I can't believe that you spent all that time writing, and failed to comprehend such simple points. Dr. Hanson has broken down the conflict into PHASES, and we won the conventional military phase. Unless you are the Iraqi Information Minister, or Grizzled, you probably know this. You could view it that was I suppose, but that is as much misdirection as anything else. Trumpeting the defeat of Saddam’s primitive forces by the American military as a “victory” is embarrassing. That was never in question, and that was not the point of the war, so calling it this "victory" is misleading. But yes, strictly speaking. if you want to compare Saddam's army and the American army, it was a victory in the conventional military phase. Hanson is not talking about Saddam and his army. Remember, Saddam was defeated in the primary phases. Dr. Hanson is referring to the Jihadists and Baathist hardliners who have nothing to lose. He understand who the enemy is perfectly. It is you who have failed to understand the article. Please refer to the evidence I presented that indicates he doesn't understand who the enemy is. Substance JH, not emotion and denial. Yeah, I am sure you are waaaaay smarter than this guy, lol. Intelligence and wisdom are two different things, but I suspect that that is too subtle a point for this discussion. Are you saying all the PhDs are on the pro war side JH? Are saying that you’ve never seen a PhD say the things I’m saying? Perhaps you don’t read very much. Just say so if you haven’t and I’ll provide some for you. And from your statement I assume that if I provide some PhDs who support my points then you will concede that what they are saying is right and true because they have PhDs.
No, I think you are so adverse to hearing the word "victory" attached to Bush or the US military in Iraq that you reacted without thinking. The conventional war was a victory, and now we have entered a new phase that is yet to be won or lost. LOL, you and Dr. Hansen have both identified the same enemy! I agree with your above statement. PhDs don't make automatically make a man wiser. In your post though, you identified Hanson as a drunken and ignorant man who knows nothing of his subject. His resume proves that he has an extremely educated opinion, so your dismissive critique is WAY off base.
Jeff isn't talking because Jeff doesn't really care. It has little to do with entertainment value. It also isn't always possible for the moderators to determine if one person is posting under two names. It has happened before and only Clutch was able to determine it for sure. I honestly don't know for sure. I never checked mainly because I just don't really care. Besides, Clutch has more important things to worry about than determining the true identity of Trader_Heath or johnjorge or whoever you guys are.
(Private message from Mad Max to Jeff) Jeff -- thanks for not telling them all I'm really glynch. WHAT?? have i said too much???
Careful now. Substance, not emotion. I never said that. It is true that I never thought of the conventional war part of this conflict as being in doubt so I missed the possibility that he may have been putting that forward as a victory, but I haven’t even mentioned Bush. Incorrect extrapolation will get you in trouble, and this is part of my point here. I’m glad you’re admitting this. We’ll use this as a starting point. I don’t think so. Correct me if you think I’m interpreting this wrong, but when he says this, “desperate last-ditch war of attrition” I take him to be referring to the terrorists, not the Western forces. But this is simply not true of the terrorists. As recent reports have indicated, they are moving in and starting to use different methods of attack. This is not “desperate” or “last-ditch,” and while some of the Baathists are being rounded up, they are not, nor were they ever (having neither the character nor the motives of the terrorists) a significant part of the threat. Hansen further states that the terrorists are doing this to “achieve what conventional military operations did not.” But the terrorists have never use conventional military tactics. That was a completely separate part of this conflict with different players involved. That part consisted primarily of the Iraqi army breaking down and running away. The terrorists only moved into the power void that was created when Saddam’s forces were removed. Yes, I suspect they would like to set up a theocracy, and they would also like to embarrass the US and make them look weak, but all this is their response to the situation the presented itself after the conventional war with Saddam was over. What they are doing has nothing to do with a continuation of the conventional war. Hanson doesn’t seem to understand this. We could do this with every paragraph. He continually misunderstands who the enemy is. The Baathists will almost all be running and hiding at this point. They’ll be stuffing their shorts full of all the money they’ve hidden away and trying to get out of the country to save their skins, if they can. The terrorists are moving in and setting up. These are two very different enemies, and failing to understand the differences and devise an appropriate strategy could result in a very bad outcome. I’ll apologise for the comment about the martinis, but I do not find his to be a wise analysis. I find it to be quite emotional and not well thought out. He seems to see the enemy as having one mindset, and this is simply not true. Failure to understand the enemy results in inappropriate actions taken to counter them, and the actions he proposes are largely inappropriate for the enemy the West is dealing with. Unfortunately, some of our political leaders seem to be stricken with the same misunderstandings.
I honestly don't care if John Heath or TJ are one or two people. If a person makes solid posts under one name or two it doesn't matter. If a person makes disagreeable posts under one name or two it doesn't matter. If a person makes illogical posts or posts making personal attacks under one name or two it doesn't matter. Let's just tackle each post for what it's worth or isn't worth.
I thought it odd that both appeared miraculously yesterday shortly after it was questioned, and posted in tandem for a while, both in the same threads at about the same time. probably just a coincidence there are several here who have an obsessive-compulsive need to argue, as if that is how they obtain gratification, and those two guys are among them.
