admiral fallon - he's my kind of guy

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eits
haha "ass-kissing little chickenshit" haha that's awesome

It's also turns out to be yet another aspect of the war falsified by the anti-war left:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/...9/lefty-slur-abou.html

What will they claim now? Fake but accurate?

You are kidding right? You must be hoping nobody reads your link. A pro-war site claims a CENTCOM PR guy said they have an outstanding relationship. So fragging what? What else would a PR guy say? You are pathetic.

Feel free to e-mail CENTCOM if you want to claim BS and act is if the IPS website is some reliable outlet for news.

btw, Blackfive is not just a pro-war site. It's a site where many, many active duty and retired military hang out to discuss issues. If anyone has a direct line to CENTCOM, they do. So I'd trust them far more than some BS, fly-by-nite lefty website telling all the anti-war goofballs exactly what they want to hear.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh yeah, from the very link that TLC posted :

"This is not a complete list, nor can we verify these totals. This is simply a compilation of deaths reported by news agencies. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site."

Any more great indications of "progress"?

If the totals are not accurate and are much higher, that applies to the entire history of their count. In essense it means that the death toll is still decreasing no mater how you want to spin it or try to discount the numbers, numbers from a website that the anti-war peeps used to use as validation of their claims. Even their own anti-war websites aren't valid anymore. Imagine that?

It's always been said that the lefties will eat their own when necessary. Well we have proof of that now too.

You're utterly wrong. Check this for a more sensible and clear analysis :

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/a...numbers/baghdad-surge/

" Iraq Body Count is aware that official reports are imminent concerning the progress of the US Government?s New Security Plan or ?surge.? However, IBC?s work is not linked to the political calendar, and the charts above are not intended to be directly comparable to data which may be supplied from official sources.

These charts sometimes indicate a modest improvement in the security situation for ordinary Iraqis post-surge, and this is not disputed. But these charts will tend to under-represent reported violence for the more recent periods, for the reasons stated above. The observed downward trend in these charts will likely become less marked as data still in the pipeline is added (see Recent Events for as yet unprocessed data).

It is important to place the events of 2007 in context. Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006. Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement. Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion. "

Somehow you missed bolding the most important statement from that link.

There. Fixed.

It's still worse than the previous years, comparing the same time frame. Odds that things will deteriorate as usual this fall? Hmm.

Your statement uses a bit of misdirection and a manufactured metric. Of course it's worse than the previous years. The death rate has been climing for years. It kept getting worse and worse with no end in that upward trend in sight, until the surge began. The important factor is that increasing trend has now been turned around into a downward trend. Somehow that keeps being missed as an important factor, if not the most important factor.

You have to look at the curves from previous years. For whatever reason, the first six months have had fewer deaths than the last six months of the SAME year. This has been true every year. So if this is true, and the first six months of this year were deadlier than any of the previous periods of months 1-6, then we're in for one hell of a finish to 2007.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh yeah, from the very link that TLC posted :

"This is not a complete list, nor can we verify these totals. This is simply a compilation of deaths reported by news agencies. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site."

Any more great indications of "progress"?

If the totals are not accurate and are much higher, that applies to the entire history of their count. In essense it means that the death toll is still decreasing no mater how you want to spin it or try to discount the numbers, numbers from a website that the anti-war peeps used to use as validation of their claims. Even their own anti-war websites aren't valid anymore. Imagine that?

It's always been said that the lefties will eat their own when necessary. Well we have proof of that now too.

You're utterly wrong. Check this for a more sensible and clear analysis :

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/a...numbers/baghdad-surge/

" Iraq Body Count is aware that official reports are imminent concerning the progress of the US Government?s New Security Plan or ?surge.? However, IBC?s work is not linked to the political calendar, and the charts above are not intended to be directly comparable to data which may be supplied from official sources.

These charts sometimes indicate a modest improvement in the security situation for ordinary Iraqis post-surge, and this is not disputed. But these charts will tend to under-represent reported violence for the more recent periods, for the reasons stated above. The observed downward trend in these charts will likely become less marked as data still in the pipeline is added (see Recent Events for as yet unprocessed data).

It is important to place the events of 2007 in context. Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006. Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement. Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion. "

Somehow you missed bolding the most important statement from that link.

