The great Iraq debate has begun...

[Jhhnn]

From Pabster-

I think the time has long passed to be debating the reasoning (or lack of it) for going in to Iraq. We are there now, and (IMHO) it is our responsibility to finish the job. We can't put an artificial timetable or restriction on that.

In other words, even though it was a total fabrication, a wild goose chase, a snipe hunt, an act of shooting ourselves in the foot, we have to keep it up, right? Our responsibility? to whom? Dubya's legacy, or our own foolish pride? The Iraqis, who want us gone? Or do we obviously know what's best for them, even if we have to force it on them at gunpoint?

It's an absurd emotional argument, a guilt trip, even though you argue we're guilty of nothing... It might work on people who originally supported the invasion and have changed their minds, at least until they figure out it's just another way they're getting played for suckers...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Pabster-

I think the time has long passed to be debating the reasoning (or lack of it) for going in to Iraq. We are there now, and (IMHO) it is our responsibility to finish the job. We can't put an artificial timetable or restriction on that.

In other words, even though it was a total fabrication, a wild goose chase, a snipe hunt, an act of shooting ourselves in the foot, we have to keep it up, right? Our responsibility? to whom? Dubya's legacy, or our own foolish pride? The Iraqis, who want us gone? Or do we obviously know what's best for them, even if we have to force it on them at gunpoint?

I know you were being facetious, but oddly enough, I actually pretty much agree with that statement.

bitching and sniping at the charlie foxtrot that was the build up to iraq, though politically gratifying, is pointless at this point, and an immediate withdraw would be both dumb and dangerous, which is why no one in any position of authority and knowledge is pushing for one.

we do need an exit strategy, and I've never spared any kind words for Bush's execution of this war, but we need an exit strategy that leaves Iraq safe and secure, not one that gets our troops out no matter what the long term costs.

 

[Jhhnn]

I wasn't being facetious at all, loki8481.

The whole problem was summed up rather nicely by Dubya's daddy- "No Exit Strategy". That hasn't changed, and probably never will. It's like the quest for the holy grail, or Don Quixote jousting with windmills... a non-sequiter, a contradiction in terms, an absurdity.

Sooner or later, somebody will find a way to declare victory and get the hell out, much like Vietnam. there's no way out other than out- it's just that simple.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Pabster-

I think the time has long passed to be debating the reasoning (or lack of it) for going in to Iraq. We are there now, and (IMHO) it is our responsibility to finish the job. We can't put an artificial timetable or restriction on that.

In other words, even though it was a total fabrication, a wild goose chase, a snipe hunt, an act of shooting ourselves in the foot, we have to keep it up, right? Our responsibility? to whom? Dubya's legacy, or our own foolish pride? The Iraqis, who want us gone? Or do we obviously know what's best for them, even if we have to force it on them at gunpoint?

I know you were being facetious, but oddly enough, I actually pretty much agree with that statement.

bitching and sniping at the charlie foxtrot that was the build up to iraq, though politically gratifying, is pointless at this point, and an immediate withdraw would be both dumb and dangerous, which is why no one in any position of authority and knowledge is pushing for one.

we do need an exit strategy, and I've never spared any kind words for Bush's execution of this war, but we need an exit strategy that leaves Iraq safe and secure, not one that gets our troops out no matter what the long term costs.

That's not going to happen, even with a 20-year occupation and 20,000+ more dead Americans.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I wasn't being facetious at all, loki8481.

The whole problem was summed up rather nicely by Dubya's daddy- "No Exit Strategy". That hasn't changed, and probably never will. It's like the quest for the holy grail, or Don Quixote jousting with windmills... a non-sequiter, a contradiction in terms, an absurdity.

Sooner or later, somebody will find a way to declare victory and get the hell out, much like Vietnam. there's no way out other than out- it's just that simple.

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conehead433
Plans are in the works for a US military base on the Iraq/Iran border supposedly for the purpose of stopping weapons and suicide bombers coming into Iraq from Iran. In other words we're putting up a base there to be able to quickly strike targets within Iran. So I guess we'll be bringing democracy to yet another country in the near future. Heil Dubya!

source?

Here

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I wasn't being facetious at all, loki8481.

The whole problem was summed up rather nicely by Dubya's daddy- "No Exit Strategy". That hasn't changed, and probably never will. It's like the quest for the holy grail, or Don Quixote jousting with windmills... a non-sequiter, a contradiction in terms, an absurdity.

Sooner or later, somebody will find a way to declare victory and get the hell out, much like Vietnam. there's no way out other than out- it's just that simple.

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

What a totally absurd thing to say TLC. As if Patraeus is going to be right in even for the get GWB out of office short term, much less the 10 year stay the course hang on by our fingernails blood sweat and tears he promises long term.

