9-11 6 years of BS, Lies, Death and out of control spending...

[eits]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Getting hit by a comet is also a distinct possibility, that doesn't mean I should max out my credit cards though.

hahaha

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Getting hit by a comet is also a distinct possibility, that doesn't mean I should max out my credit cards though.

Actually, getting hit by an asteroid or a meteorite is a distinct possibility. Getting hit by a comet would be exceedingly rare.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I maintain that it's a distinct possibility, hence my use of the word "if" in my prognostication.

Visit your local college and ask any of their science department heads about causation vs. correlation. You'll learn that just because A (Iraq), B (U.S.), and C (success) are related, doesn't mean that B necessarily caused C to occur. It's pretty fundamental thinking.

Your contention, that going into Iraq wasn't a mistake in hindsight is exactly the type of mindless drivel that justified the intervention in the first place. The U.S. has already failed in this war because their short-term goals so far have not been met; the two biggest goals being 1) finding the WMDs we were told Saddam had (the stockpiles of working WMDs, not the non-functional crap that was found) and 2) further ensuring U.S. national security by engaging in a war on terror. EVERY independent intelligence agency and non-partisan body has concluded that at best, terrorism levels and danger have not changed since the March 03 invasion and have maybe even gotten worse.

That is the definition of failure. Now, whether some semblance of stability and reasonable troop withdrawal in Iraq can be accomplished is another story, but up to this point we have a 4.5 year sample of data to draw conclusions from. And the conclusions, so far, is that this war has been a failure. The numbers show it. The independent analysis shows it. Your words do nothing to deflect from the reality of this horrible, tragic situation. All a direct result of narrow, poor judgment from the leaders of this country, most of which you voted for it seems.

 

[First]

Oy, had to edit that post, god damn barking dogs.

Oh, and when I say mindless drivel, I mean that with all due respect.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Red Dawn said:

You predict that Iraq will be a stable, economic burgeoning and secure democracy? What have the Iraqis shown you to give you that much confidence in them?

Good question. We never hear from the actual actors (the Iraqi's)

I wonder if it might help to remember, that first and foremost, this is a disaster for Iraq and the Iraqi people? What if this tragedy was consistently framed and viewed from the Iraqi perspective?

I think the largely untold suffering visited upon the Iraqi people might be a more compelling sell than the disgruntlement of Mr. and Mrs. Middle America, for whom this horror is literally unimaginable. If the pain of the Iraqis could be put - and kept - center-stage, making this something more than an American story (which it's not), maybe moral persuasion could have a chance of trumping cynicism of domestic (US) politics.

I dare those pundits and experts to downplay or spin the tens - of thousands of dead and the millions of refugees.

Make the Iraq occupation about Iraq instead of about the United States. You'll find it becomes a much more indisputable story to tell...and sell.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

A stray thought came into my head about Bush's grandoise claims about his expansive powers as Commander in Chief. His basic argument is that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants because he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and any sort of curb on his powers would compromise him in that role.

Aside from the fact that this is a highly dubious argument, wouldn't it then be all that more important to fire him and hold him accountable if he is performing that role poorly? When it comes to claiming power, Bush is the General of Generals, but when it comes to accountability, whatever goes wrong is the fault of the generals on the ground. If the president is supposed to be the Great Protector to whom we should cede virtual omnipotence in order to keep us safe, doesn't that put a greater onus on him not to fuck up?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I maintain that it's a distinct possibility, hence my use of the word "if" in my prognostication.

Visit your local college and ask any of their science department heads about causation vs. correlation. You'll learn that just because A (Iraq), B (U.S.), and C (success) are related, doesn't mean that B necessarily caused C to occur. It's pretty fundamental thinking.

Your contention, that going into Iraq wasn't a mistake in hindsight is exactly the type of mindless drivel that justified the intervention in the first place. The U.S. has already failed in this war because their short-term goals so far have not been met; the two biggest goals being 1) finding the WMDs we were told Saddam had (the stockpiles of working WMDs, not the non-functional crap that was found) and 2) further ensuring U.S. national security by engaging in a war on terror. EVERY independent intelligence agency and non-partisan body has concluded that at best, terrorism levels and danger have not changed since the March 03 invasion and have maybe even gotten worse.