There. Fixed.

It's still worse than the previous years, comparing the same time frame. Odds that things will deteriorate as usual this fall? Hmm.

Your statement uses a bit of misdirection and a manufactured metric. Of course it's worse than the previous years. The death rate has been climing for years. It kept getting worse and worse with no end in that upward trend in sight, until the surge began. The important factor is that increasing trend has now been turned around into a downward trend. Somehow that keeps being missed as an important factor, if not the most important factor.

You have to look at the curves from previous years. For whatever reason, the first six months have had fewer deaths than the last six months of the SAME year. This has been true every year. So if this is true, and the first six months of this year were deadlier than any of the previous periods of months 1-6, then we're in for one hell of a finish to 2007.

Seeing as the Surge didn't even begin until January 07, and that's when the decline began, comparing the first 6 months of this year to the first 6 months of previous years is nothing more than a metric used to obfuscate. It's meaningless since the rate had already been climbing every year and the surge would have no effect whatsoever on that fact. If you want to use the first 6 months of the year as a meaningful metric and determine whether the surge was effective then you'll have to wait until 2008. So please stop with the straw man metrics. It's disingenious and dishonest.

 

[Arkaign]

Your logic is every bit as hypothetical as mine. Given these two facts :

(1) Violence and deaths have always been higher in the last 6 months than the first.

(2) Violence has declined in the first six months of this year compared to the end of 2006.

We cannot determine whether the decline in violence is a continuation of the previous yearly trend, or has been reduced by the efforts of the surge, or heaven forbid : BOTH.

Your tunnel-vision narrative, condescending arrogance, and continual insults are wearisome. There is no 'straw man' to my presentation. That would be me putting words in your mouth, then tearing them down. What I've been doing all along is presenting the evidence, combined with MY interpretation. Take it as you will, but do not insult either of our intelligences with your insults. They demean you, and bear no fruit with me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Your logic is every bit as hypothetical as mine. Given these two facts :

(1) Violence and deaths have always been higher in the last 6 months than the first.

(2) Violence has declined in the first six months of this year compared to the end of 2006.

We cannot determine whether the decline in violence is a continuation of the previous yearly trend, or has been reduced by the efforts of the surge, or heaven forbid : BOTH.

Your tunnel-vision narrative, condescending arrogance, and continual insults are wearisome. There is no 'straw man' to my presentation. That would be me putting words in your mouth, then tearing them down. What I've been doing all along is presenting the evidence, combined with MY interpretation. Take it as you will, but do not insult either of our intelligences with your insults. They demean you, and bear no fruit with me.

Excuse me? Your the one trotting out the talking point of, and I quote:

"It's still worse than the previous years, comparing the same time frame. Odds that things will deteriorate as usual this fall? Hmm."

And that statement was a complete changing of gears from the point we had been discussing previously, a point you suddenly seemed to have dropped completely.

Now you switch gears again, drop the "same time frame" argument, and move to another? Make up your mind because it makes you look like you're fishing for something, anything, to back up your contention and it DOES make you look dishonest as well as disingenious. If you don't like me calling you out on your quick shifting, tough shit. Your indignance appears as little more faux cover at this point.

 

[Arkaign]

I've never deviated in what I've been trying to say, unless what I've been posting has been difficult to interpret. I've maintained very simple points from the beginning of my input on this topic. They remain :

(1)- I think invading Iraq was a mistake. (opinion)

(2)- I don't think staying there is helping. (opinion)

(3)- The level of violence has declined over the past few months. (fact, of varying impact depending on where you get your numbers from).

(4)- Looking at the history of the Iraqi conflict, the first six months has historically been lower than the last six months of any given year. (fact, and the level of relevance towards the current year is open to interpretation until we close the calendar year and have some somewhat final numbers to work with.)

