RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal

RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (Full Version)

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

Message

Level -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 4:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn ...but, the moment someone starts saying it's a failure, they are venturing into the unknown. Unless you are the almighty and know the future, you have no idea how things will turn out. Yep, and what do you want to bet that if things do turn out well in Iraq, no amount of torture would make some of these critics admit to it? Bitch until proven wrong, or presented with something that they can't argue against, and they move on. So, what is left, that is intelligent? Solutions ... point blank. One solution I think is that more troops are needed to get out faster, and with a chance of a lasting peace. I can't hardly turn the tv on without seeing someone from our military saying this, seemingly to no avail.

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 4:52:09 AM)
"Without a solution, your words are empty, meaningless and tiresome." .......so a warning without a solution is a useless thing is it? Shouting 'watch out' to someone before they get hit by a car has no value? There are two stages here that are being conflated. Identifying a problem and solving it. These are separate things, to insist that identifying a problem is somehow 'tiresome' is as clear a demonstration of the famous ostritch position i have ever come across. Of course presenting a solution as well as identifying the problem is to be preferred, but i'd much rather have a warning with no solution than no warning at all. "People that are turning what is happening in a sandbox in the Middle East, into some sort of dreadful event for the good 'ol red, white and blue, are just fanning a match, hoping to turn it into a bonfire. The fuel just isn't there." ......the only reason America is involved in the middle east is because it is accepted that events there have a bearing on the US. It follows logically that such effects can be exacerbated or calmed down. It is not illogical to suggest that current American foreign policy merely makes things worse.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 5:17:16 AM)
Firstly, the second war on Iraq WAS a massive blunder. Not because Saddam was a wonderful guy and didnt deserve to face justice, but simply for the reason that GWBs father knew in the first war, and Clinton knew after him, that Saddam was a valuable pawn in the regional game - a despotic and evil buffer between the Iranians in the east and the disgruntled Arab Muslims to the west. Bush snr could have crushed Saddam the first time, but didnt. Clinton could have really turned the screw on Saddam in the sanctions stakes, but didnt. Both recognised that however evil Saddam was, he was valuable just where he was. Right now, we see the first stage of the result of the second war - thousands of insurgents pouring into Iraq, supposedly countered by a new Iraqi army and police force which undoubtedly has a good representation of both committed native insurgents and others who could be persuaded to join the insurgency or at least do nothing about it. The continuing terror and killing in Iraq is indicative of this situation, and is no doubt being orchestrated from Iran with the collusion of those who took refuge from Saddam in Iran, but who now find themselves in positions of power in Iraq. The next stage of the plan, is to make life so difficult at home as well as in Iraq itself, for those countries involved in the occupation, that they will be forced to withdraw. Cue then, Greater Iran, a new Persian Empire stretching from the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, all the way to the Palestinian West Bank - and of course, a nuclear power to boot. Afghanistan will then not take too long to come into the Persian fold, and the Pakistanis will be almost obliged to take a neutral stance, surrounded on three sides by the Persian Empire. Not looking good is it? The new Persian Empire will have control of a huge proportion of the world's oil supply, and the Saudis will be quick to recognise the new power in the world, and being no real friend of the west anyway will move quickly to an allegiance with Tehran that will quiet its own insurgent Islamist people. Control of the Red Sea will make the Suez Canal passable only on Saudi terms. Now we're really up shit creek without a paddle. They have almost all the oil, we cannot attack them for fear of nuclear weapons, and they control a vital part of the world's trade routes. GWB is an idiot. An unmitigated disaster for the whole of western civilisation and no doubt a reflection of its decline both in his person and in that he got nominated and then elected at all, by others of that culture. He could not have done a better job for the cause of Islamist extremism had he grown a beard and prayed five times a day. What to do now? Well, it seems to me the above scenario is now pretty much inescapable unless we send more troops to Iraq and govern it as Saddam did, along with the mass executions, genocide, abductions and torture, which we found so reprehensible when he did it - and which will provoke an even greater insurgency than now. So, we could withdraw and let the Persian Empire arise anew - bring our people home, issue everyone with a Koran and tell them to convert forthwith. Islamist job done. Good work Dubya. And if the horse metaphor is to be maintained, good pick Blair. Except that I for one will never convert to a religion which would have me executed, my daughter, mother and sisters reduced to chattels, and some idiot appointed to authority not because he's more intelligent or capable or experienced, but because he possesses a penis. Fxxk them. Where's Alexander when you need him? E

