gbaji wrote:
Hey! To be fair, it's like you two have one brain or something...
Nah, she's more liberal than I am.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remind me to get all choked up...
Remind me to get all choked up...Follow
Nah, she's more liberal than I am.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yes, that's what he's saying. And it's a good point, in that timing is very sensitive. So a plan at one point will not work while the same plan at another point will work. It was probably a good plan for an exit strategy. Would it have worked as well then? Well, that's something you can debate, but it's a waste of time really as we're in the now, not the then.
You are still progressing from the false assumption that the "objective" in Iraq is to withdraw our soldiers. Our objective was to stabilize Iraq to a degree where they could self-govern without our help. Withdrawal is contingent on meeting that goal.
It's just mindboggling to me that anyone would think that the troop withdrawal today is the same thing that the Dems were calling for back in 2005/2006. It's not. They were calling for withdrawal without having achieved the objectives. The withdrawal going on today is because we met those objectives.
They are completely different.
Quote:
The attempt to link the statement with increased violence in iraq is the worst kind of wishful thinking, and really not worthy of you Gbaji.
If we assume that the reason Murtha was calling for withdrawal was because he believed we could not meet our objective of a stable, peaceful, self-governing Iraq, then said call for withdrawal occurred at a time when Iraq was *not* able to peacefully self govern itself, right? Kinda obvious.
Ergo, the only thing preventing more violence was the presence of US troops, right? I mean, we all know that's what they were doing there. Keeping the violence to a dull roar until a political solution could be reached. Leaving before that is achieved will certainly result in increased violence, right? That's also kinda obvious. Even just saying you're going to leave is going to increase violence as well.
It's not some magical theory. It's pretty obvious fact. If the only think keeping the country from collapsing into full civil war is the presence of our soldiers, and then members of our government start calling for removing those soldiers, it should be obvious what effect this will have. It's not rocket science. It doesn't take a genius analysis. It's obvious.
I just don't understand how anyone can honestly say they don't understand this.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yes, that's what he's saying. And it's a good point, in that timing is very sensitive. So a plan at one point will not work while the same plan at another point will work. It was probably a good plan for an exit strategy. Would it have worked as well then? Well, that's something you can debate, but it's a waste of time really as we're in the now, not the then.
You are still progressing from the false assumption that the "objective" in Iraq is to withdraw our soldiers. Our objective was to stabilize Iraq to a degree where they could self-govern without our help. Withdrawal is contingent on meeting that goal.
It's just mindboggling to me that anyone would think that the troop withdrawal today is the same thing that the Dems were calling for back in 2005/2006. It's not. They were calling for withdrawal without having achieved the objectives. The withdrawal going on today is because we met those objectives.
They are completely different.
Quote:
It's not some magical theory. It's pretty obvious fact. If the only think keeping the country from collapsing into full civil war is the presence of our soldiers, and then members of our government start calling for removing those soldiers, it should be obvious what effect this will have. It's not rocket science. It doesn't take a genius analysis. It's obvious.
Edited, Feb 9th 2010 3:20pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Clearly? How? I think it's quite reasonable to state that if a prominent member of a country's legislature calls for withdrawal of forces on the grounds that the war is lost, it's going to make any success that much harder. It will embolden the enemy.
It's not reasonable. It's completely retarded. You really think the protagonists of the violence in Iraq would give a **** about the analysis of some random member of the out-of-power party? He's 1 guy out of the 435, with no power whatsoever, and no influence on the government. The shias, the sunnis, the AQ fighters from Somalia and Pakistan, the guys who fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia, you think they based their actions on what some old powerless politician once said in the house?
Don't worry, you don't really have to answer that. It was rhetorical.
Timelordwho wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel Jophiel Jophiel.
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Clearly? How? I think it's quite reasonable to state that if a prominent member of a country's legislature calls for withdrawal of forces on the grounds that the war is lost, it's going to make any success that much harder. It will embolden the enemy.
It's not reasonable. It's completely retarded. You really think the protagonists of the violence in Iraq would give a sh*t about the analysis of some random member of the out-of-power party? He's 1 guy out of the 435, with no power whatsoever, and no influence on the government.
You're kidding right? Murtha was the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee for 20 years. He was viewed as one of the most respected members of Congress when it came to issues of the military. His opinion carried a ton of weight. For him to call for the withdrawal of military forces from Iraq represented a massive perceptive changes in that position politically. Before Murtha did that, the idea of pushing for withdrawal was something pretty much kept to the fringes of the Left. When Murtha proposed legislation to do just that, it put that issue on the forefront of the Dem agenda. The party kept trying to push that legislation for the next year and it followed up with multiple attempts to block funding as well.
