RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question

RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mnottertail -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 12:23:06 PM)
We had that before the war in Iraq and will have that even if we walk out today, or if we win or lose....don't see much value added there, frankly. Ron

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 12:35:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail We had that before the war in Iraq and will have that even if we walk out today, or if we win or lose....don't see much value added there, frankly. I understand your point, but would say whether or not action, or inaction in Iraq would have been more or less likely to lead to it in the future is the more important question. Basically, the answer to this question is what divides most of us. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 12:54:15 PM)
Indeed, this does divide us, as I feel that actions taken in Iraq will for the forseeable future cause loss of life.....including into the next generations. Ron

philosophy -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 2:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Well, I kinda agree, although I'm not sure my interpretation of your words match your intent. The first comment I'd make is that rising casualty figures were certainly used by many protesters and anti-war proponents as sure signs of failure. Seems only fair that the reverse should be a valid argument as well, doesn't it? .....to be fair, casualty numbers haven't been part of my thinking, in either a success or failure sense. However, if one is going to make the argument you describe then yes. Except i wouldn't.....lol...... quote: My second comment is that I agree with your comments about the Iraqi governments spat with Blackwater being a "good thing" (if that is indeed your intent), as it does show some independence of thought and action by the Iraqi government (some backbone, you may say), and that's a good thing, in the long run. Firm ....a rare occasion where we agree FHKY. Now the State Department has to stop taking sides against the Iraqi government and let them prosecute their own case.

Sinergy -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 2:51:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Well, I kinda agree, although I'm not sure my interpretation of your words match your intent. The first comment I'd make is that rising casualty figures were certainly used by many protesters and anti-war proponents as sure signs of failure. Seems only fair that the reverse should be a valid argument as well, doesn't it? .....to be fair, casualty numbers haven't been part of my thinking, in either a success or failure sense. However, if one is going to make the argument you describe then yes. Except i wouldn't.....lol...... It seems that the United States government is doing almost exactly the same thing in Iraq as was done in Vietnam; determining victory or defeat based on the delta values between people we lose and people we kill. The primary differences between this war and Vietnam seems to be the large numbers of mercenary troops (Blackwater, et al) on the ground who are not actually counted among those killed on our side. This, naturally, artificially deflates our losses by adding a level of abstraction to the statistical analysis of the cost of the war. They are not US soldiers, not humans, they are Blackwater employees. Throw in the fact that most of the "people we kill," whether these are rice farmers or housewives or armed insurgents, are added to whatever group of enemies we are fighting at that particular moment, be this Viet Cong, Al Qaeda, Revolutionary Guards, or whatever. While the statistical cooking of numbers of dead or wounded can and often are dressed up to look like whatever the administration or the anti-war crowd want them to look like, I personally think that the tripling of the national debt and the actual monetary costs of the war, followed by the more ephemeral aspects (National Guard not available for Katrina, California wildfires, training of troops (Black Horse), etc., are a better indication of the unsustainability of our presence in the middle east. I personally find viewing success or failure of our occupation of Iraq through the unfeeling focus of the relative losses of human life to be simply reprehensible, inhumane, and ruthless. How many of those people, regardless of what team they may or may not belong to, actually wanted to end up dead as a result of our invasion? Sinergy

NorthernGent -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 5:17:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Firmhand, I'm curious here: what is the prize for the winner? Life I'll say one thing for your answer: it was unexpected. Any chance you can put some meat on the bones though? It seems to me that 300 million Americans are reasonably safe.....and there's something Hitleresque about this clash of cultures.