Any fiction writer can write a novel, but in the real world the problem is, the various actors rarely bother to follow the script the director wrote.

Yes, TLC, we all saw the Patraeus report, the question is and remains, is it really I have a dream? The longer the term , the probable that it will be just that.

 

[Jhhnn]

From TLC-

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

That's not an exit strategy and we both know it. It's an effort to sell a continuation strategy based on the notion that there might be an exit strategy... well, someday, maybe, if we just manage to stay long enough, we might find one, honest... let me tease you by suggesting withdrawal of a small number of troops, OK? Feels good, huh?

Flimflam 101...

We might find sasquatch, too, but that effort won't kill tens of thousands or cost hundreds of billions, either...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From TLC-

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

That's not an exit strategy and we both know it. It's an effort to sell a continuation strategy based on the notion that there might be an exit strategy... well, someday, maybe, if we just manage to stay long enough, we might find one, honest... let me tease you by suggesting withdrawal of a small number of troops, OK? Feels good, huh?

Flimflam 101...

We might find sasquatch, too, but that effort won't kill tens of thousands or cost hundreds of billions, either...

You have no idea what Petraeus said, do you?

If you did then you'd know we do have an "Exit Strategy." Whether or not that strategy plays out is a completely separate issue and was not what you were claiming in the first place.

But, no problem. I'm used to you moving the goalposts around in here. It's not like I'm surprised or anything.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From TLC-

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

That's not an exit strategy and we both know it. It's an effort to sell a continuation strategy based on the notion that there might be an exit strategy... well, someday, maybe, if we just manage to stay long enough, we might find one, honest... let me tease you by suggesting withdrawal of a small number of troops, OK? Feels good, huh?

Flimflam 101...

We might find sasquatch, too, but that effort won't kill tens of thousands or cost hundreds of billions, either...

You have no idea what Petraeus said, do you?

If you did then you'd know we do have an "Exit Strategy." Whether or not that strategy plays out is a completely separate issue and was not what you were claiming in the first place.

But, no problem. I'm used to you moving the goalposts around in here. It's not like I'm surprised or anything.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No TLC, for your "did you see the Patraeus report" to work as a logical argument premise, you are in fact saying that the Patraeus report defines the goal post locations.

And now you are trying to blame those who point out the fallacy of your argument of being the ones that are moving the goal post when you initially stated those same goal posts are made immutable by the authority of Patraeus.

Of course you might also state the Patraeus report is really a meaningless maybe or maybe not with no predictive value. And in that case why blame anyone for plastic goal posts?

Now which is it? Please be logical. And please do not be surprised if any illogic you use will not be used against you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. You'd do well to say nothing when you really have nothing to say, TLC.

Petraeus said ~4000 troops departing in december won't be replaced, and that the "surge' troops will be withdrawn by next summer. *We already knew that.* The surge is unsustainable, always was, even admitted to be so from the start.

Troop levels will return to their pre-surge level of ~130,000 for the foreseeable future, *same as it ever was*...

Instead of merely claiming there's some sort of exit strategy, spell it out for us in concrete terms, not in the carefully crafted mumbo-jumbo of training the iraqis, which we've been doing for 4 years, or in terms of the Iraqi govt meeting some set of "goals", which has been promised for nearly as long... under the Petraeus scenario, well be there well into 2009, still engaging in a lot of bloodshed and wishful thinking... still needing more time... they'll always need more time... always going for the jackpot rather than for the door of the crooked casino...

Just declare victory and leave in a staged and organized fashion- the faithful will buy it, and they're the only ones buying the current song and dance, anyway...

Yeh, I know, that lovely porkbarrel will be empty, and we'll have to leave all the oil behind, but that's what'll happen anyway...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Like I already stated, you have no idea what he said.

Thanks for proving it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Craig234
The Moveon ad does an outstanding job of showing the lies of the right. That's what democracy is about - when the people in power lie, the lies are exposed.

The right, here, responds by lying again, this time about the Moveon ad.

Confronted with the lie, they squirm and slither, not admitting the lie, but rather with a phrase such as 'perhaps they knew to stop short of calling the General a genuine traitor.'

So, let's see how this goes. Let's say I accuse Palehorse of calling Hillary Clinton a crack dealer. He then quotes his post and shows he did not say it. I then say 'perhaps he knew to stop short of calling her a genuine crack dealer', and pretend I did not just admit any error. Now, that's debate for you.

One question for the right who whines about the left calling this the 'Bush report', not the 'Petraeus report': did the White House write the report, or did Petraeus write it?

Patraeus did say this:

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House's bidding, he said firmly, "I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress."

