It is. Country destroyed, puppet government in place, oil supply more secured, but still costing us more money.
Yes, Bush's mission is accomplished.
It is. Country destroyed, puppet government in place, oil supply more secured, but still costing us more money.
Yes, Bush's mission is accomplished.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
As dm sez---We haven't heard anything about the oil during all this surge duhversion crap have we?
It seems there is a little kink in the GWB grand plan. Between terrorist blowing up pipelines and black marketeers stealing Iraqi Oil, there is little Iraqi oil left over for GWB&co. Even though getting the oil contracts secured at near the speed of light is the lone thing the US occupation has done right. Last I heard Iraqi oil production is not even up to pre-war embargo standards.
In light of these facts, we can put the level of acceptable violence into perspective. It does not matter regarding people on people violence, but anything the impedes the oil flow does.
And the dimocrats just don't get it---GWB&co. have made a US taxpayer funded investment in Iraq.
And the US simply can't leave Iraq until that investment pays off in oil. Once the oil is gone, then we can leave. And not a moment before.
It seems there is a little kink in the GWB grand plan. Between terrorist blowing up pipelines and black marketeers stealing Iraqi Oil, there is little Iraqi oil left over for GWB&co. Even though getting the oil contracts secured at near the speed of light is the lone thing the US occupation has done right. Last I heard Iraqi oil production is not even up to pre-war embargo standards.
In light of these facts, we can put the level of acceptable violence into perspective. It does not matter regarding people on people violence, but anything the impedes the oil flow does.
And the dimocrats just don't get it---GWB&co. have made a US taxpayer funded investment in Iraq.
And the US simply can't leave Iraq until that investment pays off in oil. Once the oil is gone, then we can leave. And not a moment before.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
All he was saying is that every society has a certain level of violence, and one measure of "success" in Iraq will be when the level of violence is similar to that of any modern Western nation. In other words, when the police have it under control and down to a tolerable minimum - murders, rapes, robberies, etc. at a level similar to any major US city.
It's common sense, and all you guys are doing is nitpicking and making fun of his inability to speak clearly. If that is your only point, then yay for you.
It's common sense, and all you guys are doing is nitpicking and making fun of his inability to speak clearly. If that is your only point, then yay for you.
Originally posted by: OrByte
no actually he flip-flopped. That is what most people are making fun of.
FLIP FLOP
edit: the double negative is just icing on the sh!ytcake
First off, as already stated, the two quotes are relating to two different topics, so I don't know how anybody can say he's flip flopping on anything. Second, his use of a double negative is correct in the sense that he used it. It wouldn't have made sense to say that "Success is violence".
You lefties are really scraping the bottom of the stupid barrel for this one. Pretty pathetic really.
Apparently the resident republicans don't like it when their own idiotic game is turned on them...but for points that actually make sense.
Remember the whole 'flip flop' craze over Kerry's unfortunate...but still logically valid statement? "I was for it before I was against it." Sure, it sounded funny to simpletons who can't do much more than tie their own shoes or make flip-flop costumes, but to the average individual, when properly explained, it makes sense. Kerry was for the bill before they changed it so that the funding was inappropriate and irresponsible, so then he had to vote against it.
Unfortunately, this is what the entire flip-flop community rallied around. Kinda goes to show how intellectually retarded they are.
Remember the whole 'flip flop' craze over Kerry's unfortunate...but still logically valid statement? "I was for it before I was against it." Sure, it sounded funny to simpletons who can't do much more than tie their own shoes or make flip-flop costumes, but to the average individual, when properly explained, it makes sense. Kerry was for the bill before they changed it so that the funding was inappropriate and irresponsible, so then he had to vote against it.
Unfortunately, this is what the entire flip-flop community rallied around. Kinda goes to show how intellectually retarded they are.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
it's a flip flop. No use trying to deny it, it looks sad when you do.Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: OrByte
no actually he flip-flopped. That is what most people are making fun of.
FLIP FLOP
edit: the double negative is just icing on the sh!ytcake
First off, as already stated, the two quotes are relating to two different topics, so I don't know how anybody can say he's flip flopping on anything. Second, his use of a double negative is correct in the sense that he used it. It wouldn't have made sense to say that "Success is violence".
You lefties are really scraping the bottom of the stupid barrel for this one. Pretty pathetic really.
And yes double negatives are acceptable...but when Bush does it he certainly sounds quacky!
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
The two quotes are NOT related, and here is why:
1) His most recent quote is referring to street crime and other forms of violence commonly found throughout the civilized world, including the US. He was stating that it is impossible to eliminate ALL violence from a society, and that one measure of "success" in Iraq would be reducing violent crime down to tolerable levels similar to the levels found in Western nations.