Maybe you missed my meaning when I said 'same time frame'. What I meant was (January '06 to January '07, or 1st quarter '06 to 1st quarter '07, and so on) a particular time that can be compared to other index years for this data. It's right there in the link referenced in the IBC website. It falls right on with this quote on recorded data from IBC : "the first six months of 2007 was still the most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion. "

Look, I really don't mind disagreeing with you in a civil way on this. Just please stop trying to accuse me of 'switching gears', 'faux cover', etc. My indignant attitude has to do with your spin away from the numbers at hand, and your subsequent attempts to get away from the topic by either accidental or deliberate misinterpretation of my posts. What I've said all along has NOT been complex. It's just raw unedited data, with my opinion attached. Take it or leave it. There's nothing to 'make up my mind' on because I've never contradicted what I have to say.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Then we will shelve this particular discussion until we have more data because the numbers for the comparisons you want to view as valid are not in yet.

All we know for sure is that the numbers had been trending upward year over year, and since the surge began that trend has reversed. No doubt the old correlation!=causation argument can be erected in that case but one has to wonder if there's anything else besides the surge the reversing trend can be attributed to?

imo, it's an indication that the surge is working and that fortunes may be changing in Iraq. Hopefully pressure on the Iraqi politicians will help heal existing rifts even further, regardless if Sadr is stll trying to make his usual political power grabs as he is now.

Anyway, we will see when we can view that future through the lens of 20/20 hindsight. Until then.

 

[Arkaign]

Agreed, and I'm glad we came to this civil impasse. Despite my denigration of this horrible situation we're in, I *do* hope violence starts to consistently subside in an undeniable way that bucks the up and down trend of years past. We will have much to discuss in '08! Unfortunately, the more I study and learn of the Iraqi history and the region and religion in general, it doesn't fill me with a lot of hope. See my post in the other thread for more detail in my position on that.

I respect your opinion and ideas on this, and hope that we can engage in a more focused debate in the future. I hope you can better understand my position now that we've had more time to flesh it out. Cheers and we shall embark on this topic another day! -Ark

 

[Lemon law]

To a certain extent the surge is working crowd has the burden of proof to conclusively demonstrate certain metrics like civilian deaths are down. Failing that, even an unchanged verdict is a dagger to the heart of that argument.

Nor can successes in Anbar be attributed to the surge when its in fact a temporary political fix struck a year before the surge began. As Eskimospy pointed out before, it may be only a temporary alliance as Sunni tribal leaders have already taken pains to point out.

For the surge to succeed, its going to require confronting and breaking the powers of the various Iraqi insurgencies. Temporary mutual non aggression pacts do not count.

 

[Stoneburner]

How does the GAO report support the notion the surge is working? How about the latest military assessment (not petraeus)?

Why is fallon dismissed because he's a navy man (even though he's looking at the larger picture) but every general such as casey who opposed the surge also dismissed?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You keep trying to return to the White House goalposts. It's been explained well to you numerous times already that that's not what I was speaking about. Since you want to ignore that fact I can only assume you are merely being a troll. Nor do I find you intimidating in the least, just patently dishonest and willfully ignorant. But that's what trolls do by their very nature.

Now go scoot back under your bridge.

*sigh* And I kept telling you that they aren't comparable.

I know this isn't something you want to hear, but its actually okay for people to emphasize different things based on how applicable they are to getting your message across. Just because its easy to bash Bush right now because his last ditch effort failed by his own admission doesn't mean that trashing the US for enabling a humanitarian catastrophe isn't still valid. It just means that the best way to oppose the war right now is to point out that Bush is failing by his own metrics. I'm not going to continue to fight with you over casualty numbers because A.) Arkaign already did a good job at showing you why your numbers are suspect and B.) because there's really nothing someone can say when someone in the argument uses "the liberal media" argument... it's sort of like trotting out Hitler in that there's no reasonable response to it.

You are so blinded by your position right now that you latch on to anything you can, no matter how tenuous. I know how it is when you feel like you're being ganged up on... it makes you dig your heels in when you're backed into a corner. The thing is, that you're mistaking your ability to beat up on some of the less well informed and less well written leftists on this board as some sort of ideological vindication when all you're really doing is flailing around on your way down.

That, and I've noticed a trend over your recent postings where you've taken the insults I've used on you and tried to use them back on me and other people. Get your own!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You keep trying to return to the White House goalposts. It's been explained well to you numerous times already that that's not what I was speaking about. Since you want to ignore that fact I can only assume you are merely being a troll. Nor do I find you intimidating in the least, just patently dishonest and willfully ignorant. But that's what trolls do by their very nature.

