|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 22, 2008 17:15:43 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! 1. You could not be more wrong about what you seem to think Bando wants. Your statements border on libel. Mods, what's the policy on posters accusing people of sedition? 2. "Anything positive from Iraq" is an inherenetly relative term and I think you're smart enough to realize that. In case you're not, it's positive that attacks are down from 180 a day to 25 a day. It's NOT positive that there are 25 attacks a day. See what I mean?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 22, 2008 17:32:03 GMT -5
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 22, 2008 17:40:24 GMT -5
Great post, SF.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 22, 2008 18:36:13 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. I don't. They are separate subjects.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 22, 2008 20:07:26 GMT -5
Hifi, you've got it all wrong. Us liberals (I take the term as a compliment) don't want to see the US lose, we want to prevent the US from continuing with a war that's harming this country in a big way. Yes things are better than they were 2 years ago, but as I explained there's a very good chance they'll get worse before long if we stay.
It's like seeing a friend who's about to drive a long ways when they're absolutely wasted. You don't take the keys away from them because you hate them, you take the keys away because you don't want to see them get hurt.
Again, if we end up staying then I'd be very happy if my dire predictions turned out to be 100% wrong. Keeping the analogy going, if my drunk friend ends up driving home, then I'd be very happy if my predictions that he'd hurt himself were wrong. Just because I predict something doesn't mean I want it to happen.
You're right that we need a planned withdrawal, not a sudden one. Obama has a plan, Patreus knows the plan, and the Iraqis know the plan. Patreus can't say anything about it because the military can't play politics (we're not Pakistan), but the Iraqi government has endorsed Obama's plan as the right thing to do.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 22, 2008 21:20:12 GMT -5
QUOTE #1 One of the fundamental building blocks of the liberal view is any and all failure of any other view.
QUOTE #2 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. ...
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. Well, at least you have clearly revealed who you really are HiFi and your true beliefs. The absurdity of the comments above about "the left" and those who don't agree with you could not be more apparent: "The left are anti-American bad guys".Blind devotion to your party is not an admirable quality nor is it good for America. When the Bush team (or Ed) says the Surge has made things "greatly improved in Iraq", not all of us fall in line and believe that. Partly because of the facts -- such as paying the Sunnis not to fight us, partly because of the absence of any demonstrable progress in the Iraqi government, and partly because our administration has a long history of misrepresenting the truth. Consider the following few examples: They told us they would get Bin Laden, Dead or Alive -- NOT TRUE They told us we had to invade Iraq because they were involved with 9/11 -- NOT TRUE They told us we had to invade Iraq because they had WMD -- NOT TRUE They told us Al Qaeda was working with Saddam Hussein -- NOT TRUE They told us Iraq was the front line of the "War on Terror" -- NOT TRUE They told us we would win in a breeze and be welcomed with song and flowers -- NOT TRUE They told us the war and reconstruction would pay for itself with Iraqi oil $ -- NOT TRUE THey told us "Mission Accomplished" -- NOT TRUE They told us troops would be coming home by the end of 2003 -- NOT TRUE They told us we didn't need 2-300,000 of troops for the post war period -- NOT TRUE They told us we were winning in Iraq -- many times -- NOT TRUE Now they tell us the SURGE has been a HUGE success and Iraq is "greatly improved" and we are winning the war. Apparently, you and Ed are ready, willing and able to believe anything the Bush administration tells you. AND, you believe anyone who has doubts is "for the enemy". No matter how thoroughly we explain our concerns, no matter how much rationale we supply, no matter how many related articles or source materials we cite, no matter how overwhelming the evidence to support perspectives other than yours, you and Ed just continue to say the "Left" and "Liberals" want America to lose. Obviously, there isn't an iota of intellectual honesty in that position.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 23, 2008 2:01:30 GMT -5
"Great post"? Really?
So, we're comparing our current administration to Nazi war criminals and that is a "great post."
I am at a loss. What's worse is I think some of you actually believe it.
On the other hand, let's try it a different way:
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that the world is on the verge of a climate change cataclysm and denounce dissenting scientists as being in the pocket of Big Oil and exposing the planet to to irreversible collapse. It works the same way in any country.
Let's try to keep the references to Nazis, one of humanity's greatest scourges, out from now on, shall we?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 23, 2008 2:42:36 GMT -5
Wasn't comparing the administration to anyone.
Was simply demonstrating Hifi's argument isn't a new one, and it is a dangerous one. I don't think anyone should ever use the "You disagree, so you hate America" argument. No good comes of it.
Hifi was both unoriginal and out of line.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 23, 2008 10:49:11 GMT -5
This has turned into a bunch of shallow foolishness.
Fact: In general, those on the "right" want to be proven right. Hand-in-hand with this, is the fact that it helps if the "left" is ultimately proven wrong.