trannysub007 -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:16:17 AM)
Here's a solution. It's not a good one, and i wouldn't want it to be THE solution, but .... Drop really big bombs all over the Middle East and wipe them all out. Gone. All the followers of Islam. Then they can be 'martyred' and our troops can come home. That's the only solution there is. That's what Dubya has left us. They don't want peace over there. What would be the fun of that? But they do like that martyrdom thing, so everyone would be happy, no? Talking to them would be pointless, and i, as Lady Ellen mentioned, will not convert to a religion who not only claims to be peaceful (from Muslims i personally know) but also claims to have a command from Allah to wipe out all non-Muslims. Since that's what they believe over there, why not wipe them all out? They understand that type of thinking. Muslims over here can live in peace, and we can stop playing in the 'sandbox'. i really would not want to see that happen, but what are the choices? See Lady Ellen's post above. Enjoy Y/your day. [;)] edited for spelling and grammar mistakes ... the ones i noticed.

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:28:08 AM)
"Drop really big bombs all over trhe Middle East and wipe them all out. Gone. All the followers of Islam. Then they can be 'martyred' and our troops can come home. That's the only solution that there is." So......the middle east is where every single muslim lives is it? What you're proposing isn't a solution...its a war crime.

peterK50 -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:28:51 AM)
I don't have the solutions for poverty, disease, hunger, the list goes on & on, but I know something is wrong when I see it. If i'm compelled to speak out on it without a solution then so what? Spinmeisters, especially on the right, assail those who disagree with them with "They offer no plan of their own." Stop what you are doing now! Is a plan, & should be implemented immediately.

StrongButKind -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:39:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello A/all, This sounds like a lovely idea, however... One of the things this administration is renowned for doing is classifying anything remotely embarrassing. So I am somebody who is not a Neo-Con trying to come up with a plan to get out of the Iraq debacle. 1) I discover that an accurate account of the number of soldiers in country is classified. 2) I discover that most of the strategies for what to do there are classified. 3) I discover that the imprisonment of "enemy combatants" and what goes on is classified. 4) I discover that an accurate listing of the costs of mainting our forces in country is classified or buried in so many add-ons to bills that the real number is not accessible. 5) I am refused access to real intel because anybody I speak to about the situation tends to be embedded; this means they are only shown what those running the show want them to see. So I ask to speak to the people in charge to do my own investigation and am told that my services are not needed. Exactly how do you suggest I formulate an intelligent alternative to the suck-fest we are currently involved in? Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy I have no doubt that you can't figure out an alternative. But Democrat leaders in Congress have access to most of this information. The adminisitration does hide some things from them, but not nearly as successfully as they'd like. I believe they have enough information to at least offer some ideas. I don't mean necessarily exact plans, but some broad strokes would be nice. And I don't even hear them trying to do this -- it seems they mostly want to just rail on GWB, call him a failure, and assume that will get them elected. Dems should be careful -- if that's what they run on in '08, and the Republicans run a candidate who distances himself from GWB, they stand to lose again, and will spend yet another 4 years complaining about stolen elections instead of being in a position to fix what's wrong.

Level -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:48:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "Drop really big bombs all over trhe Middle East and wipe them all out. Gone. All the followers of Islam. Then they can be 'martyred' and our troops can come home. That's the only solution that there is." So......the middle east is where every single muslim lives is it? What you're proposing isn't a solution...its a war crime. Right. There are millions of muslims in Asia, and there are quite a few in Europe, and Islam is the fastest growing religion in America.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:48:59 AM)
OK - given my own apocalyptic scenario, and that whatever is done, its gonna be a dirty business, how about this? 1) we stage a "border incident" between Iran and Iraq which would indicate to the insurgents in the Iraqi forces that the "day of liberation" is at hand. The insurgents come out in open rebellion - and we can deal with them accordingly. This will also test the mettle of the Iraqi government - with whom and for what they stand, making the job of dealing with insurgent elements there much easier too. Of course, we need to position our forces in the right places beforehand so that when the time comes, we can plough in and deal with problem elements effectively. Iraq mess solved in a week or two of vicious dirty fighting. 2) if the border incident proves the Iraqi forces and government to be loyal to the west, they will have to declare war on Iran for violating their sovereign territory, and another Iran-Iraq war will erupt. This will also make the Iranians show their hand on the nuclear weapon front - they would undoubtedly use it in such a war, if they had it, after what they suffered in the last such war. On the other hand, if they dont have it, then they will be revealed by their anxious enquiries for the technology much more easily as being interested in it rather than a domestic power system. In the first case, that they use the weapon, much of the world is justified in retaliating, since it will also kill many of their civilian contractors and their troops based in Iraq. In the other case, that they do not have the weapon, we join the war against Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan. Either way, Iran will be defeated militarily and removed as a threat to the region and the world (and we get their oil, but thats for another thread) 3) And if in case (1) the Iranians feel they need to get involved, this will show what their true intentions were all the time. Then see (2). 4) This scenario would also put the Pakistanis to the test. Given their alliance with the west, they would have to take part in an invasion of Iran from the southeast. Failure to do so would show where their true intentions might lie. They dont call me Mrs Hitler for nothing. E