That is the definition of failure. Now, whether some semblance of stability and reasonable troop withdrawal in Iraq can be accomplished is another story, but up to this point we have a 4.5 year sample of data to draw conclusions from. And the conclusions, so far, is that this war has been a failure. The numbers show it. The independent analysis shows it. Your words do nothing to deflect from the reality of this horrible, tragic situation. All a direct result of narrow, poor judgment from the leaders of this country, most of which you voted for it seems.

So let me get this straight. Science is saying that "if" Iraq ends up a success story that it may have nothing to do with:

Removing Saddam from power

Rebuilding their infrastructure

Rebuilding their military and police

Helping them form a democratic government

Tamping down sectarian violence

and holding their hand the entire way?

Here's what my science says. "If" we left right now Iraq would go right down the shitter and collapse into chaos. That's direct causation vs. correlation. So by staying there and preventing such a collapse, and possibly having a stable Iraq as a result, it's a pretty clear demonstration that "if" Iraq is successful that the US will hold at least some responsibility for having that happen.

Damn, I'm glad I really liked science in school.

 

[chucky2]

You know, when I try and imagine a US controlled by a brutal dictator with the military to back him up, and then having an external force come in and overthrow him and bring opportunity to a place thats had none for so long...

...I cannot help but wonder if people from Canada or Mexico started coming over and starting shit with the external liberating force, which in turn caused deaths on people here in the US...

...WhoTF here would not tell the folks from Canada and/or Mexico to get the F out, and if necessary (meaning, they wouldn't leave), just take care of business ourselves?

Why don't the average Iraqi's if they are sick and tired of the conditions they are living in start just kicking these sh1tbags out? Same thing with their internal people who are causing us to fight them in their towns.

If I was in the Iraqi's position and some @sshat decided he was going to setup some ambush and I knew about it, at the minimum I'd like to think I'd at least tell him to take his BS elsewhere...preferably his own town/country.

If the Iraqi's are this mind warped after so many years under Saddam, you've got to wonder just how bad the average N. Korean is F'd up... :Q

Chuck

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

So let me get this straight. Science is saying that "if" Iraq ends up a success story that it may have nothing to do with:

Removing Saddam from power

Rebuilding their infrastructure

Rebuilding their military and police

Helping them form a democratic government

Tamping down sectarian violence

and holding their hand the entire way?

Not at all, I never said those things might not contribute to Iraq eventually being a success. I'm saying that if Iraq becomes a success somewhere down the line (and both you and I and everyone sane knows that won't be for a long time), it may have little to do with U.S. intervention and everything to do with Iraq building, improving, and progressing from within, perhaps via great inspirational leaders (Iraq's own Ghandi, if you will), perhaps via aid from reformed nations in the ME (maybe Iran and Syria start seeing the light?), or all sorts of factors that are difficult to predict. Even many Soviet CIA analysts were completely unable to predict the collapse of the USSR. You act as if no matter what, it'll be clear that, if Iraq is a success, that it'll clearly be because of the U.S.'s influence. There could be a whole slew of factors that lead to Iraq being a success. Of course, WMDs and stemming worldwide terror were FAR more pertinent U.S. goals going into Iraq in 03 than making them a stable country. Those were our immediate goals and both have failed in the short term.

Here's what my science says. "If" we left right now Iraq would go right down the shitter and collapse into chaos.

I've got news for you; Iraq is already in chaos. Additionally, the case can be made (and has been made by several independent non-partisan groups and intelligence agencies) that the mere presence of the U.S. in the ME (despite our good intentions) is adding fuel to the flames of terrorist jihad in the region. Meaning there is indeed reason to be believe that withdrawing from Iraq, even IF it makes the U.S. seem temporarily weak, may in fact help to de-ignite the pace at which this mindless enemy literally kills itself and others, helping to curb the passions of worldwide terrorism and paving the way for more concentrated efforts in intelligence gathering/Ops and in Afghanistan.

That's direct causation vs. correlation. So by staying there and preventing such a collapse, and possibly having a stable Iraq as a result, it's a pretty clear demonstration that "if" Iraq is successful that the US will hold at least some responsibility for having that happen.

