RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning

RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (Full Version)

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

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 8:37:19 AM)
Where does an increase in the daily rate of death for US Troops translate into "Success"? Why are we in Iraq at all? And why haven't you responded to my refutation of whatever "results" the New Way Forward was alleged to provide?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 8:44:03 AM)
I bet I'm gonna regret this ... but .... [:)] 1. I think the "New Way Forward" applied to some programs and operations prior to the adoption of the current strategy in Iraq, so you're use of it is inaccurate. 2. You seem to be using only a single criteria for "success" or "failure" and that is the absolute number of deaths of American soldiers in Iraq over a set period of time. I submit that there are other factors that you are not taking into account. And I suspect that you refuse to consider them because of the emotional impact in using American deaths. This, then, is a blatant use of American military deaths for a purely partisan purpose, which I find ... despicable. But totally in-line with most of your "arguments" and "statements". Firm

Sinergy -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 9:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Results, not feelings, are what is important. I am sure you will let us know when there are some actual positive results. As opposed to the usual massaged and out of context statistics and computer modelling studies you generally provide. Sinergy p.s. On a positive note, Karl Rove was subpeonaed by Congress today.

farglebargle -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 9:19:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I bet I'm gonna regret this ... but .... [:)] 1. I think the "New Way Forward" applied to some programs and operations prior to the adoption of the current strategy in Iraq, so you're use of it is inaccurate. I got it from the post YOU REFERENCED explaining YOUR POSITION. quote: 2. You seem to be using only a single criteria for "success" or "failure" and that is the absolute number of deaths of American soldiers in Iraq over a set period of time. Why not? If you're defining say, success of a marketing program, you count the number sold in a period of time, and compare it to the same time period in the prior year. If you're defining say, success of a Foreign Policy, isn't the number of DEAD AMERICANS caused by that policy a meaningful measure? If not, then what other metrics would be MORE appropriate? What metrics would be more acceptable to the families of the DEAD AMERICANS? quote: I submit that there are other factors that you are not taking into account. And I suspect that you refuse to consider them because of the emotional impact in using American deaths. Actually, If you read back I INVITED YOU TO DO THE NUMERICAL ANALYSIS YOU BELIEVE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR ASSERTION. Where is it? quote: This, then, is a blatant use of American military deaths for a purely partisan purpose, which I find ... despicable. Since we can't count the DEAD IRAQIS, it's the metric we have. Of course, THEY ARE THE NUMBERS YOU POSTED, so asserting that I chose them for some sort of impact is perhaps disingenuous?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 9:44:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Results, not feelings, are what is important. I am sure you will let us know when there are some actual positive results. As opposed to the usual massaged and out of context statistics and computer modelling studies you generally provide. Sinergy p.s. On a positive note, Karl Rove was subpeonaed by Congress today. You just can't get over your ignorance being displayed about Global Warming, can you? [:D][:D] Firm

