Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Ldir
Nice smack down! How many beatings can this tool take before he gets it? What was the comedy where the knight got his arms and legs cut off but still thought he was winning? Tasteslikechicken is just as ridiculous. He is wrong about everything but his ego is too big to quit. He lays in the corner spitting at the world as it passes him by.
I love it when the rump patters come in here to try to salvage one of their buddy's lame arguments by exclaiming a victory that never was. Hee-larious.

Face it. You can't tolerate the fact that I was right about Iraq. Clearly it absolutely galls you right to the bone. The anti-war crew will deny and refute it until it's clear that they just can't deny it any longer, just like they did with Patraeus. We've seen it all before. All the foot stomping and huffing was/is gold though; pure gold. Shows what you guys are really made of...nothing but hard, empty heads.

So, what were you right about again? The troop surge? Weren't the bazillions of individuals who suggested that troop levels needed increasing for five long years right before you were right?

Hardly seems a reason to gloat, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, by all means go ahead.
I was right that Iraq would come around, despite the mis-steps and problems along the way. It has.

And drop the slight-of-hand argument about the extra troops. The extra troops that you guys were arguing for well exceeded the 28,000 of the surge, not to mention that the anti-war crowd began deeming the surge a failure before it even went into motion and continued to deem it a failure long after its success was recognized by most. So don't be revisionist about that point please. It doesn't withstand the least bit of scrutiny.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You mean 20 unhinged, anti-war talking heads in here claim I'm wrong. Wow!
I don't know what makes you think you are coming across as "Hinged" You don't answer half the questions asked you and the vast parts of your posts consists of ad hom attacks and the other half you crow how you're right and have proven so when that's not the case.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: OrByte
which forums are those?
seriously.

I wanna learn how to be a professional troll like you!!
Search around for yourself. I'm not here to hold your hand. It's also clear what your definition of a troll is --> Anyone who disagrees with your pov.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: OrByte
which forums are those?
seriously.

I wanna learn how to be a professional troll like you!!
Search around for yourself. I'm not here to hold your hand. It's also clear what your definition of a troll is --> Anyone who disagrees with your pov.

just what I thought...you dont have any other forums

you spend most of your time trolling here!

just like the rest of us.

:)

I linked my definition of troll in this thread earlier...dont you know how to read?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You mean 20 unhinged, anti-war talking heads in here claim I'm wrong. Wow!
I don't know what makes you think you are coming across as "Hinged" You don't answer half the questions asked you and the vast parts of your posts consists of ad hom attacks and the other half you crow how you're right and have proven so when that's not the case.
Half the questions I ask aren't answered either. My responses get parsed and trimmed and pretzelized into something I never stated in the first place. Copious ad hom attacks are tossed my way. So what makes you think I have to give any more than what I am given in here?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You mean 20 unhinged, anti-war talking heads in here claim I'm wrong. Wow!
I don't know what makes you think you are coming across as "Hinged" You don't answer half the questions asked you and the vast parts of your posts consists of ad hom attacks and the other half you crow how you're right and have proven so when that's not the case.
Half the questions I ask aren't answered either. My responses get parsed and trimmed and pretzelized into something I never stated in the first place. Copious ad hom attacks are tossed my way. So what makes you think I have to give any more than what I am given in here?

I never parsed or trimmed anything you said. And you never answered my questions. It was your own words that laid claim to the idea that AlQ was in Iraq before the war started. Not my words.

You are suuuch a victim. :roll:
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I was right that Iraq would come around, despite the mis-steps and problems along the way. It has.
Just like Bush standing in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, you too are proclaiming victory a bit too soon, me thinks.

And drop the slight-of-hand argument about the extra troops. The extra troops that you guys were arguing for well exceeded the 28,000 of the surge, not to mention that the anti-war crowd began deeming the surge a failure before it even went into motion and continued to deem it a failure long after its success was recognized by most. So don't be revisionist about that point please. It doesn't withstand the least bit of scrutiny.

I've responded to this lame point of yours before. So MORE troops wouldn't have helped MORE? This isn't a guess how many jellybeans are in the jar kind of scenario, more troops were the solution and you don't get bonus points for guessing how many it would take.

And for the record, I never said the surge wouldn't work, in fact I was saying that's what we needed for a good 3-4 years. Good of you to finally join the consensus, but at the same time, you don't get to claim credit for a solution that wasn't yours to begin with.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: OrByte
I never parsed or trimmed anything you said. And you never answered my questions. It was your own words that laid claim to the idea that AlQ was in Iraq before the war started. Not my words.

You are suuuch a victim. :roll:
Fortunately, forums help to maintain a record that we can go back and check.


http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

The question was asked to you; "what did we win by invading and occupying Iraq?"

and you answered a "victory against al Qaeda."

What I answered was:

A victory against al Qaeda. A victory against Islamic militants and extremists. Hopefully an eventual victory for giving voice to the people of Iraq instead of concentrating power within the single family of a brutal dictator. A victory for the potential of a better life of ALL Iraqis instead of those of a particular religious affiliation (unless they happened to be lucky enough to be one of Saddam's buddies, even if they weren't Sunni).

There are plenty of victories in this situation. You actually have to want to recognize them though.

Yeah, you didn't parse or trim anything I said. :roll: Lying sack.

Then I even went on to clarify my statement:

Yep, I never claimed AQ was in Iraq prior to the invasion. Apparently though it doesn't matter what I say in here. What counts is only what certain people claim I said, even though it doesn't jibe with reality.

Whether AQ was there before or after is neither here nor there in this matter. They came in afterwards? So what. They have now been sent packing from Iraq in a humiliating defeat and even many of their fellow Muslims turned on them. If people can't, or don't want to recognize, the victory in that all I can say is "puff, puff...give."

A clarification which you subsequently completely ignored, DESPITE that fact that I even requoted it again in another response to you.

So keep up spouting all your BS and acting as if I don't answer your stupid fucking questions. Your lack of comprehension and reading capabilities is not my problem, you partisan tool.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: OrByte
I never parsed or trimmed anything you said. And you never answered my questions. It was your own words that laid claim to the idea that AlQ was in Iraq before the war started. Not my words.

You are suuuch a victim. :roll:
Fortunately, forums help to maintain a record that we can go back and check.


http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

The question was asked to you; "what did we win by invading and occupying Iraq?"

and you answered a "victory against al Qaeda."

What I answered was:

A victory against al Qaeda. A victory against Islamic militants and extremists. Hopefully an eventual victory for giving voice to the people of Iraq instead of concentrating power within the single family of a brutal dictator. A victory for the potential of a better life of ALL Iraqis instead of those of a particular religious affiliation (unless they happened to be lucky enough to be one of Saddam's buddies, even if they weren't Sunni).

There are plenty of victories in this situation. You actually have to want to recognize them though.

Yeah, you didn't parse or trim anything I said. :roll: Lying sack.

Then I even went on to clarify my statement:

Yep, I never claimed AQ was in Iraq prior to the invasion. Apparently though it doesn't matter what I say in here. What counts is only what certain people claim I said, even though it doesn't jibe with reality.

Whether AQ was there before or after is neither here nor there in this matter. They came in afterwards? So what. They have now been sent packing from Iraq in a humiliating defeat and even many of their fellow Muslims turned on them. If people can't, or don't want to recognize, the victory in that all I can say is "puff, puff...give."

A clarification which you subsequently completely ignored, DESPITE that fact that I even requoted it again in another response to you.

So keep up spouting all your BS and acting as if I don't answer your stupid fucking questions. Your lack of comprehension and reading capabilities is not my problem, you partisan tool.
and all of that amounts to only one thing: a simple diversion. Something I pointed out to you earlier but you didn't seem to care, you love to play the victim here.

thanks for diverting yet again! you rock!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: OrByte
and all of that amounts to only one thing: a simple diversion. Something I pointed out to you earlier but you didn't seem to care, you love to play the victim here.

thanks for diverting yet again! you rock!
Yep. Anwering your question very clearly would be a "diversion" in your eyes. No doubt. Explicitly showing that you parsed my quote is a "diversion" in your eyes too.

Thanks for proving exactly what you're made of. I think I'll just start referring to you as "Fullov Brownstuff."

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Fools argue with someone that walks away from his keyboard laughing his ass off at how seriously his parody is taken. Good on ya m8.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Fools argue with someone that walks away from his keyboard laughing his ass off at how seriously his parody is taken. Good on ya m8.
So you just basically called him out as a troll.

Good job to you, m8. Now I'm laughing my ass off.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
If we examine the thread title by the OP, Specop 007----here it is.---------------Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost
Topic Summary: And so, as oft happens, the liberals are proven wrong.

My point is and remains, nothing is proven yet and the verdict is largely still very much in doubt.