trannysub007 -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:52:41 AM)
Philosophy - you are so damn hot! But you didn't read it all, did you, sweetie? IT'S NOT A GOOD SOLUTION. The war itself is a crime, in my opinion, and the Idiot-in-Chief of the USA is responsible for it. But the American hating psychos over there started it, and 3 of the 3000 in the WTC were friends of mine. And, no, the ones with whom we are at war now ... Oh forget it, Phil. i'm not going to pretend to be as intelligent as you obviously are. The OP was looking for solutions, and this was a solution ... EVEN IF IT WASN'T A GOOD ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK, how about just wiping out everyone in the Middle East? Not just the Muslims over there? They's all fighting all the time anyway .... wait. Not a good idea. Then all the other countries would fight over who gets the sandbox. Nevermind. How about a solution from you, Phil? edited to include: Much better solution, Lady Ellen.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 6:59:51 AM)
If you were in charge of the Third Reich, we'd all be speaking German now! Iraq sucks because there isn't a solution, there is a lot of blood going to be continued to be spilt whatever is done. It's difficult to see anything but a cut and run solution to this conflict.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:04:27 AM)
trannysub - I seriously cannot imagine the suffering you felt at losing 3 friends on 9/11. It was an awful day. However, the Islamists didnt start all this as I think you suggested. We produced the circumstances which led to these guys doing what they did, and we continue to produce more reasons for more of them to do more of the same. We started this, so if there is any side to blame, then ultimately its ours. In the end though, without recourse to some higher power to arbitrate and in the absence of either side being willing to back down or be defeated, the question of who is to blame is purely a moral one. In the real world, the only practical solution is defeat of one side or the other now. And it wont be us that is defeated if we allow those with the expertise, rather than presidential backing, to get on with the job. The converse being true throughout. E

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:05:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you were in charge of the Third Reich, we'd all be speaking German now! .....................I already do. Be afraid, be very afraid.................LOL! E

Level -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:08:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen OK - given my own apocalyptic scenario, and that whatever is done, its gonna be a dirty business, how about this? 1) we stage a "border incident" between Iran and Iraq which would indicate to the insurgents in the Iraqi forces that the "day of liberation" is at hand. The insurgents come out in open rebellion - and we can deal with them accordingly. This will also test the mettle of the Iraqi government - with whom and for what they stand, making the job of dealing with insurgent elements there much easier too. Of course, we need to position our forces in the right places beforehand so that when the time comes, we can plough in and deal with problem elements effectively. Iraq mess solved in a week or two of vicious dirty fighting. 2) if the border incident proves the Iraqi forces and government to be loyal to the west, they will have to declare war on Iran for violating their sovereign territory, and another Iran-Iraq war will erupt. This will also make the Iranians show their hand on the nuclear weapon front - they would undoubtedly use it in such a war, if they had it, after what they suffered in the last such war. On the other hand, if they dont have it, then they will be revealed by their anxious enquiries for the technology much more easily as being interested in it rather than a domestic power system. In the first case, that they use the weapon, much of the world is justified in retaliating, since it will also kill many of their civilian contractors and their troops based in Iraq. In the other case, that they do not have the weapon, we join the war against Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan. Either way, Iran will be defeated militarily and removed as a threat to the region and the world (and we get their oil, but thats for another thread) 3) And if in case (1) the Iranians feel they need to get involved, this will show what their true intentions were all the time. Then see (2). 4) This scenario would also put the Pakistanis to the test. Given their alliance with the west, they would have to take part in an invasion of Iran from the southeast. Failure to do so would show where their true intentions might lie. They dont call me Mrs Hitler for nothing. E How about we have the Sunni muslims and Kurds split off into their own country (drawing lines where they'll have most of the oil, heh heh), and tell both the Shia and their Iranian brothers to fuck off. Of course, with most "solutions", this would cause other trouble, mainly with our friends in Turkey.

Level -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:10:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen trannysub - I seriously cannot imagine the suffering you felt at losing 3 friends on 9/11. It was an awful day. However, the Islamists didnt start all this as I think you suggested. We produced the circumstances which led to these guys doing what they did, and we continue to produce more reasons for more of them to do more of the same. We started this, so if there is any side to blame, then ultimately its ours. In the end though, without recourse to some higher power to arbitrate and in the absence of either side being willing to back down or be defeated, the question of who is to blame is purely a moral one. In the real world, the only practical solution is defeat of one side or the other now. And it wont be us that is defeated if we allow those with the expertise, rather than presidential backing, to get on with the job. The converse being true throughout. E In no way can anyone lay the blame for 9/11 on us... not the tin-foil brigade, nor anyone else.

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:11:02 AM)
"The OP was looking for solutions, and this was a solution ... " ...and from the OP....... "Naturally, the Republicans are tagging the Democrats with the Caitlyn rebuttal: "you criticize without a solution." I have never really had my own rebuttal to this, but a friend of my recently postulated one" ...as i read it the OP was more about the subtleties involved in a dichotomy bewtween identifying problems and providing solutions. However, as you have asked for my suggested solution for the middle east problem, it is this......apply international law even handedly throughout the middle east........criticise any breaches of such things as Geneva Convention no matter who breaks it, whether it's Hezbollah or the IDF. Stop taking sides between countries, cultures or religions. Put human rights above all else. which means if someone takes away your rights you do the hard thing and dont simply take their rights from them as well. "OK, how about just wiping out everyone in the Middle East? Not just the Muslims over there? They's all fighting all the time anyway .... wait. Not a good idea. Then all the other countries would fight over who gets the sandbox." How about setting an example by not looking for a military option every time? How about occupying the moral high ground instead of verbally laying claim to it? how about actually acting like civilised people for once instead of manufacturing wars or threatening to bomb anyone who isn't 100% on our side?

caitlyn -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:25:44 AM)
It's unfortunate that some had to make this personal. Two quick points: I don't think anyone has ever said that people don't have the right to criticize. I think what they said is constant criticism without offering any solutions, is of very limited value. I also think there is a great difference between not offering a solution, and offering one that people don't agree with. I watched Howard Dean the other day, and he spent thirty minutes criticizing every single thing the administration has done, but never once offered an alternative. Contrast that to someone like John McCain, who may have a plan that many people don't like, but at least he has a plan. I think some people may be missing my point, or I'm not expressing it very well. Using the example above, how can people that want to make the right decisions, make one about Howard Dean? He gives us nothing ... nothing ... that would tell us what he would do in the situation we are in. Are we supposed to support him, based on his ability to criticize other people? These posts here on Collarme, are exactly the same scenario. There are only two people that have offered any sort of plan at all. Level thinks we need more troops. I don't know if that is a good plan of not, but at least it's a plan. I offered the other plan, that we wait and see how things play out. I don't know if that is a good plan or not, but at least it's a plan. Level and I, have offered a debate point (and I'm sure we will both get trashed for it), while the rest have offered nothing ... nothing ... like Howard Dean, willing to criticize how slow the boat is moving, without ever picking up and oar to help row.

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:29:30 AM)
"Level and I, have offered a debate point (and I'm sure we will both get trashed for it), while the rest have offered nothing ... nothing ... " ...unfair Caitlyn....and a demonstration of the point you just made...... "I also think there is a great difference between not offering a solution, and offering one that people don't agree with." ......time and time again i have suggested that international law simply be made applicable to all countries in the middle east, not just the ones that aren't allies of the US. You may not like my solution but it is ironic that in a post where you decry those who only hear what they want to hear you make exactly the same mistake.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:32:11 AM)
Philosophy - I totally agree with you, but I fear the situation has gone too far now for us to assert anything in the eyes of the Islamists and even a lot of ordinary Muslims. We have played favourites and sullied our copybook for far too long to now try to be equitable and moral without it being seen as another western ploy. We have created a monster which may yet bite us many more times before its put to sleep. Level - I will agree with you that 9/11 was a despicable and inexcusable attack on civilians that were just going about their lives and who (we will probably never know) likely had a multitude of positions on the way the west has dealt in foreign policy since WWII; for, against and neutral over Israeli abuses and tacit western support for them for instance. But to regard that attack as coming out of the blue with no cause or reason is I'm afraid too naive to have any credibility at all. It was a retaliation, not the opening punch in some hitherto non existent conflict. E

caitlyn -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:32:20 AM)
I stand corrected Philosophy ... you have many times, offered this solution. You have my apology. [:D] I actually agree with your solution, even if, unfortunately, I don't think it will ever happen.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875