Hail the liberators!Follow

Nope, I imply no such thing. Pathetic partisan hackery at it's finest.


You allready provided the timeline. July. Now you refuse to provide a standard of measurement. Amazing. Almost as if you just wanted to aviod having to measure the progress thusfar by putting it off to a later date, then when asked how you measuer the progress at that later date, which again, was your idea.

You have no clue.

Imagine that.



No, I think when the Administrations says something clearly. Like that the capture of Saddam will lessen insurgency and then the opposite happens that's a problem. I don't expect immediate results.

I expect a plan that has some standard of results in a given timeframe. Lack of such a plan or way to measure progress is, in itself, a massive failure. It provides Iraqi's and the rest of the world no way to understand our intent or measure our sucess in Iraq. Lack of such a plan says that "we will do whatever we wish and everything we do is part of our plan and is a success"

You know, the way you view the war. Everything that happens is a sucess, part of a plan, and a good idea for Iraq, America and the World. Regardless of what it is.

Because you're a partisan hack who simply cannot set conditions for what you expect to happen which means one of two things:

1)You have absolutely no understanding of our mission in Iraq, which is fine, but then stop pretending you're not completely ignorant of it.

2)You have no intrest in what actually happens in Iraq and regardless of the outcome you'll view it as a sucess. In which case stop wasting everyone's time by replying to my posts with laughable propaganda laden arguments devoid of any fact.


It's the only way you can argue. I understand it's not a fair fight unless I'm handicapped in some way and I feel for you there. I mean were our debates a horse race they'd clearly have to through a few hundred extra pounds on me to give you a chacne, but what you're doing would be not telling me where the track was.

We need to think of someway to handicap the arguments so that your standards are much, much lower than mine so it's closer to equal. I'll try to think of somehting to do that.


What the hell are you babbling about? Who said anything about being tottally stablized and out of the country by today? Oh, wait, I forgot, your imaginary opponenet in this debate.

I belive I will start calling him Buddy.

Damn, Buddy said that Bush said we'd be out of Iraq by now? Wow. That Buddy is crazy.



Hypocracy, indeed. Where's the quote where I say I was lied to about not being out of a completely stable Iraq by today?

Oh wait, it' doesn't EXIST!!

Damn. Maybe Buddy said it.

No, I was implying that it was probably a bad idea for the Commander in Cheif to have his staff print up a sign saying Mission Accomplished for when he landed on an Air Craft Carrier in a flight suit.


Are you really that slow? I'm constantly stunned at how many times it seems that you might have a reasonable ability to grasp simple concepts and then it turns out that I'm wrong. I should know better by now.

My point was that this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-6.html

Was silly ******** and if it was taken seriously then Iraq's been a massive failure.

President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended

The words of the White House my freind.

Offical ones. Glad to know there aren't any combat operations going on these days in Iraq. That'd be troubling.


[/quote]
Do you really have such a simplistic view of the world as to assume that anyone can accurately predict exactly how much time any given step in the peace process in Iraq will take?
[/quote]
No, but I think that we can certainly set standards to measure it's sucess or failure.

For example I think if we established a peacefull democratic Iraq tommorw and sent all the troops home and Iraq in a week became the second largest economic and political power on the globe and out close ally that it would be a sucess.

Alternately, I think if the situation in Iraq is the same as it is today in 1,000 years that'd be a failure.

Somewhere in between those two ludicrous extremes lie our expectations of how the process will evolve in Iraq. If those expectations are met it's a sucess, if not it's a failure.

Do you really have such a simplistic view of the peace process in Iraq that you think THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO STANDARD AT ALL OF PROGRESS??

Christ, talk about fantasy land. That's a new level, even for you. We won't set any timeframe, we won't set any goals we want to accomplish and we'll claim that everything that happens is all part of the s33krit master plan for the good of freedom.

Is that about what your theory is?



Why is June 30th set in stone then?

Oh yeah, I forgot the Republican National Convention is in August so it's importnat to have that squared away before then. Unimporatnt who we had power over to or if anything actually changes. So long as we get it done in time for a speech.



Indeed. See, I make it clear what I think WILL happen as opposed to stating what HAS happened. It's a lot harder, trust me.



What day was the "war" won again? Because there's going to be a lot of Troops who were just told they weren't returning home when they were supposed to be to fight one who will be surprised that it's been won allready.


Because it's a mindbogglingly poorly planned transfer. I'm not willing to put the lives of American's at risk by placing them in the hands of the people who have proven they don't have a grasp on the social dynamic of Iraq at all.

If you think it will be a turning point, what exactly will it be turning away from?

Everything is going great now, in your oppinion, so I would imagine the status quo can barely be improved upon. Or are you saying things are a failure now, but this will fix them?

Surely not.


I'm arguing that we should not have put troops in this vulnerable position where they are being killed every day. The manner of the troops being put in harms way in this war is UNIQUE in American history. UNIQUE. That's a problem.

I'm arguing that we didn't commit sufficent troops to Iraq to allow for adequate force protection of US troops or Iraqi civillians.