What is "completely retarded" is someone insisting that his voice carried no weight. The folks on the Left definitely saw his statement as a sign that they might be able to get Congress to pull the plug on the war. Heck. I'm pretty sure we could dig up posts on this forum about it and find quotes from Smash saying how significant it is for someone like Murtha to say that.
Let's not engage in re-writing history here. His statement was significant at the time he made it. The left rejoiced that they'd gotten someone with serious credentials and respect in the military community to take their side. It would be moronic to assume that this had no impact on decisions made by Iraqis already skittish over whether or not the US was committed to staying through the whole process.
Quote:
The shias, the sunnis, the AQ fighters from Somalia and Pakistan, the guys who fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia, you think they based their actions on what some old powerless politician once said in the house?
Yes. Because dark skinned people are just ignorant hicks who don't understand the ramifications of something like Murtha's call for withdrawal. Bigoted much? Their leaders were absolutely aware of it, and it would be stupid to assume that they did not adjust their plans accordingly. What an incredibly silly thing for you to say...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
No more silly then saying insurgents increased their attacks due to the statement. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to continue to lay low so as to present the impression that things were going well and that withdrawal was a practical option?
I'm pretty sure we could dig up posts on this forum about it and find quotes from Smash saying how significant it is for someone like Murtha to say that.Nope, you can find posts by you saying that laying out any sort of concrete exit strategy is retarded though. You seemed to prefer the nebulous idea that we'd know when we should leave.
Haha this is awesome, you maintained that Murtha did more harm to the iraqi people then anything anyone had done yet.
Edited, Feb 9th 2010 5:14pm by Xsarus
Quote:
I'm pretty sure we could dig up posts on this forum about it and find quotes from Smash saying how significant it is for someone like Murtha to say that.
Haha this is awesome, you maintained that Murtha did more harm to the iraqi people then anything anyone had done yet.
Edited, Feb 9th 2010 5:14pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
No more silly then saying insurgents increased their attacks due to the statement. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to continue to lay low so as to present the impression that things were going well and that withdrawal was a practical option?
No. It wouldn't. That makes no sense at all. Murtha's argument was that the war was lost and there was no hope of bringing about a stable self-governing Iraq. At the risk of using the word "obvious" again, wouldn't it make the most sense to create as much violence as possible in order to maximize the likelihood that people would believe what Murtha was saying?
Making it appear that things are going well is the exact opposite of what you'd want to do in that situation, assuming your objective is to get the US to remove its troops. Now, if Murtha had demanded that we remove our troops from Iraq because things were so peaceful and quiet and there was no need for them to remain, you'd have a point.
Quote:
Nope, you can find posts by you saying that laying out any sort of concrete exit strategy is retarded though. You seemed to prefer the nebulous idea that we'd know when we should leave.
Sorta. An exit strategy that does not include conditions for victory (or defeat) is retarded. You don't send soldiers off to fight with the sole objective of bringing them back home. The idea of having an "exit strategy" floating free of any other conditions is retarded. And the insistence that not doing this is somehow wrong is even moreso.
You set conditions for victory and you work towards those. Your exit strategy is that when you succeed, you get to bring the soldiers home. The idea of having a "concrete exit strategy" as your primary objective and requirement is just plain moronic. It's so stupid that I'm actually having a hard time coming up with an analogy to show just how stupid it is. There's just no easy equivalent. I suppose it's sorta like bashing a politician for not having a concrete concession speech ready halfway through the campaign season. Except dumber and with more people dying because of it.
Quote:
Haha this is awesome, you maintained that Murtha did more harm to the iraqi people then anything anyone had done yet.
No. I said his actions in 2005 caused a large spike in violence and death in Iraq. Which is absolutely true.
Edited, Feb 9th 2010 5:02pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Sorta. An exit strategy that does not include conditions for victory (or defeat) is retarded. You don't send soldiers off to fight with the goal of bringing them back home. The idea of having an "exit strategy" floating free of any other conditions is retarded. And the insistence that not doing this is somehow wrong is even moreso.
There's a condition for defeat implicit: not having finished up by the deadline. I'm not saying it's a good condition...
Quote:
No. I said his actions in 2005 caused a large spike in violence and death in Iraq. Which is absolutely true.
