Gen. Patreus does not know if success in Iraq will make America safer

Page 3 - 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
Hayabusa Rider,

Is your moderation of Gadgets and P&N going to make AnandTech a more secure website and less prone to hacker attacks?

;)

Mod Callout, Mod Callout, Mod Callo...oh wait...DOH!!

Anandtech Senior Moderator and new touchy feely I care about your self esteem PC Wanker.

Red Dawn
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Petraeus was right to answer the way he did, and I think he gave an honest answer.

Doesn't look good for our civilian "leadership", however.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hayabusa Rider,

Is your moderation of Gadgets and P&N going to make AnandTech a more secure website and less prone to hacker attacks?

;)

:cool:


My feeling is that reading into what Petreaus says isn't useful because he doesn't set policy. I'm not sure what military sense drawing down the troops makes, but my gut feeling that's a political decision.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?
If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
You guys and your ?illegal war? BS. At the end of the Gulf war Saddam agreed to a cease fire that called for him to eliminate his WMD program.

Saddam violated this agreement for 11 years. When we invaded Iraq again we were resuming hostilities that had been ended via the cease fire.

You may not like this version of events, but it is the one used to justify our invasion of Iraq. This is why you hardly hear the word ?illegal war? out of anyone with any sense of responsibility.

Sorry, it is an illegal war. That is a fact. So no BS in it except for your denial.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Yeah, Warner and all those Republicans who talked tough with Patraeus...who do they think they are?
I already lauded a Republican (Hagel) who asked Petraeus some tough questions that actually specifically had to do with Iraq and Petraeus's mission there. Hagel was very good; excellent even. His questions were far superior to some of the talking point idiocy and obvious fringe pandering that came out of the mouths of a few Dimocrats.

So despite your mighty swing with that attempted snarky comment, you got nuttin' but air, dude. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a logical standpoint TLC, you have a contention that the Hagel's questions were the best but you cite no supporting evidence for your conclusion. So we are supposed to take it on your very dubious source authority? Then you raise the heat by saying snarky and nuttin but air which only appeals to only the emotion. So again we have a you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own logic. If its your opinion, why not state it as such?

But even if we take that above rhetorical who do you think those Republicans are as a somewhat illogical statement not proved, all the democrats need is to pull 9 or more clear thinking or illogical Republicans, it don't matter from a logic standpoint, and the democrats can have the veto proof majority in the Senate needed to get some real things done.

Because, in my opinion, Iraq is going to be decided on raw political power. With Republican
results getting us no where. I would say if dramatic improvements are not seen in Iraq very soon, logical arguments will not matter and panicky politicians will be the things to worry about.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Yeah, Warner and all those Republicans who talked tough with Patraeus...who do they think they are?
I already lauded a Republican (Hagel) who asked Petraeus some tough questions that actually specifically had to do with Iraq and Petraeus's mission there. Hagel was very good; excellent even. His questions were far superior to some of the talking point idiocy and obvious fringe pandering that came out of the mouths of a few Dimocrats.

So despite your mighty swing with that attempted snarky comment, you got nuttin' but air, dude. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a logical standpoint TLC, you have a contention that the Hagel's questions were the best but you cite no supporting evidence for your conclusion. So we are supposed to take it on your very dubious source authority? Then you raise the heat by saying snarky and nuttin but air which only appeals to only the emotion. So again we have a you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own logic. If its your opinion, why not state it as such?

But even if we take that above rhetorical who do you think those Republicans are as a somewhat illogical statement not proved, all the democrats need is to pull 9 or more clear thinking or illogical Republicans, it don't matter from a logic standpoint, and the democrats can have the veto proof majority in the Senate needed to get some real things done.

Because, in my opinion, Iraq is going to be decided on raw political power. With Republican
results getting us no where. I would say if dramatic improvements are not seen in Iraq very soon, logical arguments will not matter and panicky politicians will be the things to worry about.

All this whole argument boils down to is the R's trying to make the D's the scapegoat for their screw up. They won't define success, won't set a deadline, and won't come up with an exit strategy. They know the situation is Iraq is so fubar'ed that they want the D's to force a plan on them in the hopes that they can come back and say "I told you so".

They mucked it up, it's the GOP that is stopping Congress from actually doing something about it. I guess we should just let them fix it or break the country trying. It true Bush style he screwed it up and can't fix it, only this time he mucked up the whole fricking country.

Congrats Bushies, you've picked a fine time to play hide the exit strategy.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Yeah, Warner and all those Republicans who talked tough with Patraeus...who do they think they are?
I already lauded a Republican (Hagel) who asked Petraeus some tough questions that actually specifically had to do with Iraq and Petraeus's mission there. Hagel was very good; excellent even. His questions were far superior to some of the talking point idiocy and obvious fringe pandering that came out of the mouths of a few Dimocrats.