SimplyMichael -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 9:57:58 AM)
Bush awarded the Medal of Freedom, the highest award a civilian can get to Paul Wolfowitz, the man who testified on behalf of the Administration that: quote: Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward. quote: In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help. And this guy was seen as the INTELLECTUAL in the Administration!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 10:00:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I bet I'm gonna regret this ... but .... [:)] 1. I think the "New Way Forward" applied to some programs and operations prior to the adoption of the current strategy in Iraq, so you're use of it is inaccurate. I got it from the post YOU REFERENCED explaining YOUR POSITION. A link to it - or direct quote - would be appreciated. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 2. You seem to be using only a single criteria for "success" or "failure" and that is the absolute number of deaths of American soldiers in Iraq over a set period of time. Why not? If you're defining say, success of a marketing program, you count the number sold in a period of time, and compare it to the same time period in the prior year. If you're defining say, success of a Foreign Policy, isn't the number of DEAD AMERICANS caused by that policy a meaningful measure? If not, then what other metrics would be MORE appropriate? What metrics would be more acceptable to the families of the DEAD AMERICANS? Why not turn around your argument? What you are saying - simply enough - is that there is no moral percept, nor ethical or political situation possible in which the loss of a single life is more or equally important as a principle or a long-term result? Following this logic, you would be happy in a totalitarian world, because it isn't "worth it" to rebel against your oppressors? How do you handle all the gray areas? Oh. That's right. In your world, there are no "gray areas"! Must be nice (or terribly frustrating) to live in such a world. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I submit that there are other factors that you are not taking into account. And I suspect that you refuse to consider them because of the emotional impact in using American deaths. Actually, If you read back I INVITED YOU TO DO THE NUMERICAL ANALYSIS YOU BELIEVE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR ASSERTION. Where is it? Why not answer a question, and do some thinking for yourself for a change, rather than hoping someone will take you as a serious thinker and debater, and attempt to wear them out emotionally and intellectually running in your gerbil wheel? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY This, then, is a blatant use of American military deaths for a purely partisan purpose, which I find ... despicable. Since we can't count the DEAD IRAQIS, it's the metric we have. Of course, THEY ARE THE NUMBERS YOU POSTED, so asserting that I chose them for some sort of impact is perhaps disingenuous? You started this whole "numbers" thing. I simply provided real and verifiable numbers to make the discussion something more than "nah nah nah nah naaahhh". Come up with some numbers yourself. Source them. And then give your reasoned argument about what they mean. hmmm. I'm not holding my breath, though. Firm

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 11:39:11 AM)
Fast Reply: I wonder how many that did not die, were maimed so badly, they may wish they were dead? How many walking wounded will return? How many military families will soon dissolve after their return? Those that are quick to return them, need to plan an entrance strategy for them to return. Otherwise, what is the difference as to where our service men and women are suffering? I was never in the military, but I grew up as an Air Force brat. Dad was stationed TDY in many are places, and we were always proud to say that we were a military family, and kept going without him there. It didn't matter the politics, the people in power or the agenda, it was that my father gave an oath, lived by a code, and followed it. Those that wish to say they are looking out for the military, need to look closely as to how long there have been problems with the VA, retirement, retirement funds for widows, and other things that have just as much impact on a military family, as them dying in war. If you are truly concerned, and not just using them to drive your political agenda and opinions, then put up or shut up http://www.charitynavigator.org/ or maybe this http://www.petitiononline.com/Veterans/petition.html . Just as some want to say "if you support the war, then join up." , I will say IF YOU TRULY SUPPORT OUR MILITARY THEN DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN SHOUT ABOUT HOW MANY ARE DYING. This post in not in support of withdraw or staying, it is just that I am sick of people using how many are dying over there as a reason, if they are not helping the military in other ways. Orion

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 11:40:26 AM)
Live for something rather than die for nothing.” "Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen." GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON you know it is easy to be a arm chair warrior... sit on the side lines why others fight for your rights or freedoms

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 12:07:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 "Live for something rather than die for nothing.” "Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen." GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON you know it is easy to be a arm chair warrior... sit on the side lines why others fight for your rights or freedoms Before I respond (I assume you are addressing your remarks to me), would you mind clarifying what you mean? Your quotes and comments could be taken in more than one way. Firm