No, it's unbelievably retarded. If you were talking about defeatism in America in general, you would have somewhat of a point, though I'm sure you'd drastically overstate its impact.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
There's a condition for defeat implicit: not having finished up by the deadline. I'm not saying it's a good condition...
That really depends on what you're doing and whether there really is a time component. I think that a lot of times, we apply deadlines on pretty arbitrary basis and it's a mistake to assume that if we don't meet them, we've "failed". Defeat should be determined by an inability to succeed, not an inability to succeed within a given time frame.
Imagine if the Allies in WW2, having failed to cross the Rhine by Christmas of 1944, had decided that this constituted defeat and decided to withdraw their forces.
Quote:
Quote:
No. I said his actions in 2005 caused a large spike in violence and death in Iraq. Which is absolutely true.
No, it's unbelievably retarded. If you were talking about defeatism in America in general, you would have somewhat of a point, though I'm sure you'd drastically overstate its impact.
If Murtha were just some left wing pundit or minor politician, we would just be talking about non-important defeatism. But the whole point and significance of Murtha being the one to sponsor a bill to withdraw soldiers from Iraq was because of his experience as a veteran, his position of seniority within the party, and the general respect he held for and received from the military. A few anti-war peaceniks is one thing, but Murtha was an old military guy. The perception was that if he was taking a stance that the war was lost, it must really be so...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
No. I said his actions in 2005 caused a large spike in violence and death in Iraq. Which is absolutely true.
And honestly, the GOP did the usual political games, and made everyone immediately vote on a separate issue while pretending to address Murtha's idea. It was an obvious political ploy, but it also equally showed how they weren't going to withdraw any time soon.
Quote:
The idea of having an "exit strategy" floating free of any other conditions is retarded.
I'll add, while you apparently consider Murtha to be a groundshaking politician, and tremble when he speaks, this really didn't get a ton of traction outside the US. I assume from your reaction that it did get a lot within the US, but the perception outside was that while there were obviously dissidents to the war, and people making a lot of noise, the "strategy" wasn't terribly affected by it. You're really overestimating the effect here.
Edited, Feb 10th 2010 12:05am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
This thread reminds me why I haven't bothered to get into a real debate with Gbaji lately. It's just dripping with retardedness and some of the most idiotic comparisons and logical leaps you can imagine.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sweetums wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Everyone is Jophiel.
The
Just as Planned.
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding right? Murtha was the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee for 20 years.
OH MY GOD!!!!111 The ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee?! Really??? That's insane, everyone knows that the one person who made all the decisions relating to war in 2005 was the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee!! I'm surprised Al-Zarqawi didn't request a meeting with him to sign a cease-fire! Quick Bin-Laden, forget about bush, the person we need to get to is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee!!!
Quote:
Yes. Because dark skinned people are just ignorant hicks who don't understand the ramifications of something like Murtha's call for withdrawal. Bigoted much?
It's the opposite, you ****. They are far too clever to think that this guy could influence anything. And guess what? They were right, he didn't influence anything!
I know I've said a million times before, but you're a fucking ******, and it's getting worse with age. I said you didn't have to answer the post, and this is why. The fact you can think the internal dynamics of the Iraq conflict on the insurgents' side could've been affected in any way by the statement of some guy who has ZERO decision-making powers clearly shows what an partisan imbecile you are.
Hey tricky, who had Murtha in the Death Pool?
I don't know, but I'm not getting back in until it's gone through it's cleaning cycle.
Twice.
Twice.
And one more thing:
*Somewhere in a ramshackle shack, in the North-West suburb of Baghdad, around tea time.*
Ebrahim: Alluh Akbhar my brother, how's it hanging?
Mahmoud: In'schallah, it's lopsided to the left as always!
Ebrahim: Haha Mahmoud, your jokes fill my heart with happiness and I cannot help but express the joy in my soul in a form of laughter, Alluh Akhbar.
Mahmoud: May the Prophet, peace by upon him, bless your wicked but delightful sense of humour. So... who are we killing today?
Ebrahim: Well, I thought we could bomb the market place to kill some Shia bastards, and then a couple of IEDs to deal with the Iranian infiltrators, and then maybe we suicide-bomb a convoy of Westerners, their mothers are dogs.
Mahmoud: Eh, sounds good to me! What do we do about the Sunni locals?!