Sure, they may have some responsibility. Though, even you are not willing to say that Iraq WILL be a success. That's because, deep down, you probably know this to be pipe dreaming at this point in time. Maybe 20, 30, or 40 years down the line. Let's take a look at a classic case of a war-torn country that turned success story; 1945 versus 1985 Japan. Did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs the U.S. leveled against Japan "cause" them to be a success? Well no, not exactly, but to the U.S.' credit (the amount, I suppose, is debatable) it did kill their morally corrupt leaders, an important step in the right direction. But does that mean Japan's turnaround in those 40 years was caused by the U.S. militarily? Please, a vast oversimplification that greatly undercuts the efforts of Japanese ingenuity and culture.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

So let me get this straight. Science is saying that "if" Iraq ends up a success story that it may have nothing to do with:

Removing Saddam from power

Rebuilding their infrastructure

Rebuilding their military and police

Helping them form a democratic government

Tamping down sectarian violence

and holding their hand the entire way?

Not at all, I never said those things might not contribute to Iraq eventually being a success. I'm saying that if Iraq becomes a success somewhere down the line (and both you and I and everyone sane knows that won't be for a long time), it may have little to do with U.S. intervention and everything to do with Iraq building, improving, and progressing from within, perhaps via great inspirational leaders (Iraq's own Ghandi, if you will), perhaps via aid from reformed nations in the ME (maybe Iran and Syria start seeing the light?), or all sorts of factors that are difficult to predict. Even many Soviet CIA analysts were completely unable to predict the collapse of the USSR. You act as if no matter what, it'll be clear that, if Iraq is a success, that it'll clearly be because of the U.S.'s influence. There could be a whole slew of factors that lead to Iraq being a success. Of course, WMDs and stemming worldwide terror were FAR more pertinent U.S. goals going into Iraq in 03 than making them a stable country. Those were our immediate goals and both have failed in the short term.

Here's what my science says. "If" we left right now Iraq would go right down the shitter and collapse into chaos.

I've got news for you; Iraq is already in chaos. Additionally, the case can be made (and has been made by several independent non-partisan groups and intelligence agencies) that the mere presence of the U.S. in the ME (despite our good intentions) is adding fuel to the flames of terrorist jihad in the region. Meaning there is indeed reason to be believe that withdrawing from Iraq, even IF it makes the U.S. seem temporarily weak, may in fact help to de-ignite the pace at which this mindless enemy literally kills itself and others, helping to curb the passions of worldwide terrorism and paving the way for more concentrated efforts in intelligence gathering/Ops and in Afghanistan.

That's direct causation vs. correlation. So by staying there and preventing such a collapse, and possibly having a stable Iraq as a result, it's a pretty clear demonstration that "if" Iraq is successful that the US will hold at least some responsibility for having that happen.

Sure, they may have some responsibility. Though, even you are not willing to say that Iraq WILL be a success. That's because, deep down, you probably know this to be pipe dreaming at this point in time. Maybe 20, 30, or 40 years down the line. Let's take a look at a classic case of a war-torn country that turned success story; 1945 versus 1985 Japan. Did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs the U.S. leveled against Japan "cause" them to be a success? Well no, not exactly, but to the U.S.' credit (the amount, I suppose, is debatable) it did kill their morally corrupt leaders, an important step in the right direction. But does that mean Japan's turnaround in those 40 years was caused by the U.S. militarily? Please, a vast oversimplification that greatly undercuts the efforts of Japanese ingenuity and culture.

Bleh. You are not so much discussing causation vs. correlation as you are describing the necessary factors (as you see them) for success and the value ascribed to each factor. iow, you're really talking about a type of performance metrics. You seem to want to diminish the factors that the US is involved in and give greater weight to some as of yet unforseen or non-existent influence so it can be claimed that, "Well, the US had very little to do with Iraq's success." should success come to them down the road.

And, no, I am not willing to say that Iraq WILL be a success. I don't do that for the same reason that I don't claim "There is no god." even though I don't believe in god. iow, I always allot for possibilities, which is something many in the anti-war crowd should practice as well just in case Iraq DOES become a success.

As far as Iraq being in "chaos" that's just pure hyperbole, unless you want to play little semantic games with the meaning of the word. In common usage though chaos means a total lack of disorder and that's just not the case in Iraq. Slapping labels like chaos, disaster, and quagmire on Iraq really does the anti-war crowd a disservice and makes them appear a bit...well...out there. It's the kind of thing someone exclaims in public and everyone else looks around with that "Uh, yeah, OK then." look on their face and then secretly makes makes little twirly motions with their finger next to their ear while chuckling.

 

[tomywishbone]

Nobody cares. Did you see how fat Britany was? :|