Lots of sound and fury opinions on both sides, but any conclusions are just opinions and nothing more.

And in today's news, two totally new jokers were added to the Iraqi deck in what amounts to a struggling occupation with more jokers in the deck than real cards to play.

Maybe some patience is required because the outcome is very much in a state of flux. And beyond any shadow of a doubt, Liberals have not been proven wrong to make a liar out of the OP.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
so if this is what we've 'won'...

A victory against al Qaeda. A victory against Islamic militants and extremists. Hopefully an eventual victory for giving voice to the people of Iraq instead of concentrating power within the single family of a brutal dictator. A victory for the potential of a better life of ALL Iraqis instead of those of a particular religious affiliation (unless they happened to be lucky enough to be one of Saddam's buddies, even if they weren't Sunni).

...you can't say you've won anything if your stated goals going in have not been met..you can list positive outcomes, but that doesn't equate to winning anything.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
If the goal is a victory over al Qaeda, then our actions would be akin to using a hundred sledge hammers to kill an ant. And this is just a victory, not crushing them in finality. Something to puff up your chest about...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: seemingly random
If the goal is a victory over al Qaeda, then our actions would be akin to using a hundred sledge hammers to kill an ant. And this is just a victory, not crushing them in finality. Something to puff up your chest about...
Should we use chemicals instead? That's what I use on ants.

Another thing about ants is that you can never really completely get rid of them. They'll be back eventually. But you can't just take the attitude of, 'Well, there's nothing I can do.' If you don't take action the ants will over-run you. You have to keep killing them regularly in order to manage them. Sucks, but that's just the way it is with ants.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Tab
I can't believe this thread is still continuing.

I know, me either! :confused:

At this point, I'm taking TLC's refusal to respond to me as a victory. As well I should, considering the bar for "victory" in Iraq has been set so low that we may as well start applying the same standard to everything else.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Tab
I can't believe this thread is still continuing.

I know, me either! :confused:

At this point, I'm taking TLC's refusal to respond to me as a victory. As well I should, considering the bar for "victory" in Iraq has been set so low that we may as well start applying the same standard to everything else.
Take it as a victory if you consider the lack of responding to a hypothetical question - one that I've addressed already in the past in here, and one for which we can never know the facts of the matter - as a great victory. All things considered, your side needs every little victory it can get and victories based on hypothetical questions are about all the anti-war side can manage in the first place.

Go celebrate dude.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: seemingly random
If the goal is a victory over al Qaeda, then our actions would be akin to using a hundred sledge hammers to kill an ant. And this is just a victory, not crushing them in finality. Something to puff up your chest about...
Should we use chemicals instead? That's what I use on ants.

Another thing about ants is that you can never really completely get rid of them. They'll be back eventually. But you can't just take the attitude of, 'Well, there's nothing I can do.' If you don't take action the ants will over-run you. You have to keep killing them regularly in order to manage them. Sucks, but that's just the way it is with ants.
Here in georgia, with all of the fire ants, you've got to go after the queen. The queen lives 2 1/2 to 3 feet down. The mounds show up in fields a lot if they're not kept mown. Even with bad infestations though, I've never seen anyone dig up an entire field to get rid of them.

Another method I've heard about, but not tried, is to take ants from one mound and put them on another.

And yet another untested method is to feed them rice. They supposedly eat it, expand and explode.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: seemingly random
If the goal is a victory over al Qaeda, then our actions would be akin to using a hundred sledge hammers to kill an ant. And this is just a victory, not crushing them in finality. Something to puff up your chest about...
Should we use chemicals instead? That's what I use on ants.

Another thing about ants is that you can never really completely get rid of them. They'll be back eventually. But you can't just take the attitude of, 'Well, there's nothing I can do.' If you don't take action the ants will over-run you. You have to keep killing them regularly in order to manage them. Sucks, but that's just the way it is with ants.
Here in georgia, with all of the fire ants, you've got to go after the queen. The queen lives 2 1/2 to 3 feet down. The mounds show up in fields a lot if they're not kept mown. Even with bad infestations though, I've never seen anyone dig up an entire field to get rid of them.

Another method I've heard about, but not tried, is to take ants from one mound and put them on another.

And yet another untested method is to feed them rice. They supposedly eat it, expand and explode.

Of course if you don't leave food all over, ants tend not to come in the first place.