Ebrahim: We bomb them and blame it on the Shias. Alluh Akhbar they retaliate through the Iranians. Hezbollah and Hamas attack Israel. They nuke Teheran. Pakistan falls into the hands of Islamists and nuke Dehli. In’schallah, we’re almost there!
Mahmoud: That might have worked before, but… I take it you haven’t heard the news today?
Ebrahim: No my brother, tell me please, my heart is eager to hear the wisdom from your tongue.
Mahmoud: Ugh. Well, some guy called for America's withdrawal, saying they had lost the war!
Ebrahim: Hurray! Peace-be-upon him! Who was that guy tell me please.
Mahoumd: Let me look through my notes... Not Bush-the-evil-one... Not Rumsfeld-the-devil-tongue... Not Cheney... Not Powell-the-dark-skinned-devil... Not Petraeus... Not Shinseki... Ah wait, here it is... Murtha!
Ebrhaim: Murtha what?
Mahmoud: Murtha, the devil who said the US was losing the war was called... "Murtha".
Ebrahim: Is this a fucking joke? Who the fuck is Murtha??
Mahmoud: Don't you know?? He's the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. What, have you not been reading your copy of the Congressional Record you infidel termite-eater??
Ebrahim: I've been busy with other things... What power does this Murtha have?
Mahmoud: Hmm, technically, none. But people say he is very influential in America.
Ebrahim: Really? Is the US going to withdraw because of him?
Mahmoud: No, of course not. Like I said, no power whatsoever.
Ebrahim: So… what the fuck?
Mahmoud: Well, the “fuck†is that the Republicans are one giant, how do you say, pussy-bag. Even if they are the party in power, all it takes is for one Democrat to say something and they will seriously consider it.
Ebrahim: Really?
Mahmoud: Really.
Ebrahim: Awesome-sauce.
*Somewhere in a ramshackle shack, in the North-West suburb of Baghdad, around tea time.*
Ebrahim: Alluh Akbhar my brother, how's it hanging?
Mahmoud: In'schallah, it's lopsided to the left as always!
Ebrahim: Haha Mahmoud, your jokes fill my heart with happiness and I cannot help but express the joy in my soul in a form of laughter, Alluh Akhbar.
Mahmoud: May the Prophet, peace by upon him, bless your wicked but delightful sense of humour. So... who are we killing today?
Ebrahim: Well, I thought we could bomb the market place to kill some Shia bastards, and then a couple of IEDs to deal with the Iranian infiltrators, and then maybe we suicide-bomb a convoy of Westerners, their mothers are dogs.
Mahmoud: Eh, sounds good to me! What do we do about the Sunni locals?!
Ebrahim: We bomb them and blame it on the Shias. Alluh Akhbar they retaliate through the Iranians. Hezbollah and Hamas attack Israel. They nuke Teheran. Pakistan falls into the hands of Islamists and nuke Dehli. In’schallah, we’re almost there!
Mahmoud: That might have worked before, but… I take it you haven’t heard the news today?
Ebrahim: No my brother, tell me please, my heart is eager to hear the wisdom from your tongue.
Mahmoud: Ugh. Well, some guy called for America's withdrawal, saying they had lost the war!
Ebrahim: Hurray! Peace-be-upon him! Who was that guy tell me please.
Mahoumd: Let me look through my notes... Not Bush-the-evil-one... Not Rumsfeld-the-devil-tongue... Not Cheney... Not Powell-the-dark-skinned-devil... Not Petraeus... Not Shinseki... Ah wait, here it is... Murtha!
Ebrhaim: Murtha what?
Mahmoud: Murtha, the devil who said the US was losing the war was called... "Murtha".
Ebrahim: Is this a fucking joke? Who the fuck is Murtha??
Mahmoud: Don't you know?? He's the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. What, have you not been reading your copy of the Congressional Record you infidel termite-eater??
Ebrahim: I've been busy with other things... What power does this Murtha have?
Mahmoud: Hmm, technically, none. But people say he is very influential in America.
Ebrahim: Really? Is the US going to withdraw because of him?
Mahmoud: No, of course not. Like I said, no power whatsoever.
Ebrahim: So… what the fuck?
Mahmoud: Well, the “fuck†is that the Republicans are one giant, how do you say, pussy-bag. Even if they are the party in power, all it takes is for one Democrat to say something and they will seriously consider it.
Ebrahim: Really?
Mahmoud: Really.
Ebrahim: Awesome-sauce.
Recent Visitors: 221
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (221)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remind me to get all choked up...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC