|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 22, 2008 10:54:23 GMT -5
We lost the war in Iraq by starting it in the first place.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 22, 2008 12:27:46 GMT -5
We lost the war in Iraq by starting it in the first place. Amazing how I spend a lot of time writing lengthy posts and citing source material, yet C2C gets the point across more effectively in one sentence!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 22, 2008 13:32:31 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 22, 2008 13:38:44 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq. Why in the world would that amaze you? One of the fundamental building blocks of the liberal view is any and all failure of any other view. Contrary to the old adage, they live by cutting off their nose to spite their face.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 22, 2008 14:29:23 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq. ed: I think we can say that the surge was a significant part in improving the situation in Iraq, and in combination with other factors, Iraq has fewer daily attacks and decreased loss of life and limb: an unequivocally good development. The advent of the Awakening movement was critical---any thoughts on whether it is causally or correlatively related to the surge? I haven't read enough to make an educated statement. That said, we're not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. Even Gen. Petraus pointed out the other day that what we have now is hope, and that it's not time celebrate. The larger issue, I think, is the way we have used force at all and whether (1) there is any conceivable outcome and (2) any reasonable possibilty of acheiving that outcome that (3) justifies/is worth the costs of the conflict. I don't know the answer to that. I have trouble seeing any short-term outcome that would. Medium term, maybe. Long term certainly there are conceivable positive outcomes, but I just can't see how we get there (that doens't mean we can't, just that I can't see how). What do you all think? What can we do by 2011 militarily that will justify the conflict in the first place? Amazing how I spend a lot of time writing lengthy posts and citing source material, yet C2C gets the point across more effectively in one sentence! Many thanks, SirSaxa---just distilling what you've already laid out!
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 22, 2008 14:31:54 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq. And I continue to be amazed that you think the success of the surge somehow retroactively justifies the initial case for war.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 22, 2008 14:47:00 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq. I think we all concede that things are better now than they were a couple years ago, but we disagree on what that implies for the future. An important thing to remember is that the surge put a huge strain on our already badly overstretched military. There's absolutely no way the surge could be repeated. Even the current troop levels can't be sustained for too much longer without putting the military in danger of collapse. The Iraqis want us out, the military can't go on like this for much longer, and things are better than they were a few years ago. I really don't see an argument for staying in that. The Republican argument here seems to be "Obama was wrong about leaving a couple years ago, so he must be wrong about leaving now." The reality is that the situation on the ground has changed a lot since then. McCain's accusing Obama of being willing to lose a war to win an election, but it seems to me that McCain's willing to needlessly continue a war to win an election.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Aug 22, 2008 14:47:01 GMT -5
Or the cost.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 22, 2008 14:50:00 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq. And I continue to be amazed that you think the success of the surge somehow retroactively justifies the initial case for war. Enough Editedfooting around the issue. I think part of ed's point is simply that he doesn't understand the ideology of rooting against America, or putting it another way, rooting for our enemy. Yet the left is consumed by any and all bad news that comes from Iraq, yet unwilling to even recognize any good that comes from Iraq. I see it as putting politics above the good for America and that just isn't right. Regardless of anyone's particular political views, it is good for all of us when things go well, regardless of which party gets the majority of the credit. I will never pull for our enemies just because it would reflect positively on those on the other side of the political aisle. And I find it impossible to justify others doing so.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 22, 2008 14:56:03 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq. I think we all concede that things are better now than they were a couple years ago, but we disagree on what that implies for the future. An important thing to remember is that the surge put a huge strain on our already badly overstretched military. There's absolutely no way the surge could be repeated. Even the current troop levels can't be sustained for too much longer without putting the military in danger of collapse. The Iraqis want us out, the military can't go on like this for much longer, and things are better than they were a few years ago. I really don't see an argument for staying in that. The Republican argument here seems to be "Obama was wrong about leaving a couple years ago, so he must be wrong about leaving now." The reality is that the situation on the ground has changed a lot since then. McCain's accusing Obama of being willing to lose a war to win an election, but it seems to me that McCain's willing to needlessly continue a war to win an election. That is a bunch of fluff. Let's make this clear: EVERYONE wants us "out" as you say. No one wants us there. That isn't the point. At any given point, the question is what should we do NOW, given the current situation. There is zero doubt that leaving 2 years ago would have been the wrong decision. Whether going in some 5 years ago was the right decision remains to be seen. It is entirely and utterly meaningless to throw around pablum like "wanting to bring our troops home" unless you put it with a plan. We all want our troops home. That isn't the point. The question is how is the best way to accomplish it?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 22, 2008 15:09:27 GMT -5
And I continue to be amazed that you think the success of the surge somehow retroactively justifies the initial case for war. Enough Editedfooting around the issue. I think part of ed's point is simply that he doesn't understand the ideology of rooting against America, or putting it another way, rooting for our enemy. Yet the left is consumed by any and all bad news that comes from Iraq, yet unwilling to even recognize any good that comes from Iraq. I see it as putting politics above the good for America and that just isn't right. Regardless of anyone's particular political views, it is good for all of us when things go well, regardless of which party gets the majority of the credit. I will never pull for our enemies just because it would reflect positively on those on the other side of the political aisle. And I find it impossible to justify others doing so. Just WHO exactly is it that you are accusing of "pulling for our enemies"?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 22, 2008 15:10:47 GMT -5
And I continue to be amazed that you think the success of the surge somehow retroactively justifies the initial case for war. Enough Editedfooting around the issue. I think part of ed's point is simply that he doesn't understand the ideology of rooting against America, or putting it another way, rooting for our enemy. Yet the left is consumed by any and all bad news that comes from Iraq, yet unwilling to even recognize any good that comes from Iraq. I see it as putting politics above the good for America and that just isn't right. Regardless of anyone's particular political views, it is good for all of us when things go well, regardless of which party gets the majority of the credit. I will never pull for our enemies just because it would reflect positively on those on the other side of the political aisle. And I find it impossible to justify others doing so. Wow, accusations of treason. You stay classy, HiFi. Can we ban HiFi now? Please?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 22, 2008 15:15:42 GMT -5
And I continue to be amazed that you think the success of the surge somehow retroactively justifies the initial case for war. Enough Editedfooting around the issue. I think part of ed's point is simply that he doesn't understand the ideology of rooting against America, or putting it another way, rooting for our enemy. Yet the left is consumed by any and all bad news that comes from Iraq, yet unwilling to even recognize any good that comes from Iraq. I see it as putting politics above the good for America and that just isn't right. Regardless of anyone's particular political views, it is good for all of us when things go well, regardless of which party gets the majority of the credit. I will never pull for our enemies just because it would reflect positively on those on the other side of the political aisle. And I find it impossible to justify others doing so. Furthermore, I want out of Iraq because it's not in the best national security interest of the United States!!!!! I'm cheering for America here, bucko. If your only response to this is to slander those who disagree with you, then Edited Florida, Edited Gainesville, and Edited you, you simple-minded piece of .
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 22, 2008 15:45:25 GMT -5
Bando, did you forget your prozac this morning?
In any case, you totally neglected the point. As I pointed out earlier, it means nothing to say "I want out of Iraq." We all want out of Iraq. The questions are how and when.
Whether or not it is in the best National security interests of the United States in the long run to be there now doing the job that we are doing is debatable.
As to the original point of contention: I think you have a minor case of the "truth hurting." You don't want to be un-American. You want to think of yourself as patriotic. You want to think well of yourself and you probably honestly mean well in your own mind. Still, you are obviously motivated by your political ideology and you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the fact.
So rather than get into some little glamorized Editeding contest, I will just let you ponder these points and ultimately realize that ... as I said, the Truth Hurts!