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 6:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hey, did I miss your reply to this? No, you haven't. I've not had the time nor energy to do an accurate transcription, especially seeing as it is a very simple process for anyone who disagrees with either of us to click the mp3 link, and read along in your post, and make their own decision. Firm I assumed YOU had already listened to the recording and compared it to the excerpts. If you had, you would know that EVERYTHING I EXCERPTED FROM THE RECORDING, IS IN THE RECORDING -- VERBATIM. Without comparing the two, how could YOU otherwise made the claim that the excerpts I posted weren't verbatim from the recording? I ask again, for you to support your claims. What material errors do you allege exist, and PLEASE provide us what you allege to be the needed context to properly understand the statements about how anyone who disagrees cannot possible be a Republican?

luckydog1 -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 6:42:52 PM)
So farg you are asserting that Rush has kicked anyone out of the party who is not in 100% agreement with Bush on Iraq, even though he specifically names 2 elected Republicans that differ with Bush but do not follow the "Move on" pull out tomorow plan.....Amazing, Rush specifically names 2 Republicans who differ with Bush, yet farg can't see it. Even though he posted it.....

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 6:49:18 PM)
Since Rush can identify TWO people he cannot, like David "Egregious" Frum did for the Neo-cons in 2003, simply read out of the party, and it makes the dismissal of EVERYONE ELSE ok? Hey, if this is the kind of piece-of-shit you choose to associate with, it's not my problem. I got fucked over by Frum and the rest of the Neocon Party Whores back in ought-three. Don't take my advice. Don't cry when it happens to you. quote: CALLER 1: I'm just -- I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public -- like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose, but -- LIMBAUGH: Oh, come on! Here we go again. I uttered a truth, and you can't handle it, so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically. quote: LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.

luckydog1 -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 6:57:06 PM)
Farg, he puts qualifiers on the anti war side, and names specific people. They are not a monolithic bloc. You seem to be confusing the callers words for Rushes. Why do you keep pretending on this stuff?

luckydog1 -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 6:59:07 PM)
farg, are you actually pretending you were a loyal Republican untill 03? You have stated dozens of times that the whole nation has been under a criminal dictatorship since the Civil War, and it must be done away with.

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 7:05:45 PM)
Why do people believe that Conservative equals Republican?

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 7:10:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Farg, he puts qualifiers on the anti war side, and names specific people. They are not a monolithic bloc. Yeah, that's confusing. So there are apparently: 1) REAL Republicans who agree with Bush's Policies. 2) Republicans don't agree with Bush's Policies BUT "DON'T want to leave in defeat". ( Since we don't have a stake in the fight, I'm unsure of what "defeat" consists of... ) 3) ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICANS WHO DON'T AGREE WITH BUSH'S POLICES ( since they're not in the prior group, the are by definition "Defeatist", and the Democrats. I contend that Category 2 exists solely because there are people who Rush simply cannot dismiss, and it is part of the larger goal of "Maintaining the appearance of Unity through dismissing anyone who opposes The Party Line". Category 2 has how many members? TWO. That's not a demographic, that's an escape hatch, so anyone with the gravitas to call you out on the dismissal can be recategorized to avoid offense. You guys are 4 years behind the purge of the Conservatives, but the game-plan is the same. It's your choice NOT to learn from history.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 7:19:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Farg, he puts qualifiers on the anti war side, and names specific people. They are not a monolithic bloc. You seem to be confusing the callers words for Rushes. Why do you keep pretending on this stuff? lucky, One of the reasons I don't have much interest in doing what he wants (making my own transcript of the tape, and then explaining the issues exactly as you are pointing out) is that FB really isn't interested in any of that. He has his mind made up, and he refuses to let the facts get in his way. Firm