farglebargle -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 12:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I bet I'm gonna regret this ... but .... [:)] 1. I think the "New Way Forward" applied to some programs and operations prior to the adoption of the current strategy in Iraq, so you're use of it is inaccurate. I got it from the post YOU REFERENCED explaining YOUR POSITION. A link to it - or direct quote - would be appreciated. It's back in the read this link to the thread with your comments which you gave kittensol earlier in this thread. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 2. You seem to be using only a single criteria for "success" or "failure" and that is the absolute number of deaths of American soldiers in Iraq over a set period of time. Why not? If you're defining say, success of a marketing program, you count the number sold in a period of time, and compare it to the same time period in the prior year. If you're defining say, success of a Foreign Policy, isn't the number of DEAD AMERICANS caused by that policy a meaningful measure? If not, then what other metrics would be MORE appropriate? What metrics would be more acceptable to the families of the DEAD AMERICANS? Why not turn around your argument? What you are saying - simply enough - is that there is no moral percept, nor ethical or political situation possible in which the loss of a single life is more or equally important as a principle or a long-term result? There's 2 aspects to that I'd like to address. Firstly, I'd say that there situations where the loss of a single life is important as a principle or long term result. Sure. e.g.: The US's reluctant entry into WWII. Of course, Japan needed to blow up Pearl Harbor, and Germany delivered a Notice of War to the State Department the next day, THEN CONGRESS DECLARED WAR, there was a full mobilization, and draft, and the rest is history. That's a VERY DIFFERENT CASE than we have here with this Unconstitutional experiment in Nation Building. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, required Bushco to commit acts of CRIMINAL FRAUD. Given the arguable position that Hussein, if left alone, wouldn't have killed as many people than have died since the US took over, and the negligable prospects for any actual "GOOD" to come out of the US's unsophisiticated Foreign Policy, I say: "Stop killing 2 or 3 Troops every single day, and get those 2 or 3 who will die tomorrow HOME SAFE TODAY." quote: Following this logic, you would be happy in a totalitarian world, because it isn't "worth it" to rebel against your oppressors? How do you handle all the gray areas? Oh. That's right. In your world, there are no "gray areas"! Must be nice (or terribly frustrating) to live in such a world. In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, damn right there are no gray areas. EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL POWER IS EXPLICITLY ENUMERATED. Since there is no, "Nation Building" in the Constitution or Amendments, only someone ignorant of the Constitution or hostile to the basic foundation principles of Liberty and Freedom would suggest it's RIGHT to engage in it.

farglebargle -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 12:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf This post in not in support of withdraw or staying, it is just that I am sick of people using how many are dying over there as a reason, if they are not helping the military in other ways. Orion There is no better way to help them stay alive, than to stop killing 2 or 3 every single day. There is no better way to do that, than to bring them home now. The ones who die today, will die because YOU AND I did not bring them home safely, yesterday. The ones who will die tomorrow, will die because YOU AND I did not bring them home safely, today.

farglebargle -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 12:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 Live for something rather than die for nothing.” "Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen." GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON you know it is easy to be a arm chair warrior... sit on the side lines why others fight for your rights or freedoms Nobody fights for anyone's rights and freedoms but themselves. If what you suggest is true, then why did Jose Padilla sit essentially in Solitary for THREE AND A HALF YEARS before they even thought about giving him a trial? Why are our soldiers and employees TORTURING people? The 5th Amendment specifically prohibits that, if they troops are fighting for Our Rights, why didn't they set him free, and get him to a Court?

mnottertail -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 12:40:30 PM)
quote: If what you suggest is true, then why did Jose Padilla sit essentially in Solitary for THREE AND A HALF YEARS before they even thought about giving him a trial? They were trying to get a handle on whether he played boy when Ron Ely was Tarzan on TV, took a little longer than expected is all. Ron

farglebargle -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 12:44:41 PM)
Yeah, well, that kind of shit really shows the hypocritical nature of the sick fucks who support Bushco, and really how false that whole "protecting our freedoms" shit is...

Sinergy -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 12:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You just can't get over your ignorance being displayed about Global Warming, can you? [:D][:D] Firm The modeling studies you cited were inconclusive, and you have not enlightened the message boards with their relevance. Sinergy