I'm arguing that our continued prescence in Iraq will require at least double the amount of troops who are there presently, be they Iraqi nationals, UN troops, or more US troops or some combination of the three.

I'm arguing that the long term future of Iraq is, at this moment in time, more likely than not to be that of a fundematalist Islamic state hostile to US intrests.

I'm arguing that we've CREATED terrorists that otherwise would not have engaged in that activity by our actions in Iraq.

I'm arguing that we've REMOVED RESOURCES from attacking terror groups like Al Qeda and allocated them to nation building in Iraq. To our great peril.


You know, that's really not accurate. I'm exceptionally liberal to the point of whackoness on SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC issues. Not military ones. I'm not an anti-war person. In any way shape or form. Never have been, never will be. I didn't spend more than a decade in public service working to make killing people who dislike the US a more efficent process because I think war is bad.

I'm not a pacafist, I'm not afraid of sending US troops into harms way.

I DO however think it's a bad idea to send children to die to accomplish something that could be accomplished by other means.

And I think that's what happened in Iraq. Not only that, but it's clear that more than anytime in history, Iraq was a carefully planned "TV war" that was in large part a gigantic bloody glory filled flag waving campaign ad for Bush & Co.

That's ok, that's their perogative. At least be honest about it, though, if you're a Bush supporter. Part of the push to rush to Baghdad was tactical, but a much larger part of it was PR related.



When you decide to raise an issue to discuss, give me a call and we'll discuss it. Haven't seen one come from you yet, though. All I've seen is you stating over and over that it's impossible to measure sucess or failure in Iraq in any way shape or form and that we should just trust the government (which is kind of neat to see from a Supply Sider) and have faith.

Pardon me if I don't share your level of blind belief in the current DoD administration.

Start bringing up some issues.

One at a time and we'll discuss them.

Whenever you're ready. One at a time now, so we don't get confused.

Why is that? Are you saying that a Commander in Chief cannot congratulate his soldiers? Um... The "Operation" was "Operation Iraqi Freedom". It's "goal" was to defeat Saddam's military and topple his regime. Those goals were achieved. That military victory was achieved. By many standards of measurement, it was one of if not the most stunning military victory in the last century.

So you're saying that all those folks who celebrated VE day when Berlin was taken shouldn't have done that. After all, we spend decades rebuilding Germany after that war Smash. We should not have congratulated our military on a victory? How silly is that?

That's my point. You either mistakenly or deliberately assume "mission accomplished" meant something that it clearly did not. It was a congratulatory message to the troops after winning a major military campaign. Why do you keep trying to expand it's meaning to something beyond that?





Ah. So you learned all that from reading a headline on a press report about a US aircraft carrier? Where's the data Smash? Oh. That's right, if it's more confusing then a single sentence, you don't understand it.

I'll say it again. Bush was talking about a specific military operation. That operation was completeted. He was also speaking specifically to the troops of that aircraft carrier. That does not preclude any additional operations that will be needed, and it certainly was not a promise that no other US soldiers would die in the future.

Here's the speech in total if you want to read it:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/index.html

There's lots of talk about how much more work there is to do. In Afghanistan and in Iraq. Um... It's also very clear that his talk about troops "returning home" was aimed specifically to the crew of that ship (which did return home).

Once again though, you'll happily take statements out of context and use them to imply a meaning they never had. Your whole argument is based on nothing more then this kind of faulty logic and deliberate misinterpretation.


Again. Find me a quote where Bush says we're completely done with Iraq and wont have to keep any troops stationed there anymore. You can't? Gee... I wonder why that is.

See. I can find tons of official statements that say things like: "We're going to be there until the Iraqi's can govern themselves", and "We'll leave when Iraq is a free nation". Sure. Those are nice platitudes, but the meaning is pretty clear. Anyone who thought that Bush was claiming we'd be leaving the day after we defeated the Iraqi military was fooling themselves. No such promise was ever made, and indeed it would take just a smideon of common sense to know how unrealistic that expectation would be.




No, but I think that we can certainly set standards to measure it's sucess or failure.[/quote]

Ah. So rebuilding public services isn't "success"? Repairing electricity lines and water mains isn't "progress"? At issue is that you are only looking at the setbacks, and not what's being done.

I agree that I don't know what their timeline is either. However, the fact that I'm not aware of the timetable does not mean that one doesn't exist, and it does not mean that nothing positive is being accomplished. You assume so. I don't. I don't believe that this is something where one day we'll suddenly see a huge result. It's going to be gradual progress made over time that eventually results in something good (hopefully). The very nature of the job makes it very difficult to point to any one thing and say quantitatively that this bit right here was a "victory". More like each bit is a tiny step in the right direction.



Ok fine. But you're the one posting criticisms of the work being done in Iraq. It would seem to me that you need to define first what you'd consider a "success", right? How can you argue we aren't accomplishing anything if you can't define what would be a reasonable level of accomplishment? Sure. We can easily agree on the far bounds of the issue, but where's your "comfort zone". What level of success would you be happy with in Iraq?