2) While in the quote from 2004, he is specifically discussing terrorism and terrorist acts of violence.
In other words, calling this a "flip-flop" is reaching... bigtime.
1) His most recent quote is referring to street crime and other forms of violence commonly found throughout the civilized world, including the US. He was stating that it is impossible to eliminate ALL violence from a society, and that one measure of "success" in Iraq would be reducing violent crime down to tolerable levels similar to the levels found in Western nations.
2) While in the quote from 2004, he is specifically discussing terrorism and terrorist acts of violence.
In other words, calling this a "flip-flop" is reaching... bigtime.
Hehe, the mystic oracle Bush is at it again.
On the face of it this is another confused message from the President that even requires the President's spokesperson to explain what he said to the media. And look at the confusion about what he meant in this thread alone.
In reality Bush is using one of his favourite rethoric propaganda devices the Negative Framework.
A negative framework is a pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his listeners' minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to instill the image of a dark and evil world around us.
Bush is simply telling his believers what to think again.
On the face of it this is another confused message from the President that even requires the President's spokesperson to explain what he said to the media. And look at the confusion about what he meant in this thread alone.
In reality Bush is using one of his favourite rethoric propaganda devices the Negative Framework.
A negative framework is a pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his listeners' minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to instill the image of a dark and evil world around us.
Bush is simply telling his believers what to think again.
No, that was four years ago. As we know, Bush landed on that aircraft carrier, hung up his "Mission Accomplished" banner, turned the ship towards home and ordered the troops back.
Then, before that order could take effect, they ran out of fuel to bring them home so now, they troops are stuck in the middle of someone else's street fight while the administartion is beating up on Congress for billions in gas money, but they don't want to say when they'll bring them home if they get it. :roll:
You don't think we're that stupid do you? Everybody and their cat knows that when we talk about violence in Iraq, we're talking political violence, not mundane violence. Bush knows that and for you to put words into his mouth is talking down to all of us in this forum. Please, do us a favor and let the President speak for himself. We'll take it from there.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
well then the joke is on you because standard levels of violent crime is exactly what Bush was referring to when he said "not no violence."
The crimes he was referring to would NOT be of the same nature as those found in Western countries, but their level and frequency were what he was referring to.
In layman's terms: For every handgun homicide in Washington DC, you might see one sniping in Baghdad... For every rape in DC, you might see one sectarian rape in Baghdad, etc. Another example: their sectarian crime would be the equivalent of our gang violence in major cities.
The bottom line is that the crime - in this case, sectarian crime - would be seen at a level and frequency similar to Western nations.
If that were the case, we could honestly label it a "success."
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Originally posted by: jrenz
This post makes no sense.... the first quote is talking about sectarian violence in Iraq... the second quote is talking about terrorism in the world... they're about two completely different topics. Aren't there plenty of other things to ridicule Bush on which actually make sense?
Yeah, on first read looks like two different topics.
Otherwise I agree with the common sense approach of realizing Iraq will have some level of violence. If it manages to remain a secular government it will be subject to attacks from the radicals, and it's smack dab in the middle of Iran & Syria.
edit: While the statement "Success is not, no violence" does look akward in print, it makes perfect sense. Likely those hearing had no problem, nor found it akward.
Fern
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
No, the joke is on YOU. Bush and his minions insist on describing Iraq as being THE major anti-terrorism effort by the U.S. If, instead, Bush wishes to characterize Iraq in terms of its violence - independent of terrorist acts - then his entire justification for being there is lost.
So, if Iraq is the front line in the war on terror, then Bush is bound by his statement that there is no "acceptable level" of terrorism, in which case there is no acceptable level of violence in Iraq. OR, Bush can acknowledge that Iraq has very little to do with global terrorism, in which case why in the hell are we there?
As usual, Bush wants it both ways.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Who exactly expects there to be "No violence" in Iraq? Is that what it really boils down to in order to claim success? I cant think of any democrat that has laid down that gauntlet. BUT, GWB feels it is necessary to define what Success isn't so that we can all just fall in line and hope that he knows what Success in Iraq is. It is a level of dialogue that is sophisticated in its reasoning. There are so many different ways for him to verbalize his message, he carefully chose his words.
So I ask you guys, who has really defined Success in Iraq as "No violence?" anyone in congress? The bottom line is...THAT ISN"T THE BENCHMARK GWB. No one said it is. But it sure sounds good coming from the President! HIS COMMENT FORCES YOU TO AGREE WITH HIM.
Let me put the phrase out there again;
"Success is not, no violence."
Our response should be;
No chit sherlock.