Now go scoot back under your bridge.

*sigh* And I kept telling you that they aren't comparable.

I know this isn't something you want to hear, but its actually okay for people to emphasize different things based on how applicable they are to getting your message across. Just because its easy to bash Bush right now because his last ditch effort failed by his own admission doesn't mean that trashing the US for enabling a humanitarian catastrophe isn't still valid. It just means that the best way to oppose the war right now is to point out that Bush is failing by his own metrics. I'm not going to continue to fight with you over casualty numbers because A.) Arkaign already did a good job at showing you why your numbers are suspect and B.) because there's really nothing someone can say when someone in the argument uses "the liberal media" argument... it's sort of like trotting out Hitler in that there's no reasonable response to it.

You are so blinded by your position right now that you latch on to anything you can, no matter how tenuous. I know how it is when you feel like you're being ganged up on... it makes you dig your heels in when you're backed into a corner. The thing is, that you're mistaking your ability to beat up on some of the less well informed and less well written leftists on this board as some sort of ideological vindication when all you're really doing is flailing around on your way down.

That, and I've noticed a trend over your recent postings where you've taken the insults I've used on you and tried to use them back on me and other people. Get your own!

Wow. I don't know where to start. I guess the first place is to inform you that our discussion all began based on a comment I made that you took exception to. My comment had to do with the goalposts of the anti-war crowd shifting and you attempted to turn that into an entirely different set of goalposts. For some reason it just doesn't sink into you that the White House goal posts had no relationship to my comment so your point in doing so was never clear, other than to use it as a means of deflection. That's how I saw it.

Secondly, I'm not digging my heels in and I enjoy being ganged up on. I argue my position and do so vociferously, if often a bit too passionately and sarcastically, and based on some of my distaste for the left these days. However, I do argue my position based not on my dislike of a political administration but based on what I feel is necessary for this country. Yes, I will defend Bush when the BS begins to fly. But it's not about defending Bush, it's about shooting down all the BS being tossed around. He is by no means without fault, many faults, but some of the thing attributed to Bush in here go beyond the pale. It just gets ridiculous. I don't like the guy, personally, but I like the rhetoric about Bush coming from the left even less.

Third. As far as beating up on people...let's be honest. Politics is a type of King of the Mountain discussion and always will be. In politics words are a man's greatest asset. Clinton didn't get elected because he was all that brilliant or experienced. He was elected because he had a silver tongue. Clinton could wield words as both hearts and swords. Every man uses his talents to the best ability, or at least should. It's no different in here.

Lastly, I've been online for 17 years, most of those involved in political discussions. You haven't said a thing that ten others before you already said in the past. Don't imagine you're giving me any new matieral. It's all public domain by now.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eits
haha "ass-kissing little chickenshit" haha that's awesome

It's also turns out to be yet another aspect of the war falsified by the anti-war left:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/...9/lefty-slur-abou.html

What will they claim now? Fake but accurate?

You are kidding right? You must be hoping nobody reads your link. A pro-war site claims a CENTCOM PR guy said they have an outstanding relationship. So fragging what? What else would a PR guy say? You are pathetic.

Feel free to e-mail CENTCOM if you want to claim BS and act is if the IPS website is some reliable outlet for news.

btw, Blackfive is not just a pro-war site. It's a site where many, many active duty and retired military hang out to discuss issues. If anyone has a direct line to CENTCOM, they do. So I'd trust them far more than some BS, fly-by-nite lefty website telling all the anti-war goofballs exactly what they want to hear.

And you trust CENTCOM to tell the truth about something this serious?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dahunan
And you trust CENTCOM to tell the truth about something this serious?

Hmmm, left-wing nutjob website or CENTCOM. I think I'll stick with the latter.

 

[Lemon law]

As TLC sez------Lastly, I've been online for 17 years, most of those involved in political discussions. You haven't said a thing that ten others before you already said in the past. Don't imagine you're giving me any new matieral. It's all public domain by now.