I'm open to someone clarifying what he wrote and what the White House wrote, though there's no doubt his own words are written aware of the political role he has, the White House's desires. You don't get appointed to those top positions generally if you don't understand that. But there have been widespread credible reports that the main 'Patreus Report' was written by the White House. We'd expect no less from this White House that censors its own officials, scientists, accountants, etc. on a regular basis for politics.

Just a couple examples off the top of my head include the accountant who knew the Medicare drug bill giveaway was going to be far more expensive than the White House was telling Congress, in order to get it passed in an extremely hard battle and close vote, and the non-scientist young man who was re-writing NASA documents on global warming to say we weren't sure about it.

 

[senseamp]

If a great general like Colin Powell can be used by this administration like a cheap prophylactic to screw this country and then thrown away with his reputation soiled, why should I trust any general speaking on their behalf? I will trust Patraeus when he retires, because that's the only time anyone in this junta seems to start telling the truth.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Like I already stated, you have no idea what he said.

Thanks for proving it.

No TLC we are not going to let you get away with forum trolling by an ego saving snappy come back deflection of "thanks for proving it." What precisely have you proved is still the question? We all know circular reasoning when we see it.

Its you who stated that Patraeus said something we should be paying attention to and you then have the logical onus to start the exercise in logic by explaining where we missed that "idea of what he said"

Some how the why question is never answered by a mere because I say so which your argument seems to boil down to.

Or to put it another way TLC, you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own phony data or your own phony logic.

Get used to it, we are going to hold you to the universal standard of logic.

 

[imported_Equinox]

TLC seems to be getting shot down and proven wrong in every thread today. I wonder if some of these guys who defend the administration beyond all logic are going to wake up and realize that the American people aren't buying it anymore? It is really easy to not buy it when every time you turn around someone catches a member or former member of the Bush White House in a lie on camera. Here is Donald Rumsfeld denying that he ever called Iraq an immediate threat to our nation on Face the Nation. Rumsfeld tries to play it off that they never said it, as folklore".

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b1_1189480839

Typical Bush Administration mentality "I didn't say that" followed by a record of them saying it, then they explain that they don't recall saying it and they meant something different. It would actually be amusing if it wasn't so sickening. This isn't Republican vs. Democrat - it is pure BS from the Bush administration vs. the truth now that their screw ups are coming to light.

EDIT: My apologies, I thought that was a recent lie. It turns out that was an older lie he was caught in, circa 2004. Please wait a minute or two, and I'll find a recent lie someone from the Bush administration got caught in.

 

[Lemon law]

I think Equinox is correct in stating that the American people are not buying it any more and quit buying it quite some time ago. One could go through the exercise of charting the history of public support as seen in various polls to better prove that Equinox contention.

The problem is that the buyers remorse of the American people has not resulted in any real policy changes since we started in 3/2003. There have been some minor policy changes, the troop numbers have moved up and down, more and more of our allies are with drawing, Iraqi events show that the various insurgencies are evolving, but we are still waiting and waiting for the same old military occupation to make progress while Iraqi social services and infrastructure still remain at or below 3/2004 levels.

It may be child play to make all kinds of swiss cheese holes in the logic of the the GWB administration and in the logic of those ever diminishing set of GWB&co supporters, but get a clue, its not translating into any changes.

Maybe its time to realize we critics are barking up the wrong tree. And we critics of the Iraq war need to take a good look at some of our lack of logic to explain why America is still stuck on stupid in Iraq. Or to put it another way, even if we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that group GWB is totally illogical, it does nothing to prove group antiGWB is therefore logical.

Although I don't have a link handy for it, the recent moveon.org ad is somewhat a example.
The first mistake may not be in per say logic but using the clever play on words phrase betrayus can only toss in the kinds of red raw meat emotion that can only stiffen the resolve
of the existing policy crowd. And adds emotional slogans exactly at a time when we critics
have to set the mood for logic. Even if the emotional gaff can be stripped away , the rest of the moveon.org ad is simply a large set of evidence to the effect that the Patraeus report will not be very credible and why. Then at the very bottom, in one giant leap of logic, it accuses
Gen. Petraeus of betraying us because he will not lead us out of Iraq for with. The problem is
the moveon.org spent zero time making the logical case that immediate US withdrawal is the best option or the only other option. Or that it won't get us out of the frying pan and into the fire.

And sorry I don't have the immediate time to develop the ideas further, but we critics not only have to have better logic but we need to unite on a common strategy or else we fragment into tiny and ineffective factions.

Which goes some way towards explaining why the current policy still stands despite the fact almost everyone knows its futile.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Equinox
TLC seems to be getting shot down and proven wrong in every thread today.

lol

Tell me again about those US Oil companies, Shell and BP.