Petronius -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 7:31:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Level Sit down with the Kurds; explain, that if they ever get to an independent state, in order to keep our support, they absolutely must not encourage problems with Turkey. At all. Sit down with the Turks. 'Splain to them how important it is to have as much peace in their region as possible, and that as long as the Kurds don't fuck with them or their borders, that we would expect them to not fuck with the Kurds...... or the American troops I'd leave in Kurdistan, near the Kurd/Turk border. It is not the Kurds in what would become Kurdistan that are the problem, Level. It is the Kurdish seperatist radicals within Turkey who would try to pick a fight. The Kurdish separatist radicals would do everything to pick a fight to try to force Turkey into conflict with Kurdistan. This seems to me to be a heavy rewriting of history, along the lines of the Turkish holocaust deniers. The "Kurdish seperatists radicals" aren't very radical. They tend to be Kurdish nationalists of all stripes who don't want Turkish Kurdistan to be violently incorporated into Turkey. The U.S. didn't have any problems "picking a fight" in Yugoslavia to help various national forces. It takes a heavy rewrite to claim that members of an oppressed nationality are "picking a fight" with their oppressors. There's another rewrite of history here, too. Nobody can "force Turkey into conflict with Kurdistan" since Turkey is already in "conflict" with that part of Kurdistan they annexed militarily and has been for many decades. Writing of the Kurdistani people trying to "force a conflict" with the Holocaust-Denying Turks is really like accusing German Jews of trying to "force a conflict" with the Nazis.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 7:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Firmhand, I'm curious here: what is the prize for the winner? Life I'll say one thing for your answer: it was unexpected. Any chance you can put some meat on the bones though? It seems to me that 300 million Americans are reasonably safe.....and there's something Hitleresque about this clash of cultures. You can break it down and parse it in a lot of different ways, but at the end of the day, it ends up about which culture, which people, which humans manage to succeed, reproduce and inherit the future. That's "Life". We can talk micro if you wish, which is where you'll no doubt disagree, but the answer is valid in just about every level, I think. Firm

Sinergy -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 8:14:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius The "Kurdish seperatists radicals" aren't very radical. They tend to be Kurdish nationalists of all stripes who don't want Turkish Kurdistan to be violently incorporated into Turkey. The U.S. didn't have any problems "picking a fight" in Yugoslavia to help various national forces. It takes a heavy rewrite to claim that members of an oppressed nationality are "picking a fight" with their oppressors. I tend to agree with you, Petronius, and I suppose my post did sound as if I was taking Turkey's side of things and for that I apologize. I was simply pointing out that it is another situation where hundreds of years of bloody warfare has pissed off certain populations against their occupying forces, and now side A and side B are in a position where their conflict can usher in World War 3. I am not really saying that seperatist extremist car bombings and other activities (known frequently as terrorism) are not warranted to be used against Turkey for their bombings and killings and occupations (known as "state sponsored terrorism") inflicted on the Kurds. I was simply pointing out that nobody is likely to end up happy when the fecal matter impacts the air conditioner. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 8:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Farg, he puts qualifiers on the anti war side, and names specific people. They are not a monolithic bloc. You seem to be confusing the callers words for Rushes. Why do you keep pretending on this stuff? lucky, One of the reasons I don't have much interest in doing what he wants (making my own transcript of the tape, and then explaining the issues exactly as you are pointing out) is that FB really isn't interested in any of that. He has his mind made up, and he refuses to let the facts get in his way. Firm That's silly. You don't have to make your own transcript. I never asked you to. YOU SAID THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH WHAT I EXCERPTED. I asked "What problems?" YOU SAID "ANYONE CAN JUST LISTEN TO THE TAPE" I said, "Yeah, and I've done that. My excerpts are verbatim. What's your complaint?" And you've been mute about exactly what problems you have found.

luckydog1 -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 10:52:12 PM)
farg, because you said Frum read people out of the party in 03. That would be the Republican Party, as there is no such thing as the Conservative Party. If you were not a Republican, Frum didn't kick you out of the party. You got to keep your story consistent if you want to play this fake persona on the Net farg, else you just look silly.

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 11:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 farg, because you said Frum read people out of the party in 03. That would be the Republican Party, as there is no such thing as the Conservative Party. I understand your confusion. It's a New York thing. -- The Conservative Party was formed in 1962. Here are the useless remains of their website -- http://www.cpnys.org/ quote: If you were not a Republican, Frum didn't kick you out of the party. You got to keep your story consistent if you want to play this fake persona on the Net farg, else you just look silly. So, I'm imprecise in the usage of "Party", and you are ignorant of the New York State party organizations. I hope this has cleared up your misconceptions.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02