Question TLC, of all the good stuff and bad crap on line, why do you always seem to cherry pick the bad stuff? Sorry, all the eloquence in the world can't endow success in putting lip stick on a pig. Its still comes down to bad judgment on your part. Even if your fantasy is getting negative attention, its still a sad and sorry motivation and nothing to brag about.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As TLC sez------Lastly, I've been online for 17 years, most of those involved in political discussions. You haven't said a thing that ten others before you already said in the past. Don't imagine you're giving me any new matieral. It's all public domain by now.

Question TLC, of all the good stuff and bad crap on line, why do you always seem to cherry pick the bad stuff? Sorry, all the eloquence in the world can't endow success in putting lip stick on a pig. Its still comes down to bad judgment on your part. Even if your fantasy is getting negative attention, its still a sad and sorry motivation and nothing to brag about.

If eloquence were my only weapon you might have a case, LL. One of our first encounters in here was you making a claim and me rebutting it with facts. It had to do with yellowcake uranium and Bush's famous 16 words. Remember that? You seemed to go silent on that subject after I directed you to some information related to the subject so, apparently, I don't always cherry pick the bad stuff. On occassion I actually know what I'm talking about.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As TLC sez------Lastly, I've been online for 17 years, most of those involved in political discussions. You haven't said a thing that ten others before you already said in the past. Don't imagine you're giving me any new matieral. It's all public domain by now.

Question TLC, of all the good stuff and bad crap on line, why do you always seem to cherry pick the bad stuff? Sorry, all the eloquence in the world can't endow success in putting lip stick on a pig. Its still comes down to bad judgment on your part. Even if your fantasy is getting negative attention, its still a sad and sorry motivation and nothing to brag about.

If eloquence were my only weapon you might have a case, LL. One of our first encounters in here was you making a claim and me rebutting it with facts. It had to do with yellowcake uranium and Bush's famous 16 words. Remember that? You seemed to go silent on that subject after I directed you to some information related to the subject so, apparently, I don't always cherry pick the bad stuff. On occassion I actually know what I'm talking about.

At best you argued me to a non provable standstill. At best you are still putting lip stick on a pig. I hope you are proud of the results because I am revolted. Shall I recite the butchers bill for you? Maybe in the grand scheme of things, the judges at the Hague will resolve the issue for us and at about the same speed they resolved the good German defense of yesteryear.

Defend GWB&co.at your own peril.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As TLC sez------Lastly, I've been online for 17 years, most of those involved in political discussions. You haven't said a thing that ten others before you already said in the past. Don't imagine you're giving me any new matieral. It's all public domain by now.

Question TLC, of all the good stuff and bad crap on line, why do you always seem to cherry pick the bad stuff? Sorry, all the eloquence in the world can't endow success in putting lip stick on a pig. Its still comes down to bad judgment on your part. Even if your fantasy is getting negative attention, its still a sad and sorry motivation and nothing to brag about.

If eloquence were my only weapon you might have a case, LL. One of our first encounters in here was you making a claim and me rebutting it with facts. It had to do with yellowcake uranium and Bush's famous 16 words. Remember that? You seemed to go silent on that subject after I directed you to some information related to the subject so, apparently, I don't always cherry pick the bad stuff. On occassion I actually know what I'm talking about.

At best you argued me to a non provable standstill. At best you are still putting lip stick on a pig. I hope you are proud of the results because I am revolted. Shall I recite the butchers bill for you? Maybe in the grand scheme of things, the judges at the Hague will resolve the issue for us and at about the same speed they resolved the good German defense of yesteryear.

Defend GWB&co.at your own peril.

I'm not sure someone should be invoking the spectre of Hague judges until they can divine the difference between the atrocity of having a war and war atrocities, LL. One is not equivalent to the other.

 

[Lemon law]

To TLC who incorrectly states----I'm not sure someone should be invoking the spectre of Hague judges until they can divine the difference between the atrocity of having a war and war atrocities, LL. One is not equivalent to the other.

GWB is extremely vulnerable if he ever gets to the Hague. Not only is it the leaders responsibility to prevent war crimes after they become aware of them, GWB has set policies on torture, international kidnapping, and a host of violations of the Geneva convention. Nor will GWB be able to hide behind the dubious redefinitions provided by Gonzales. I remind you that they hung Tojo and Mushlosvich died while still on trial.