:snicker;

The blinders you guys wear in here are really something.

 

[imported_Equinox]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Equinox
TLC seems to be getting shot down and proven wrong in every thread today.

lol

Tell me again about those US Oil companies, Shell and BP.

:snicker;

The blinders you guys wear in here are really something.

The one where the irony escapes you? Uh huh.

I'll let you in on a little secret, though, TLC. Nobody is buying it, even though many such as yourself are trying to sell it. Once again I have to wonder how much money is being spent to fund the campaign, though.

 

[manowar821]

IMO it sounds like yet another General has been strong armed into serving the assholes-in-charge.

That is not an exit strategy. Getting to "pre-surge" levels by next summer?? Wow, considering the "surge" was more accurately described as a trickle, what the hell good does that do us?

This government is a joke. A bureaucratic bloated war-lovin joke, and the only reason why I take it seriously is because people die as a result of it.

These people don't deserve any power whatsoever.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I wasn't being facetious at all, loki8481.

The whole problem was summed up rather nicely by Dubya's daddy- "No Exit Strategy". That hasn't changed, and probably never will. It's like the quest for the holy grail, or Don Quixote jousting with windmills... a non-sequiter, a contradiction in terms, an absurdity.

Sooner or later, somebody will find a way to declare victory and get the hell out, much like Vietnam. there's no way out other than out- it's just that simple.

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

Got a link to what changed?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I wasn't being facetious at all, loki8481.

The whole problem was summed up rather nicely by Dubya's daddy- "No Exit Strategy". That hasn't changed, and probably never will. It's like the quest for the holy grail, or Don Quixote jousting with windmills... a non-sequiter, a contradiction in terms, an absurdity.

Sooner or later, somebody will find a way to declare victory and get the hell out, much like Vietnam. there's no way out other than out- it's just that simple.

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

Got a link to what changed?

Nope, because afaik, nobody has Petraeus's charts available online yet.

btw, shouldn't you be following the latest talking point provided by the Democratic Rep from NY, the honorable Gary Ackerman? He basically asked Petraeus 'If the forces in Iraq are part of the WoT, how can we consider a drawdown of our forces at this time?'.

It was one of the many surreal questions fielded by the Dems to Petraeus yesterday.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I wasn't being facetious at all, loki8481.

The whole problem was summed up rather nicely by Dubya's daddy- "No Exit Strategy". That hasn't changed, and probably never will. It's like the quest for the holy grail, or Don Quixote jousting with windmills... a non-sequiter, a contradiction in terms, an absurdity.

Sooner or later, somebody will find a way to declare victory and get the hell out, much like Vietnam. there's no way out other than out- it's just that simple.

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

Got a link to what changed?

Nope, because afaik, nobody has Petraeus's charts available online yet.

btw, shouldn't you be following the latest talking point provided by the Democratic Rep from NY, the honorable Gary Ackerman? He basically asked Petraeus 'If the forces in Iraq are part of the WoT, how can we consider a drawdown of our forces at this time?'.

It was one of the many surreal questions fielded by the Dems to Petraeus yesterday.

I don't follow talking points, but apparently you do.

Since you know so much about the report, in your own words what changed?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I wasn't being facetious at all, loki8481.

The whole problem was summed up rather nicely by Dubya's daddy- "No Exit Strategy". That hasn't changed, and probably never will. It's like the quest for the holy grail, or Don Quixote jousting with windmills... a non-sequiter, a contradiction in terms, an absurdity.

Sooner or later, somebody will find a way to declare victory and get the hell out, much like Vietnam. there's no way out other than out- it's just that simple.

No Exit Strategy? You didn't see Petraeus's report today, eh?

Got a link to what changed?

Nope, because afaik, nobody has Petraeus's charts available online yet.

btw, shouldn't you be following the latest talking point provided by the Democratic Rep from NY, the honorable Gary Ackerman? He basically asked Petraeus 'If the forces in Iraq are part of the WoT, how can we consider a drawdown of our forces at this time?'.

It was one of the many surreal questions fielded by the Dems to Petraeus yesterday.

I don't follow talking points, but apparently you do.

Since you know so much about the report, in your own words what changed?

Petraeus presented a chart of the planned drawdown of troops that went beyond just the drawdown of surge forces by 08. It provided a plan for MNF withdrawal based on benchmarks being met. It was, in essence, an Exit Strategy so to say we don't have one is being dishonest, at best.

 

[Lemon law]

Of course there is always an exit strategy. First you need to have a dream of total victory. Then you just have to stubbornly hang on until that fantasy occurs. And then we can come back home. The problem is the fantasies GWB has will take something longer than the expected age of the universe to happen.