double because they slack when we are not there but make a good show of things when we are and our available support more then doubles their effectiveness. This surge is overwhelming because in effect it gives us four times (conservative) the manpower in the field. Why not send more? The troops are rotating in on equipment, you can only push a vehicle so hard before it is down for maintenance, so you can only surge usefully up to the point where you hit the usage hours of your equipment. The troops coming in may or may not have new vehicles and such, but even if they do you have to keep them on the roads and you will soon hit the wall of what your maintenance personal can keep operational. To me these things are obvious, so it may be a blind spot that I see a question about effectiveness of 20,000 troops as naive or obvious. A better use of your time would be to ask me what the real danger of the surge strategy is.
For me it is not that it will not work, it will absolutely work. However a small number of our troops could be lost or captured because they end up in a compromised Iraqi Unit and I absolutely hate that thought. To be taken in the back by traitors when you are in the US military is unheard of, we take care of each other, so it grates my cheese when one of us is totally exposed to potentially treacherous allies. There are ways to guard against that, but inevitably there will be some losses.
From an operational standpoint however, revealing the penetration is also high value, this surge will leave the Iraq Military much cleaner. There are other elements of the President's strategy that are perhaps not brilliant but at least long overdue sensible solutions that I am glad to see implemented.
We can no longer engage in warfare that is simply slaughter so the function of the military is what it does, sure it would be nice to kill all the Iraqi's and replace them with Illegal Immigrants creating a new Christian country. But it is frowned upon in this time to do things like that, it might be considered heavy handed, like killing the Tibetans and replacing them with Chinese. We do not do that sort of thing.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
A question leaps to mind. If successful tactics don't seem to be shared well among the various units -- even those working the same areas -- what assurances have we got that the surge will be something other than more of the same waste and inefficiency you reference in your post?
How much of the new 20,000 is there just to ensure that our armed forces overcome the inertia of their own commanders?
I know that may not be answerable, but a student of history can't help but note that balky commanders (and conflicting orders from above) cost lives, prolong conflicts, and tend to make the job more difficult.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can no longer engage in warfare that is simply slaughter so the function of the military is what it does, sure it would be nice to kill all the Iraqi's and replace them with Illegal Immigrants creating a new Christian country. But it is frowned upon in this time to do things like that, it might be considered heavy handed, like killing the Tibetans and replacing them with Chinese. We do not do that sort of thing.
No, that wouldn't be nice. And no one suggested doing it.
BC, your unit's success is encouraging, but hardly representative of the situation in many other regions of the country, as you've alluded. Iraqi public opinion varies wildly on how the US should conduct the war from here on in, but the proportion of Iraqis who support attacks on coalition forces is sizeable:
quote:A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.
Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly).
Further, once threats to civilian security are dampened (which will take time), it's not unlikely that Iraqis will grow weary of an occupier's presence in their country. That's usually the way with occupying armies, even if they are able to ensure a relative state of stability.
Most Iraqis also want a timeline for withdrawal, which is what the democrats are suggesting.
And to echo Bob, how can we know that the extra 20,000 troops are actually going to quadruple patrol effectiveness? And the surge troops will get their own support personnel - which brings the total to about 48,000, so it's not as if the non-combat troops and PMCs in the country already are going to have to absorb another 20,000 fighting men.
It's true that out of the 130,000 troops in Iraq, about half are support personnel. This is pretty much the same number of troops the US had in Iraq shortly after the initial invasion. In any case, adding another 20,000 doesn't double the number. It would take morelike 50,000 fighting troops.
The question is not; will we be able to root out the insurgents with these troops, it's 'will we be able to get Iraq back on its feet, so that when insurgency returns after the US withdrawal (which has to come at some time) the Iraqi government will be able to maintain order?' Even if patrol effectiveness was quadrupled, that doesn't guarantee that US goals in Iraq will be met. It's not a matter of rooting out a terrorist network or two; Iraq is a country in civil war, with competing militias organised along religious lines vying for power.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: A question leaps to mind. If successful tactics don't seem to be shared well among the various units -- even those working the same areas -- what assurances have we got that the surge will be something other than more of the same waste and inefficiency you reference in your post?
How much of the new 20,000 is there just to ensure that our armed forces overcome the inertia of their own commanders?
I think the idea of the surge (correct me if I'm wrong) is not security, but attack. Rather than being used to reinforce the admittedly ineffective Iraqi security infrastructure, they are being used to push an all-out ground war against the insurgency, and to drive them out of their strongholds. Sadr city is one place they will probably be targeting.
Unlike most of what we are seeing now, the surge will probably be performed with the precision and skill of the most powerful army in the world. This, unlike the training of a police force and the like, is what the American command structure in Iraq is ready for. It's what needed to have been done before all the other civilian and security programs had been started. Just my opinion.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's true that out of the 130,000 troops in Iraq, about half are support personnel. This is pretty much the same number of troops the US had in Iraq shortly after the initial invasion. In any case, adding another 20,000 doesn't double the number. It would take more like 50,000 fighting troops.
Baghdad while significant is not the whole of Iraq. Indications are that we are indeed getting more then twice the work out of the security forces by babysitting them and leading them by the hand. It is startling how timid Iraqi's are when you meet them, seriously, you think they are all gun totting slogan shouters but the most frustrating thing about real Iraqi's, not the ones on the news, is their timidity.
It is my understanding that Kurdistan has a growing tourist industry, that is how successful we have been. This is a local issue in one city, albeit a largely populated one. 20,000 troops will deal with it quite nicely.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No offense, but I credit Kurdistan's success more to Kurdistan than I do to the US Army. The peshmerga was never disbanded like the Iraqi army was, they've had a security net in place before, during and after the main assault of the war, they have an autonomous government that's working towards their own goals, they have a stabl food supply, they have a rather large lacking of strife between religious groups, especially compared to Baghdad, and they've convinced foreign investors they are safe enough to pour millions into their region.
That's far more to do with Kurdistan's preexisting status than to do with US military involvement. Not that I want to take credit away from the US military, but I do want to fix incorrect assumptions that might lead to false impressions of our successes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Status of Refugees, dependant on US military aid in camps in Turkey? No the military had nothing to do with helping them at all.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The success of the Kurdish region is the product of the Peshmerga and the KDP's seperation from Iraqi oversight.
It's peaceful there because the Kurds are simply seceeding from the Iraqi state. Baghdad politicians don't control them; they're essentially their own country now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: The Status of Refugees, dependant on US military aid in camps in Turkey? No the military had nothing to do with helping them at all.
I never said the military had NOTHING to do with their current status, but you're throwing out rather some (and not all) minor things in the grand scheme of the road to their current situation.
You're helping me make my case by ceding the big stuff.
posted
Euripides, Samprimary: I know. There was a lot more to it than that. I just felt like jumping in with a smartass remark without actually getting involved in the debate. Excuse me for acting on my snarky impulses.
Rakeesh: Calling me chicken only serves to make you look about twelve years old. Now if you're only ten, keep it up! You're actually helping yourself.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