Just the mere fact that credible case can be outlined against GWB for international war crimes is in itself damning. Nor do we know which of GWB's cronies would go along with him and what evidence they would provide. Nor do we know what various papers now locked away say.

I stand by my statement, if GWB ever stands trial at the Hague, he will be in very deep trouble. At a minimum, once out of office, GWB may spend the rest of his life wondering if he will be called to account in a domestic or international court.

 

[NeoV]

Leave it to TLC and Pabster to continue the same drivel.....

NONE of our military commanders have experience in this type of war, so your "why would we listen to a Navy guy about how to direct a ground campaign?" BS is of any relevance.

I would think they guy in charge of CENTCOM has opinions that are more than worthy of consideration - and certainly more relevant than anything either of you two can add by magnitudes beyond counting.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To TLC who incorrectly states----I'm not sure someone should be invoking the spectre of Hague judges until they can divine the difference between the atrocity of having a war and war atrocities, LL. One is not equivalent to the other.

GWB is extremely vulnerable if he ever gets to the Hague. Not only is it the leaders responsibility to prevent war crimes after they become aware of them, GWB has set policies on torture, international kidnapping, and a host of violations of the Geneva convention. Nor will GWB be able to hide behind the dubious redefinitions provided by Gonzales. I remind you that they hung Tojo and Mushlosvich died while still on trial.

Just the mere fact that credible case can be outlined against GWB for international war crimes is in itself damning. Nor do we know which of GWB's cronies would go along with him and what evidence they would provide. Nor do we know what various papers now locked away say.

I stand by my statement, if GWB ever stands trial at the Hague, he will be in very deep trouble. At a minimum, once out of office, GWB may spend the rest of his life wondering if he will be called to account in a domestic or international court.

I have little doubt that stringing up GWB at the Hague is very high on your list of fantasies, LL. I'll remind you once again though that you seem to believe that it's a crime we are in a war. That is not equivalent to war crimes. In fact we have been prosecuting US troops ourselves that have been suspected of war crimes so the Hague really has no beef, not to mention that the Hague has no jurisdiction over the US concerning Iraq.

Surely you knew that already? You didn't? Well then allow me to assist you:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library...aq_9_February_2006.pdf

Sorry bud, but your fantasies about the Hague stringing up GWB are nothing but vapor.

 

[Lemon law]

To TLC,

If you will kindly re read what I wrote---Not only is it the leaders responsibility to prevent war crimes after they become aware of them, GWB has set policies on torture, international kidnapping, and a host of violations of the Geneva convention.

While I do agree that the US has done a decent job of policing its own troops, its the policies that GWB has set that will get him into hot water. Things like toture, international kidnapping, and the assorted Geneva convention violations.

Even if the US is not aboard the Rome accord now, there are lots of legal devices that could make him fall under them.

You well may be right TLC that its only a fine fantasy, but lots of really smart people are working hard to find ways to make them come true. Unlike Republicans, Democrats usually get their man without over inflating what evidence exists.

But when and if various Democratic fantasies bear fruit, its likely to be another example of shock and awe, and before the perp is even aware of the trouble they are in, the iron clad case will already be there to lay out smoking guns and all.

But scoff if you will, we Dems do have some fantasies. And its no secret GWB is #1. And as they say, lots of ways to skin a rat.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

LL. Does cannibalism fall under the auspices of the ICC? Because when I see Democrats try to skin Republican rats it looks an aweful lot like cannibalism.

Maybe I should write the ICC a letter and point that out?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Back on subject or lock w/ vacation time.


Senior Anandtech moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Back on topic, another debunking of the story floated around by IPS:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/...raeus_070917w/#Scene_1

Fallon was clearly irked by the stories about his supposed disagreements with Petraeus over the pace of that withdrawal and all-around disdain for the Army general published in outlets ranging from The Washington Post to various blogs. One story cited an unnamed senior official who said ?bad relations? between Fallon and Petraeus was the ?understatement of the century.? Another quoted Pentagon sources as saying Fallon openly derided Petraeus during their first meeting last March after Fallon took the CentCom reins.

The latter story particularly galled Fallon, who called it ?scurrilous,? adding that the characterizations of a dysfunctional relationship with Petraeus are ?just absurd.?