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 22, 2008 16:22:59 GMT -5
Bando, did you forget your prozac this morning? In any case, you totally neglected the point. As I pointed out earlier, it means nothing to say "I want out of Iraq." We all want out of Iraq. The questions are how and when. Whether or not it is in the best National security interests of the United States in the long run to be there now doing the job that we are doing is debatable. As to the original point of contention: I think you have a minor case of the "truth hurting." You don't want to be un-American. You want to think of yourself as patriotic. You want to think well of yourself and you probably honestly mean well in your own mind. Still, you are obviously motivated by your political ideology and you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the fact. So rather than get into some little glamorized Editeding contest, I will just let you ponder these points and ultimately realize that ... as I said, the Truth Hurts! No, Edited you. All this is you trying to demonize those who disagree with you because you lack the intellectual capacity to respond to their arguments. To talk about the lives of young men and women in combat and the security interests of the US as if it was a sport team to be cheered for is disgusting and only betrays your incomprehension of the issues at hand. Go away, troll.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 22, 2008 16:27:50 GMT -5
Bando, you are 100% off your rocker. You got irritated/offended and then started some sort of personal attack. I am not interested in such discourse either way. ed's point was very valid, but something that you are unwilling to recognize. My theory is that deep down inside, you understand that he is right and that really ticks you off. In any case, if you (or anyone else) was honestly offended by the analogy -- not the logic, but the analogy itself -- then I apologize. I was not in any way trying to belittle the efforts of our brave men and women and I was certainly not drawing a parallel between war and a mere game. I do stand by my argument though, that many of you on the left "want" to be "right" more than you want to win. That, in and of itself, I finda reprehensible.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 22, 2008 16:31:28 GMT -5
Bando, you are 100% off your rocker. You got irritated/offended and then started some sort of personal attacks. I am not interested in such discourse either way. ed's point was very valid, but something that you are unwilling to recognize. My theory is that deep down inside, you understand that he is right and that really ticks you off. In any case, if you (or anyone else) was honestly offended by the analogy -- not the logic, but the analogy itself -- then I apologize. I was not in any way trying to belittle the efforts of our brave men and women and I was certainly not drawing a parallel between war and a mere game. I do stand by my argument though, that many of you on the left "want" to be "right" more than you want to win. That, in and of itself, I finda reprehensible. Let me wrap my mind around your twisted logic here. If I agree with you, then great. If I don't agree with you, then it means that deep down I really do agree with you. Christ, you're such an idiot.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 22, 2008 16:40:14 GMT -5
I think you are smarter than that ... but I could be wrong.
In any case, the point isn't whether or not you agree with me, or ed or anyone else, for that matter. The point is that you have your views. Whether intentionally or instinctively, you want to further your platform in some way, shape or form. In this case, when things go poorly in Iraq, you feel vindicated and in some way, justified in your beliefs. However when things go well, then in some way, you feel that your views are threatened and in more danger of being proved wrong. That isn't to say that you agree with my view -- or anyone elses -- just that you recognize the obvious conflict between your political views and what you are forced to recognize as being better for America.
In economic terms, it is essentially a "sunk cost." In other words, it doesn't matter how we got to this point, but we are at this point. Given that is the case, anything positive from Iraq will naturally reflect positively on the ideology opposite of yours. Instinctively, you don't want that to happen. Yet you realize that such a position is indefensible. Thus your predicament.
Your response .... to attack the messenger
As I said before: the Truth Hurts!
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 22, 2008 16:50:34 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed at how difficult it is to admit the surge was a significant part in greatly improving the situation in Iraq. Why in the world would that amaze you? One of the fundamental building blocks of the liberal view is any and all failure of any other view. Contrary to the old adage, they live by cutting off their nose to spite their face. Why the constant bashing of liberals? Wouldn't bashing anti-war doves be more accurate (if not less generalizing) than bashing an ideology that is neither necessarily nor sufficiently attached to peace? Have liberals and conservatives not been on both sides of hawk-dove since the advent of the nation? Also, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the definition of liberalism incorporates many if not most of the laissez-fair, individual liberty, limitation of government, opposition to government coercion ideals you espouse.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 22, 2008 16:52:09 GMT -5
I don't know why I keep bothering, but... I think my point your poor grasp of logic is only highlighted here. You're assigning motives to me and others when we've specifically told you what our motives our: the national security interest of the US. You keep thinking that the ebbs and flow of the war have anything to do with this, but they don't. It's great that Iraq is safer, because that means less people die. However, the military success of the surge has not done one damned thing to bring about the political reconciliation so desperately needed in Iraq. Since this political goal was the entire point of the surge, the surge has failed. This failure only emphasizes the nature of our mistake in invading. It's never too late to undo such a mistake. None of this means I want Americans to die or the US to weaken internationally, but that was done by Bush, not by me. You're apparently not familiar with the sunk cost fallacy. Again, your poor reasoning and ignorance betray you. You mean like saying that everyone who disagrees with you hates America?
|
|