Fact: In general, those on the "left" want to be proven right. Hand-in-hand with this, is the fact that it helps if the "right" is utimately proven wrong.
Fact: Whether you agree or not makes absolutely ZERO difference: we ARE in a war on terron, including the operations in Iraq.
Fact: The better things go in Iraq, the more positive the reflection on those supporting the operations will appear.
Fact: The worse things go in Iraq, the more negative the reflection on those supporting the operations will appear.
You simply cannot argue any of those points. It is that simple. So whether you recognize it or not, those on the left are in the same predicament. Do they want what is better for America, which would be success in Iraq or do they want political gains, which are aided by difficulties in Iraq?
On the grander scale, I don't know how many times I've heard absolute fluff like "I support the troops. I want them home!" Again, we ALL want them home, but the question is How and in what status? Do we want them home as victors in a very difficult and dangerous war against nuts who have zero regard for their own lives, let alone anyone elses, or do we want them home sooner but as those on the wrong side of the outcome? I know what I want, and it doesn't involve losing.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 23, 2008 12:46:20 GMT -5
Fact: In general, those on the "left" want to be proven right. Hand-in-hand with this, is the fact that it helps if the "right" is utimately proven wrong. Wrong. If I predict that a certain adventure will end in disaster, and the adventure still goes ahead, I want to be wrong. As I've explained earlier, I want things to go well in Iraq, which is THE VERY REASON I want us to get out of there. As I've said before, the Iraqis are going to turn on us if we stay much longer without a clear plan to get out by a certain time. Staying there longer will not make Iraq better off, and it'll probably make Iraq worse off.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 23, 2008 21:22:00 GMT -5
Here's how I think about it. War is hard and Bush was bad at it because he's a giant idiot loser.
The "surge" worked because if you decide to go to war you better have enough troops to stabilize the place (among other strategies which also were completely blown).
It's not as easy as saying "We shouldn't have been there" or "The Surge worked, eat it lefty." It was a mission of questionable necessity and terrible execution that has been improved recently through a better strategy after a lot of needless loss of life.
Bush chews at everything including war. I think we can agree on that.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 24, 2008 13:38:41 GMT -5
Here's how I think about it. War is hard and Bush was bad at it because he's a giant idiot loser. The "surge" worked because if you decide to go to war you better have enough troops to stabilize the place (among other strategies which also were completely blown). It's not as easy as saying "We shouldn't have been there" or "The Surge worked, eat it lefty." It was a mission of questionable necessity and terrible execution that has been improved recently through a better strategy after a lot of needless loss of life. Bush chews at everything including war. I think we can agree on that. Agree.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 25, 2008 10:02:59 GMT -5
No, you want them in Iraq. Just because you want them home eventually does not mean you get to co-opt this phrase. At least be honest with yourself about your own positions.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 25, 2008 12:04:38 GMT -5
No, you want them in Iraq. Just because you want them home eventually does not mean you get to co-opt this phrase. At least be honest with yourself about your own positions. No, I don't want them in Iraq anymore than I want them in Germany or Brazil or Ireland or Iceland. But I understand that there are miliitary objectives which require them to be in other countries at certain points. I also understand that helping stabilize a newly democratic Iraq is one such objective. Further, as much as I would like them to load up and head home at this very second, I also understand that it wouldn't be in the best interests for Iraq or America, not to mention the long term peace of the entire middle east region. I just find feel good nonsense like "I want our troops home" to be annoying. Like I said, we all want them home, but the question is how and under what circumstances? Hypothetically, let's say you were inaugurated into the WH and had the authority over the military. Now let's say that you do just what you have suggested, and order the troops home immediately. The question is whether that is a good thing or not. I am of the opinion that it would not and would essentially waste some of the efforts of our men and women by allowing Iraq to destablize into chaos, quite possibly even into temporary but total anarchy. At this point in time, I don't think that is a wise decision.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 25, 2008 12:54:31 GMT -5
HiFi, simply denying your own agency doesn't get you off the hook here. If you were hypothetically the POTUS, the stationing of troops would something entirely in your control. There are no outside factors that would prevent you from moving troops wherever you'd like. Thus to say "I want them home, but they need to be somewhere else" is a gigantic cop out.
You want the troops in Iraq. At least have the decency to own up to your own positions, you can't have it both ways.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 25, 2008 13:07:46 GMT -5
Bando, now you are just talking to hear yourself talk. There is no cop out -- at least on my part. I asked you specifically whether it would be a good thing or not to immediately pull everyone out. I suggest that it would not be. Further, I know many on both sides of the political aisle that understand that. I am not "having it both ways." I have been quite clear on my position. You on the other hand ...
|
|