So despite your mighty swing with that attempted snarky comment, you got nuttin' but air, dude. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a logical standpoint TLC, you have a contention that the Hagel's questions were the best but you cite no supporting evidence for your conclusion. So we are supposed to take it on your very dubious source authority? Then you raise the heat by saying snarky and nuttin but air which only appeals to only the emotion. So again we have a you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own logic. If its your opinion, why not state it as such?

But even if we take that above rhetorical who do you think those Republicans are as a somewhat illogical statement not proved, all the democrats need is to pull 9 or more clear thinking or illogical Republicans, it don't matter from a logic standpoint, and the democrats can have the veto proof majority in the Senate needed to get some real things done.

Because, in my opinion, Iraq is going to be decided on raw political power. With Republican
results getting us no where. I would say if dramatic improvements are not seen in Iraq very soon, logical arguments will not matter and panicky politicians will be the things to worry about.
I had no idea you considered my statements authoritative, LL. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Nor did I actually say Hagel's were "the best," merely that they were "superior" to many of the questions fielded by the Dems. As to who actually asked the best questions I believe it goes without saying that that would be subjective; a judgement call, so it's obviously just an opinion. I'm not even sure why I'd have to explain that to you? Does your opinion on the subject differ? Surely if you're that interested in evaluating my opinion of what Hagel said you can use google like everyone else who's internet enabled?

As to the remainder of your comments, I'm not sure how your wishful thinking about the balance of power in Congress has much, if any, relevance to the specific discussion in this thread. Getting carried away with a little free association, are we?
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Arkaign said:

To question your government is not unpatriotic ? to not question your government is unpatriotic."

It should be explicitly stated that the True Believers sweeping condemnations of those opposed to the war, going back to before the invasion, including the use of terms such as "traitor," "unpatriotic," and "treasonous," blanket active duty personnel as well as war-veterans, both enlisted and officers.

What all of this really reflects is the underlying and pervasive premise that those who advocate American wars are inherently patriotic and "pro-American," while it is always appropriate to impugn the patriotism and allegiances of those who may oppose such wars, even when such war opponents are life-long civil servants or even military veterans.

Here's a hypothetical, a thought experiment. Imagine what Republicans would be saying if everything about the last six years and the current situation were the same as now, with one exception: Al Gore was President and the Democrats had controlled the US government until the 2006 elections. But all decisions and actions are the same.

What would Republicans, Talk-radio hosts, Fox News, etc., be saying?

Wouldn't that be the same concern as accusing Democratic vets of treason, but declaring off limits GOP draft dodgers?

If the "active career military man" is engaging in clear propaganda ops for the White House, to the detriment of actual national security, what exactly is the difference or distinction?

Hence, the very people who routinely traffic in "unpatriotic" and even "treason" rhetoric towards real war veterans, the likes of Jack Murtha, John Kerry and war opponents generally feign such pious objection to the MoveOn ad without anyone noticing any contradiction at all."

It's called doublethink.







 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?
If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
You guys and your ?illegal war? BS. At the end of the Gulf war Saddam agreed to a cease fire that called for him to eliminate his WMD program.

Saddam violated this agreement for 11 years. When we invaded Iraq again we were resuming hostilities that had been ended via the cease fire.

You may not like this version of events, but it is the one used to justify our invasion of Iraq. This is why you hardly hear the word ?illegal war? out of anyone with any sense of responsibility.

Sorry, it is an illegal war. That is a fact. So no BS in it except for your denial.

Your response is his "no it isn't" is "yes it is". Clever. Oh, it's a fact. Everyone go home, debate is closed for the day!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hayabusa Rider,

Is your moderation of Gadgets and P&N going to make AnandTech a more secure website and less prone to hacker attacks?

;)

Mod Callout, Mod Callout, Mod Callo...oh wait...DOH!!

Anandtech Senior Moderator and new touchy feely I care about your self esteem PC Wanker.

Red Dawn
Hmmm. Wonder what that was all about?

:p
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hayabusa Rider,

Is your moderation of Gadgets and P&N going to make AnandTech a more secure website and less prone to hacker attacks?

;)

Mod Callout, Mod Callout, Mod Callo...oh wait...DOH!!

Anandtech Senior Moderator and new touchy feely I care about your self esteem PC Wanker.

Red Dawn
Hmmm. Wonder what that was all about?

:p
A little levity in a forum where everybody takes themselves to seriously;)

 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
If I really have to explain this to you then you're not nearly as intelligent as I first gave you credit for.

I can't help that you're so far gone from reality you can't see the relevance, even IF Patreus' directive isn't that particular area.

Should generals be generals, or should they dwell on (and possibly make decisions on) the larger political picture?

Ask Bush about how Iraq is going and he will defer to his "generals". Ask the generals and it's not their job to know??

Yeah, wake up and smell the roses people!!

The question wasn't "How is Iraq doing", the question was "Is America safer because of what you're doing in Iraq." Nobody is going round robin, you're fabricating your own ideas of what this discussion is about. It is Patreus' job to know, and he answered in the hearing...
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
If I really have to explain this to you then you're not nearly as intelligent as I first gave you credit for.

I can't help that you're so far gone from reality you can't see the relevance, even IF Patreus' directive isn't that particular area.

Should generals be generals, or should they dwell on (and possibly make decisions on) the larger political picture?

Ask Bush about how Iraq is going and he will defer to his "generals". Ask the generals and it's not their job to know??

Yeah, wake up and smell the roses people!!

The question wasn't "How is Iraq doing", the question was "Is America safer because of what you're doing in Iraq." Nobody is going round robin, you're fabricating your own ideas of what this discussion is about. It is Patreus' job to know, and he answered in the hearing...

Good point.

I guess I know what Bush would say if I asked him if he thought we were safer but I wouldn't believe him because at this point he has no credibility left. His idea of an exit strategy is the same as the terrorists who flew the jets into the WTC, so in his mind of course we're going to be safer.... no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.

Praise the lord and pass the ammuntion.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, my comment contained a little levity too. ;)

You mean the hot air?
Not really. But since you've shown up I'll attempt to accommodate you.

I aim to please.

I have that hanging on my bathroom wall. We aim to please. You aim too please.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, my comment contained a little levity too. ;)

You mean the hot air?
Not really. But since you've shown up I'll attempt to accommodate you.

I aim to please.

I have that hanging on my bathroom wall. We aim to please. You aim too please.
Mine says "We don't swim in your toilet, please don't pee in our pool."
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, my comment contained a little levity too. ;)

You mean the hot air?
Not really. But since you've shown up I'll attempt to accommodate you.

I aim to please.

I have that hanging on my bathroom wall. We aim to please. You aim too please.
Mine says "We don't swim in your toilet, please don't pee in our pool."
And I'm that guy with the sign "Welcome to our OOL... notice there's no P in it? Keep it that way!" next to my hot-tub... :cool:

good times!
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Sorry, it is an illegal war. That is a fact. So no BS in it except for your denial.

What makes it "illegal"?

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here cause no one seems to know that war is supposed to be declared by congress, when in fact it hasn't been. Illegal.
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
Originally posted by: sirjonk

Your response is his "no it isn't" is "yes it is". Clever. Oh, it's a fact. Everyone go home, debate is closed for the day!

Beating a dead horse. If you're too dense to realize that the war WAS illegal, then you can pack up and go home.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Ah, but as I read of the recent democratic thinking, it does indeed look like the democrats will start attacking the Iraq war as being perhaps illegal but certainly no longer authorized. And that will be the new kid on the block whose argument may get this current stuff off stuck on stupid.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Ah, but as I read of the recent democratic thinking, it does indeed look like the democrats will start attacking the Iraq war as being perhaps illegal but certainly no longer authorized. And that will be the new kid on the block whose argument may get this current stuff off stuck on stupid.

Dodd's on the attack already.

In his remarks, Senator Dodd noted the August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which states that violence within Iraq remains critical. The report concludes that violence against Iraq civilians remains high and that Iraq political leaders are unable to govern effectively. Dodd also noted the recent report by the Government Accountability Office stating that the Iraq Government has not meet its own legislative and security benchmarks.



?That is why I will not support any additional assistance for our military involvement in Iraq that does not include a clear enforcement date for beginning and completing the deployment of US combat forces from Iraq,? said Dodd.

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4038
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Sorry, it is an illegal war. That is a fact. So no BS in it except for your denial.

What makes it "illegal"?

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here cause no one seems to know that war is supposed to be declared by congress, when in fact it hasn't been. Illegal.

Oddly enough, Congress is entirely complicit in what you call an "illegal war". They've authorized and funded it every step of the way without actually "declaring war". IMO, a transparent dodge in an attempt to avoid any responsibility

A gutless bunch of bufoons who shamelessly attempt to claim that they were deceived by a Pres they call an idiot.

While Petraeus prolly could've answered the question better, his job is to focus on security and counterinsurgency in Iraq. The question IS above his pay grade. The press, specifically Chris Matthews, is making too much of this. The proper question for Petraeus is are his actions making Iraq safer in the long-term, not whether they make the US safer in the long-term. The latter question is for the Pres, some of his cabinet members and the relevant Congressional committees. Our generals are responsible for military policy, not US policy (which belongs in civilian hands).

Fern