girl4you2 -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 1:00:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 Live for something rather than die for nothing.” "Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen." GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON you know it is easy to be a arm chair warrior... sit on the side lines why others fight for your rights or freedoms someone i know wrote this in response to a youtube video with patton on it; seems fitting to quote him here: "Spare me. George S Patton was an avid Jew hater who dragged his feet in allowing the few surviving Jews out of the DP camps. Despite the words someone put into George C. Scott's mouth, I've spent plenty of time on history, and in actual books, not merely the history channel, and this mockery is pure drivel. Proof positive that America is short on intellectual politicians and professors (yes, teachers and leaders who honor intelligence) who might think of all the consequences before attacking another county. When was the last war we won? Umm Grenada comes to mind. Made the world safe for Grenadine? It sickens me how those yahoos have increased Iran's power and control in the middle east, blown the Afghanistan front, created another failed nation- like the wild and crazy no rule of law afganistan where the real 911 terrorists trained, rallied and nourished Al-Queda, created a new wave of focused hatred of us, aided a nuclear Pakistan military dictator into a perilous rule (6 attempts to kill him as of last week, that we know of- what's gonna happen to those nukes when the Paki pals of Osama get those nukes?) , and will soon be sending home tens of thousands of broken American kids, and have the gall to compare this to the American Revolutionaries like George Washington (remember that guy, he's the one who left the presidency with the warning: Beware Foreign Entanglements!, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson and all the other 25,000 dead men of that tinyinsurgency which led to our constitutional freedoms. The same freedoms the new KIng George is taking away. Well, I say, Give me Liberty or Give me Death. That's what freedom is about: Freedom."

SimplyMichael -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 1:14:31 PM)
Patton would have said the same thing Shinseki said but instead of going quietly into the night he would have told America that what GWB was doing was lunacy and badly enacated lunacy at that.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 1:31:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 1. I think the "New Way Forward" applied to some programs and operations prior to the adoption of the current strategy in Iraq, so you're use of it is inaccurate. I got it from the post YOU REFERENCED explaining YOUR POSITION. A link to it - or direct quote - would be appreciated. It's back in the read this link to the thread with your comments which you gave kittensol earlier in this thread. sigh I know this is a lost cause, but .... the term "New Way Forward" was used by caitlyn in her title, but it was not something I used, referenced or addressed in my reply to her. I knew that caityn was more interested in an actual, real-life discussion, and reasoned point of view, rather than an obtuse and entirely secondary discussion about terms. So ... you've still not be able to quote or show me anywhere that I've used the term. Sorry. But you can play again. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What you are saying - simply enough - is that there is no moral percept, nor ethical or political situation possible in which the loss of a single life is more or equally important as a principle or a long-term result? There's 2 aspects to that I'd like to address. Firstly, I'd say that there situations where the loss of a single life is important as a principle or long term result. Sure. Since you agree that there are situations in which the loss of life is less important than a principle ... then I can understand that your use of only the loss of life as a measuring stick for the "success" or "failure" in Iraq is simply another way of saying that - in this case - there is no principle involved that rises to this importance? What gives you reason to believe that your moral views and beliefs are the only correct ones, and must be adhered to by everyone else? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle That's a VERY DIFFERENT CASE than we have here with this Unconstitutional experiment in Nation Building. CRIMINAL FRAUD. The President isn't specifically authorized in the Constitution to occupy the White House, is he? Is Congress specifically authorized to require the President to withdraw troops from Iraq (other than simply cutting off all funding?). You claim that the current administrative is guilty of "criminal fraud". In which court was Bush convicted of this? What does the Constitution say about establishing the guilt or innocence of an accused? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY In your world, there are no "gray areas"! In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, damn right there are no gray areas. EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL POWER IS EXPLICITLY ENUMERATED. So ... tell me again ... the purpose of the US Supreme Court in the context of our three branches of government? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bad News From Iraq: We Might Be Winning (8/6/2007 1:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You just can't get over your ignorance being displayed about Global Warming, can you? [:D][:D] The modeling studies you cited were inconclusive, and you have not enlightened the message boards with their relevance. Your failure to understand does not equal "inconclusive". I have no duty to "enlighten" you. You have a duty to "enlighten" yourself. I may attempt to do so on occasion, to people I believe worthy of discussion, and who are actually interested in trying to understanding an opposing point of view (you do not fall into this category, I suspect, for most "sober" members of the forums), but I have no duty to teach them math, the scientific process, or help them gain the ability to overcome their poorly constructed ideological-based belief systems. Firm

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625