I wish I could make this point clearer. But it is really complex in how he presents his argument. You have to agree with him in order to reel him into the actual situation. No one can argue against GWB's point...however, the point itself is moot since no one is arguing it. Is this the definition of a strawman? :shocked: OH SNAP!
And just as an aside...do we really want to start arguing about acceptable levels of violence? That might just open up a rather large can o worms. We shouldn't be talking about acceptable levels of violence..we can't even agree about that here in the USA. So you really begin to wonder why GWB made that statement.
just my .02
OH and the whole flip flop thing or double negative thing is just a way to snipe at GWB..but I am surprised at how many people here continue to defend him. that darn 20-30% of Americans just won't go away...
So I ask you guys, who has really defined Success in Iraq as "No violence?" anyone in congress? The bottom line is...THAT ISN"T THE BENCHMARK GWB. No one said it is. But it sure sounds good coming from the President! HIS COMMENT FORCES YOU TO AGREE WITH HIM.
Let me put the phrase out there again;
"Success is not, no violence."
Our response should be;
No chit sherlock.
I wish I could make this point clearer. But it is really complex in how he presents his argument. You have to agree with him in order to reel him into the actual situation. No one can argue against GWB's point...however, the point itself is moot since no one is arguing it. Is this the definition of a strawman? :shocked: OH SNAP!
And just as an aside...do we really want to start arguing about acceptable levels of violence? That might just open up a rather large can o worms. We shouldn't be talking about acceptable levels of violence..we can't even agree about that here in the USA. So you really begin to wonder why GWB made that statement.
just my .02
OH and the whole flip flop thing or double negative thing is just a way to snipe at GWB..but I am surprised at how many people here continue to defend him. that darn 20-30% of Americans just won't go away...
"Success is not, no violence."
It is actually a masterful example of what Bush does best - spewing garbage. This is a rethoric device called Empty language.
Quote:
Empty language is a term that refers to broad statements that are so abstract and mean so little that they are virtually impossible to oppose. It is often used to sway public opinion. While used by both Republicans and Democrats, it is employed more regularly by the Bush administration than by any previous President. Conceptually:
Empty language is the lingustic and emotional equivalent of empty calories. Just as we seldom question the content of potato chips while enjoying their pleasurable taste, recipients of empty language are usually distracted from examining the content of what they are hearing. People use empty language to conceal faulty generalizations; to ridicule viable alternatives; to attribute negative motivations to others, thus making them appear contemptible; and to rename and "reframe" opposing viewpoints. See deep framing, moral politics, conceptual metaphor, information warfare, deep trolling and spin doctor and spintern on these principles and related concepts.
Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech contained 39 examples of empty language. He used it to reduce complex problems to images that left the listener relieved that George W. Bush was in charge. Rather than explaining the relationship between malpractice insurance and skyrocketing health care costs, Bush summed up: "No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit." The multiple fiscal and monetary policy tools that can be used to stimulate an economy were downsized to: "The best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place." The controversial plan to wage another war on Iraq was simplified to: "We will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people." In an earlier study, In the 2000 presidential debates Bush used at least four times as many phrases containing empty language as Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Senior or Gore had used in their debates.
Another glaring example of empty lanuage is the ubiquetious use of the slogan "support the troops" to silence and marginalize views which oppose war and bringing harm to "the troops".
link
If what you say is true then that is nothing new because nobody expected the new Iraq to be Heaven on Earth. If it's nothing new then why would Bush say it? Because what you interpreted is not what he was saying. He's saying that he will allow an acceptable level of political violence, i.e. terrorism, which contradicts what he said in the quote provided by the OP.
The sad thing is that he is trying to equate political violence in Iraq with violence in America. Of course both are violence but they are world's apart in terms of their intentions. It's like equating a toy car with a Toyota Camry. They're both cars but that's where the similarities end. Unfortunately you bought into Bush's intended confusion.
Don't try to take us for a fool because we all know that this is just a continuation for the lowering of the bar for "success" in Iraq.
Which was John Kerry's position in the 2004 election, if I recall correctly...a position for which he was widely criticized by Republicans, from Bush on down (Cheney, in typical Cheney fashion, was a pretty big dick about it). I happen to agree with what Bush is saying here, but I still think he's a pretty big hypocrite.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
you are wrong. I was giving you the context of the quote and what he clearly meant by the recent statement. You are attempting to twist it to reflect some sort of change in his position or beliefs regarding our goals in Iraq. That's just plain goofy given the context of the statement.
Today, Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with global terrorism - there is no denying that. I believe you may be referring to 2002 when an argument could be made that Iraq had little to do with AQ and global terrorism, but it is ignorant to believe that Iraq plays no rule in global terrorism today. I'll even agree that it is our own fault for that shift in Iraq's prominence in the GWOT, but I will not allow you to dismiss their current importance today
no, as usual, you are twisting his words to fit your weak-ass argument.
g'day.