There's probably some way that can be applied to our current situation.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: seemingly random
If the goal is a victory over al Qaeda, then our actions would be akin to using a hundred sledge hammers to kill an ant. And this is just a victory, not crushing them in finality. Something to puff up your chest about...
Should we use chemicals instead? That's what I use on ants.

Another thing about ants is that you can never really completely get rid of them. They'll be back eventually. But you can't just take the attitude of, 'Well, there's nothing I can do.' If you don't take action the ants will over-run you. You have to keep killing them regularly in order to manage them. Sucks, but that's just the way it is with ants.
Here in georgia, with all of the fire ants, you've got to go after the queen. The queen lives 2 1/2 to 3 feet down. The mounds show up in fields a lot if they're not kept mown. Even with bad infestations though, I've never seen anyone dig up an entire field to get rid of them.

Another method I've heard about, but not tried, is to take ants from one mound and put them on another.

And yet another untested method is to feed them rice. They supposedly eat it, expand and explode.
Yep, that's the ultimate goal; the queen. In reality you need two defenses though. One that goes after the queens, because new ones always come along, and another that protects the borders of your home. Just in case you don't get all of the queens, and you can never get them all, you still want to keep those pesky worker ants out.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: seemingly random
If the goal is a victory over al Qaeda, then our actions would be akin to using a hundred sledge hammers to kill an ant. And this is just a victory, not crushing them in finality. Something to puff up your chest about...
Should we use chemicals instead? That's what I use on ants.

Another thing about ants is that you can never really completely get rid of them. They'll be back eventually. But you can't just take the attitude of, 'Well, there's nothing I can do.' If you don't take action the ants will over-run you. You have to keep killing them regularly in order to manage them. Sucks, but that's just the way it is with ants.
Here in georgia, with all of the fire ants, you've got to go after the queen. The queen lives 2 1/2 to 3 feet down. The mounds show up in fields a lot if they're not kept mown. Even with bad infestations though, I've never seen anyone dig up an entire field to get rid of them.

Another method I've heard about, but not tried, is to take ants from one mound and put them on another.

And yet another untested method is to feed them rice. They supposedly eat it, expand and explode.
Yep, that's the ultimate goal; the queen. In reality you need two defenses though. One that goes after the queens, because new ones always come along, and another that protects the borders of your home. Just in case you don't get all of the queens, and you can never get them all, you still want to keep those pesky worker ants out.
Funny about the home borders. The ants will swarm anything that dies on the porches and stalls. For example, when the carpenter bees have their domination battles in the spring each year, there will be bee bodies here and there. If I let the ants have at it, they'll devour the bodies in a few hours and then disappear. There is dog food in the bowls inside several hours a day until it's all eaten and the ants never come inside. Lucky, I guess. Actually, last summer, I did find a few ants during the drought, but after it started raining in late summer, didn't see anymore.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: seemingly random
If the goal is a victory over al Qaeda, then our actions would be akin to using a hundred sledge hammers to kill an ant. And this is just a victory, not crushing them in finality. Something to puff up your chest about...
Should we use chemicals instead? That's what I use on ants.

Another thing about ants is that you can never really completely get rid of them. They'll be back eventually. But you can't just take the attitude of, 'Well, there's nothing I can do.' If you don't take action the ants will over-run you. You have to keep killing them regularly in order to manage them. Sucks, but that's just the way it is with ants.
Here in georgia, with all of the fire ants, you've got to go after the queen. The queen lives 2 1/2 to 3 feet down. The mounds show up in fields a lot if they're not kept mown. Even with bad infestations though, I've never seen anyone dig up an entire field to get rid of them.

Another method I've heard about, but not tried, is to take ants from one mound and put them on another.

And yet another untested method is to feed them rice. They supposedly eat it, expand and explode.
Yep, that's the ultimate goal; the queen. In reality you need two defenses though. One that goes after the queens, because new ones always come along, and another that protects the borders of your home. Just in case you don't get all of the queens, and you can never get them all, you still want to keep those pesky worker ants out.
Funny about the home borders. The ants will swarm anything that dies on the porches and stalls. For example, when the carpenter bees have their domination battles in the spring each year, there will be bee bodies here and there. If I let the ants have at it, they'll devour the bodies in a few hours and then disappear. There is dog food in the bowls inside several hours a day until it's all eaten and the ants never come inside. Lucky, I guess. Actually, last summer, I did find a few ants during the drought, but after it started raining in late summer, didn't see anymore.
Lucky you.