Even barring that, I think that maybe an estimate as to how long we can wait before a lack of progress is seen as a "failure" is in order. I just personally believe that we can't possibly see what the results of the new government will be until *after* it's taken control. Sure. We can speculate on what will happen. But neither you, nor I can say with absolute certainty what exactly will happen after that date.

Thus. While I can't tell you exactly when we can stop and look around and see if we're moving in the right direction or not. I can, with some confidence say that doing so right now is too early. We must wait at least until after July, since that would be the absolute earliest possible time to know for sure if the result will be positive. Everything up until then is pure speculation.

That July date will be a turning point. One way or another. In the months that follow, we should be able to start to see a trend. However, increases or decreases in violence does not mean that things are going badly though. That's an overly simplistic view. It's the type of violence, and the perception of the general public that will matter. If the public believes that their government is "right", then no amount of violence on the side of the extremists will matter. Over time, they'll only make themselves less and less popular. If, however, the public sides with the extremists against the new government, then that will be an indication that we're failing.

I just think that until those conditions are reached, we can't possibly make any assessment. Understand?


So, you want to know my "standards of success in Iraq". If, 6 months after the new government takes power, the Iraqi people as a whole side with that government instead of any extremist groups, then that will be a sign that the new government will succeed. I'm sure we'll see signs one way or the other leading up to that, but I'd put 6 months as a conservative time frame for being able to make any kind of assessment as to the direction this is going to go.


I certainly think shouting failure before the new government has even taken power is just totally wrong. There's simply no measuring stick to use right now. We can measure goals in terms of things like public services rebuilt. But that does not tell us what will happen long term. The only measuring stick we do have is how close we are getting to turning over power to that new government. After that happens, we'll have to wait to see...

Edited, Mon Apr 12 19:52:54 2004 by gbaji

No, I'm saying we shouldn't have celebrated VE day a week after D-Day.

That's what this was the equivilent of doing.

No. One, it's not a parallel at all, considering it's not even vaguely a simmilar situation. Two, we had an overwhelming number of people on the ground to secure Germany.

It's an abysmially bad metaphor. Pathatic really as an attempt to liken Iraq to a moral, justified and inevitible war against a tyrant who threatened all of Europe.

I claim Goodwins you talentless ****.



Edited, Mon Apr 12 20:33:12 2004 by Smasharoo

We didn't celebrate VJ day the day we celebrated VE day, did we?


Haven't seen the flaw yet. What would it be exactly? "Major combat operations are over in Iraq." Not real confusing. Where's the logical flaw?

Bush didn't say "We captured Baghdad and that's great."

He said "Major Combat Operations are Over." Then hundreds of more US troops died and thousands of Iraqis.

I'm pretty sure the Romans had the same problems with those people. They fear change in that part of the world these kind of things are natural. They will do anything to weaken your resolve because quite simply if they had their way we'd have another Taliban on our hands. Thank god for each and every troop bringing society and culture to such savage lands.

And if I were president I'd tell them that if the number of peacekeepers dying to keep peace in your land is double that of combat operations to siege it then your people will be judged as barborous. I would H-Bomb you into submission just like we had to nuke the Japanese. Terror ends! If these people thought for one second that their families would be vaporized for acting like a bunch of savage beasts they would stop.

Edited, Mon Apr 12 21:32:35 2004 by Lefein

How's that one issue coming along, by the way?

Still haven't seen that yet. Just you blowing every Republican apologist in sight.

That's a ludicrously extreme right wing view not even vaguely close to any objective reality that's been reported anywhere but the White House.

Were it the case, I think a lot of people would have lot less of a problem of with the war.

Prove it. Show me some statistics or poll data. Heck. Anything that shows that anywhere close to half (majority, right?) of the Iraqi population is causing the unrest in that nation. If it's been "reported", then you should have no problem finding the data to support your statement, right?




No. The case is the extreme left wing who have made it their mission to convince everyone that they should have a "problem with the war", so they foster the idea that everyone in Iraq hates the US. It's the cart before the horse Smash. You start out from day one saying the Iraqi's want nothing but for us to leave, and then continue to insist that's true day after day. The reality is quite different.

Again. Feel free to prove me wrong. Not with rhetoric. Not with innuendo. Show me a poll. Or statistics. Anything that supports your position.


EDIT: So you're basically saying that if you can't find proof that the majority of the people in Iraq are causing the problems (unrest), then a lot less people in the US should have a problem with the war, right? So if you can't find that proof, you'll stop agitating about it? Dunno. Maybe I read you wrong. That seemed like what you were saying though...

Edited, Mon Apr 12 22:24:09 2004 by gbaji

That's been my contention all along. Similar to Ripley's in Aliens. And not just Iraq, go for the entire Middle East. They're all crazy for living out in the desert. Fuse it all in to a giant sheet of glass. I don't care. I live in the woods like a proper monkey should.

BAH, I live in the desert, um dont ask Dalliance bout this one kay <wink>