Again, you ignore the question, label the poster a "liberal," and berate them. Is it just me or are you doing over and over again what you decry in this very post?
Maybe that is because they are the ones who start the attacks. Those two are great examples of partisan attack dogs the likes of which Michael Vick would love to own. You hold up the two worst demagogues here as examples of people who don't stoop to personal attacks? You are clearly incapable of comprhending the written word.
Great, what percentage of the progress is due to deals cut then? Surely you must be able to answer that since you have so much evidence? And please tell me how you know Al Qaeda in Iraq will leave once we do? So you're saying they will go, "Well, our job is done, time to pack up and go back to our wives and sons?" I am so impressed with your amazing wisdom and how sure you are of what will happen. You must be a fortuneteller.
Yes, and you are incapable of discourse. You attack everyone you disagree with as less intelligent as yourself. I suggest you stay on the tread instead of trying to destroy the discussion by flaming other posters. Are you here to insult people or to discuss? Make up your mind.
Of course we have to withdraw at some point, we don't want to be in Iraq forever...but Patraeus has said this may require U.S. presence for 10 years or on that scale. Again, I'll point out that at first I thought the surge was a political gimmick (I am skeptical of both sides), but after seeing positive results, it may in fact have been based on a sound military strategy. I'll give the military credit that after 4 years, maybe they figured out that they need 30K more troops and they could make a difference. The surge wasn't Bush's idea - it was Patraeus. This is what most people don't understand, is that Patraeus is the originator of the surge. Sure, it's why Bush picked him, but nevertheless, Patraeus is not enacting Bush's strategy, it's his own. In today's world, military victory really isn't feasible anywhere unless you are trying to fight out an occupying army. That's not the case here. Nor is the case with the war on terrorism. It's not even the case in the Israeli Palestinian conflict because of land disputes. There always has to be a political arm to any resolution of a conflict. No one doubts that, but one of the keys to success is the violence must end and the Iraq army reach a point where they can manage the insurgency efforts on their own. That's not a military victory - that's just getting enough stability so we can start withdrawing. I am not sure a full political solution has to exist for that to happen. I agree that political structure is required, but that's an independent problem that that surge isn't meant to tackle. Whether the surge works or not is not about the political solution - the surge is meant to create a better environment for a political solution. And now it's clear that the guy in charge is incompetent and we need restructing there. So you do it. You of course try to get that political structure in place - it doesn't happen overnight. As for the liberal comments. I have plenty of times labeled people as right-wingers, including trader jorge and basso, and not gotten the grief from them that the guys here are going ape-doodoo over. Nor am inclined to get into a 5-year old shouting match throwing silly insults at them. But I think it speak volumes about them that they are so quick to devolve to that level over a political discussion. Kinda pathetic actually. But ya know, like I said, it shows a lot more about their character than mine.
You don't seem to understand what I wrote. I don't think others are not as intelligent as I am, I just believe that there are several posters, yourself included, who are intellectually dishonest. The height of intellectual dishonesty came when you praised t_j and basso for being "above" the personal attacks that they toss around as much as or more than anyone else. I suggest you answer the questions that are asked of you rather than attacking the questioner, labeling them a "liberal," and disparaging their opinion as irrelevant. You opened up this line when you tried to set yourself, t_j, and basso as somehow above the personal attacks that all three of you toss around.
t_j and basso show a high level of self-restraint considering the abuse they take. They certainly deserve recognition for that, and I have never seen them call another poster stupid or dense. Labeling someone a liberal isn't an attack. It's a way to refer to a group of posters who espouse certain beliefs. I certainly would call t_j a right winger, basso is just a bushie. I've made many points and raise numerous questions that are responded with "Are you blind?" Are those the requestions you want me to answer? Ok - no, I'm not blind. are you happy?
You must not have been around during the lead up to the war and through the first couple of years, during which basso, t_j, texx, and others regularly labeled anyone left of Rush Limbaugh terrorist sympathizers, Saddam lovers, and traitors. Or, more likely, you just ignored their insults and have used your selective perception so that you can actually believe your laughable claims. How about "Libpig," "lunatic fringe left," "communist," "terrorist sympathizer," "Saddam lover," or "traitor?" I have personally been labeled with all of these by the very posters you are defending. No, I would look for you to answer the questions regarding the substance of the debate rather than responding to these questions with "clearly i'm too dense or just a liar, so why would you even engage me in discourse?"
You really must not frequent the D&D much. tj has called people many things much worse. Either you have a selective memory or are delusional. I think it's both. But play victim card, it's convenient when you can't come up with valid arguements or answer questions that so called "liberals" have asked you.
Your arguments aren't making much sense and aren't logic based at this point. Knowing an exact percentage that is or isn't due to deal cutting, doesn't change the fact that progess is being made because of the deal cutting. Providing evidence that it's happening isn't the same as providing evidence of what percentage of the successes are due to that. As for your second argument about Al-Qaeda leaving once we leave, there are a number of answers for you. Some remnant may remain. But what we do know is that more al-Qaeda will be there as long as we are. We know that from al-Qaeda's own internal correspondence, as well as the history in Iraq. Also I've shown reasoning based on the populations of Iraq why it would be more difficult for al-Qaeda to remain strong in a Shi'ite dominated nation. Furthermore about predicting the future, you are the one talking about how chaotic it will be once the U.S. pulls out. It is silly for one side in a discussion to be able to make statements about what will happen, and the other side isn't allowed.
Others have already responded, but I will mention it again. Nobody on the left has done anything as disparaging as accusing people with different opinions of being on Osama's side, wanting the terrorists to win, supporting Saddam, etc.
Good quote from Rep. Ellen Tauscher that goes to the heart of one of the themes in this thread: I don't know of anybody who isn't desperately supportive of the military. People want to say positive things. But it's difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into some clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president's policies.
great....i'm deslusional now as well. I don't see any valid arguments right now from you guys, just a bunch of personal attacks. And I'm not going to engage in debate with people who are going to condescend to me and act superior. When decoram can be returned and a respectful atmosphere exists, we can discuss. Apparently that's too much for the libs here to handle. They just get too worked up.
Yes, my arguments are based on nothing. So why are you engaging me? To show off how superior you are? To pump up your ego? What's your agenda? Nothing. Just spewing attacks? Also, I never claimed the country will certainly desend into chaos, you're just spinning what I say to make your world go around and then go on a wild attack. I said that we can't take that RISK. Understand what that word means? It's just useless to discuss with you because you're more interested in attacking then actualy discourse.
When you start claiming that t_j and basso show restraint when it comes to personal attacks, you have thrown the term "valid arguments" out the window.
Right, so to say the military is having success in Iraq now has political ramifications, so they can't say it? Got it.
We can and must take the risk. Otherwise, we will continue to pour money and American lives into an ongoing civil war that we are making worse, not better. I am all for responsible redeployment, but it needs to start very, very soon. Like right after Petraeus reports on the utter lack of political progress made in Iraq.
No, if they talk honestly and openly about the miniscule progress, the White House (and people debating on a basketball BBS) will take their comments out of context, twist their meaning, and claim that the Democrats are in favor of "stay the course."
Still waiting to hear from you. Again, I am interested, I have OK powers of comprehension, and I am eager to step outside the game. So, please explain.