Team Bush has turned Iraq into a sh!t-magnet that sucks in every terrorist in the hemisphere who also view the country as the central war against their enemy - the U.S. So we've managed to turn a secular, nearly 99.99999% terror-free country into a rallying cry for every idiotic jihadist pumped on AQ propaganda from the U.K. to Southeast Asia. Well great job so far guys, what do you do for an encore? What? Are you expecting they'll eventually run out of terrorists? History wouldn't indicate that's a good strategy either. As I said, total clusterfsck.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Some might say that is one of the primary reasons for our continued presence in Iraq. Whether or not it is a smart move is another matter; but, it certainly fits the "fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here" argument.
What do we do for an encore? well, it's like baiting a deer...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
If anyone wants to talk about empty language, that fits GWB&co. to a tee. But when GWB&co. starts talking about an global war against terrorism, it not empty language, it even worse because it becomes self-delusional language. At best 5% of our woes in Iraq are due to anything remotely resembling international terrorism or Al-Quida. With the rest of it being simply local Iraqi strong men types setting up their own power bases in a time of US induced anarchy. And these strong men types are now well entrenched with those now heading them not prepared to welcome the central government that would prove their undoing. And while these self-styled militia leaders are still a small minority of the population, the vast majority of the Iraqi population still must choose someone to protect them---and since the US does not have the troops, they must seek protection under the umbrella of a local militia. And since the local militias do not have heavy weapons, terrorists tactics become the tools employed to feather their nests and keep the good times rolling for the militia leaders.
But the above example also shows why the neocons delude themselves and are so overoptimistic. In the case of the USA---the neocons came to power and were able to rule with only about 50% of the country voting them in. And then made radical changes and basically made zero concessions to those opposed in the US. In Iraq, we initially had probably better than 70% popular support shortly after toppling Saddam---but I still remember the early says of the Iraqi insurgency and Rummy musing about perhaps only 5000 Saddam Hessian dead enders causing the initial insurgency. Nor do I think Rummy was all that far off---and if it was indeed only an initial 5000, in a country of 25 million---that works out to only one rascal per 5000 in population. Its grown some since then---and even in the USA we have close to 1% of our population in jail---which would correspond to 50 per 5000 by those crude measures. And given the Iraqi insurgency now---it becomes a question if the Iraqi population will permit a complete extermination of the violent few---or if various political concessions must be made to defuse the problem.
And since GWB&co. makes no progress with extermination---what does that leave for options when insurgents can blend in and out of the general Iraqi population? The last time the Brits tried to occupy Iraq, they spent almost 20 years and got nothing done.---and finally left after their own home government fell over the issue.----all the while using the same empty language. Maybe the Brits lacked the genius to call it a international war against terrorism---but in the end---would it have changed the outcome any.
And in the next 15 years saw the Brits losing India to some little guy wielding nothing more fearsome than a home made spinning wheel---and no violence needed.
Lesson to be learned---you offer the Iraqi people something or any occupation is doomed.
And all GWB&co. have offered is four plus years of the Katrina treatment.
But the above example also shows why the neocons delude themselves and are so overoptimistic. In the case of the USA---the neocons came to power and were able to rule with only about 50% of the country voting them in. And then made radical changes and basically made zero concessions to those opposed in the US. In Iraq, we initially had probably better than 70% popular support shortly after toppling Saddam---but I still remember the early says of the Iraqi insurgency and Rummy musing about perhaps only 5000 Saddam Hessian dead enders causing the initial insurgency. Nor do I think Rummy was all that far off---and if it was indeed only an initial 5000, in a country of 25 million---that works out to only one rascal per 5000 in population. Its grown some since then---and even in the USA we have close to 1% of our population in jail---which would correspond to 50 per 5000 by those crude measures. And given the Iraqi insurgency now---it becomes a question if the Iraqi population will permit a complete extermination of the violent few---or if various political concessions must be made to defuse the problem.
And since GWB&co. makes no progress with extermination---what does that leave for options when insurgents can blend in and out of the general Iraqi population? The last time the Brits tried to occupy Iraq, they spent almost 20 years and got nothing done.---and finally left after their own home government fell over the issue.----all the while using the same empty language. Maybe the Brits lacked the genius to call it a international war against terrorism---but in the end---would it have changed the outcome any.
And in the next 15 years saw the Brits losing India to some little guy wielding nothing more fearsome than a home made spinning wheel---and no violence needed.
Lesson to be learned---you offer the Iraqi people something or any occupation is doomed.
And all GWB&co. have offered is four plus years of the Katrina treatment.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter