|
Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 12:31:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: caitlyn
To Sinergy: You usually take points of view that assumes you are an expert, and know all the realities of the situation. No offense, but I really doubt you are. You don't know that we have too few troops, etc ... I'm not an expert either, which is why I clearly state it, and post raw information, rather than conclusions based on personal theory.
I have quoted my sources numerous times.
I am not in a position to obtain raw information from varied intelligence sources to the level required to come to an expert diagnosis. Unfortunately for everybody else, the people running the show, who are in a position to obtain raw information, have a long history of massaging information to support their position. Then, when they are caught performing this sort of bait and switch, they change their story or concoct some other relevant issue to deflect from the problem at hand.
I have posted these sources as well.
To take one example from another thread, I posted about a book by Kevin Phillips entitled American Theocracy. I was making a point about certain %s of people belong to a particular political party. I made a point about the historical tendency of societies at the twilight of their energy sources, to turn their eye to fundamentalist religions in the face of their own personal apocalypse. I cited examples that were listed in that book, as well as ones which go back to my former studies from other sources. I cross referenced this source with articles from various magazines and other books I have read.
The self-appointed moderator of the topic of the thread tried the following approach
1) Told me I had no sources. I provided them.
2) Told me I was misrepresenting what he/she/it had posted. I quoted that person.
3) Demanded I provide sources, so I again provided my sources.
4) Stopped posting for a time when I asked for their sources, then reopened the discussion of the
points this person found relevant without providing the sources I asked for.
5) I asked for the sources again.
6) Questioned the author of one of my sources as being biased, but took the approach to prove the
veracity of that statement by using the "I think" declaration of personal expertise and authority on the author of
the source I used, so I cited other sources)
7) Tried to return the conversation to 1).
I frankly am not overly interested in engaging in these sorts of circuitous arguments. I have posted any number of sources, and assuming you have read any of them, I would be interested in hearing your opinion about what these people had to say about the situation.
My expertise is on another idiotic war engaged in by the United States from approximately the mid 1950s to 1973 or so. This war was fought by a populace that hated us being there, never fielded an organized fighting force, utilized small arms almost exclusively, and was supported to some extent in their battle by neighboring countries. Sound familiar? We didnt do all that well in that war either. That war went on for 14+ (more if you count military advisors in Nam) years with 55,000+ US casualties, the bombing of a foreign country into a lifeless moonscape, at a horrible cost to global US prestige, largely because every president from Eisenhower to Johnson did not want to be the first President to lose a war.
(the ironic thing about Nixon pulling us out of Vietnam was to sacrifice the Republican platform (as opposed to cut down on the costs in lives and money) in order to win a reelection, a tactic which worked)
My point here is that none of the nitwits elected to control of our military seem to have learned any lessons from that war.
I consider psychotic behavior to be doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome. This entire war from start to finish qualifies as psychotic behavior in my book.
quote:
It was wrong to go ... very wrong. We should not be in Iraq. We went for all the wrong reasons, including some dead-bang lies. That said, leaving Iraq in a state of utter chaos, worse than it is now ... would be yet another wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.
My point, caitlyn, is that nothing we do will make this right. NG (I assume, apologies if this is not the case) and I are positing what you consider two wrongs not making a right, with the two wrongs being invading and leaving. I see you positing what I consider to be two wrongs that dont make a right; invading and staying.
There is no winning solution here. Staying simply costs more in terms of money and lives before we end up packing up and leaving. The Iraqis know this. They are waiting for us to leave, which we eventually will.
Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. I would point out that the approach that NG and I are advocating is one which will cause the fewest number of casualties to both Iraqi citizens and US/UK soldiers, whereas I am curious what you consider an acceptable body count before we pack up and go home.
Look what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Sinergy
|
|
|
|
