Who Won Iraq's "Decisive" Battle?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
And now TLC tells us where he has been for the past five years with---Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.

TLC, that has to be an incredibly stupid position to take. As if any of us anti victory types will take great pleasure if Iraq suddenly quits chugging along and instead erupts into some civil war or events spin out of all control. Many of us, me included, have made any number of suggestions on how to make things better and have a smarter strategy in Iraq. Bottom line, the stupidity and stubbornness of GWB&co. frustrate all of those suggestion, and it very much looks like we will have to wait for a smarter President and congress before anything gets better in Iraq.

We have spent five long years waiting for GWB to do anything positive, and the situation keeps getting worse and worse and worse. Sad to say, we may be further from "victory" now than on the day the first American troops set foot in Baghdad. What you contentiously label the anti victory forces want a victory for Iraq also. We are just smart enough to realize it WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITH THE STUPID STRATEGIES used by GWB&co.

TLC, your optimism combined with support for stupid strategies is a very dangerous combination. In your case, you may be only a fool, in the case of GWB, that dangerous combination has caused many hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, the dislocation of millions, perhaps two trillion in direct and indirect costs, as the nation I love loses allies and gains enemies.

And this is all somehow worth it because Iraq has not quite fallen apart yet?

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Martin
So I was going through the usual defeatist leftist literature and ran across this:

http://www.economist.com/world....cfm?story_id=10979883
The NYTimes/The Economist vs. TLC's Blogger

That's a tough one ;)

Highlights from that article:

If anyone has emerged from the affair with his authority enhanced, it may be Mr Sadr. He had been struggling to get his fractious movement to respect a ceasefire and was very likely enraged by an offensive that could have wrecked all his efforts. The young cleric appears to have decided that his movement's future lies not as a loose association of armed gangs but as a disciplined political movement.

The manner in which he successfully ordered his followers to pull back from the streets on March 30th, in exchange for terms including the release of detainees, will only have helped him in that aim.

And Mr Maliki? He has damaged his standing with his fellow Iraqis, as well as with the Americans, whom he is reported to have informed of the operation only just before it began. He may be abandoned by his Shia and Kurdish allies, and could be replaced by a less tarnished leader.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now TLC tells us where he has been for the past five years with---Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.

TLC, that has to be an incredibly stupid position to take. As if any of us anti victory types will take great pleasure if Iraq suddenly quits chugging along and instead erupts into some civil war or events spin out of all control. Many of us, me included, have made any number of suggestions on how to make things better and have a smarter strategy in Iraq. Bottom line, the stupidity and stubbornness of GWB&co. frustrate all of those suggestion, and it very much looks like we will have to wait for a smarter President and congress before anything gets better in Iraq.

We have spent five long years waiting for GWB to do anything positive, and the situation keeps getting worse and worse and worse. Sad to say, we may be further from "victory" now than on the day the first American troops set foot in Baghdad. What you contentiously label the anti victory forces want a victory for Iraq also. We are just smart enough to realize it WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITH THE STUPID STRATEGIES used by GWB&co.

TLC, your optimism combined with support for stupid strategies is a very dangerous combination. In your case, you may be only a fool, in the case of GWB, that dangerous combination has caused many hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, the dislocation of millions, perhaps two trillion in direct and indirect costs, as the nation I love loses allies and gains enemies.

And this is all somehow worth it because Iraq has not quite fallen apart yet?
Any day now, LL. Any day. Then you can finally bask in the defeat of GW Bush that you've been so desperately hoping for 5 years going so it can validate your political ideology. Clearly it's my optimism and hope for a bright future for Iraq that is dangerous, not your partisan desire to sacrifice an entire country and see Iraq go down in flames simply so you can smile at yourself smugly in the mirror and rejoice at the fact that G-Dub got his come-uppance for having the audacity not to follow your sage advice.

btw, I'd like to remind you that doting on GWB's strategies in this thread is patently ridiculous since Basra and going after the militias was entirely Maliki's plan. But any reason to beat that not quite dead horse some more is a valid reason, eh?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Martin
So I was going through the usual defeatist leftist literature and ran across this:

http://www.economist.com/world....cfm?story_id=10979883
The NYTimes/The Economist vs. TLC's Blogger

That's a tough one ;)

Highlights from that article:

If anyone has emerged from the affair with his authority enhanced, it may be Mr Sadr. He had been struggling to get his fractious movement to respect a ceasefire and was very likely enraged by an offensive that could have wrecked all his efforts. The young cleric appears to have decided that his movement's future lies not as a loose association of armed gangs but as a disciplined political movement.

The manner in which he successfully ordered his followers to pull back from the streets on March 30th, in exchange for terms including the release of detainees, will only have helped him in that aim.

And Mr Maliki? He has damaged his standing with his fellow Iraqis, as well as with the Americans, whom he is reported to have informed of the operation only just before it began. He may be abandoned by his Shia and Kurdish allies, and could be replaced by a less tarnished leader.
Yep. The NY Times, who still hasn't bothered to send a single reporter to Basra to cover what's happening there along with an unattributed article that also attempts to pat Sadr's bruised ass vs. some "blogger." Somehow that blogger is wrong, but not a soul in here will address the content of his post. Not a one. The rats scatter when that subject is broached.

Odd how that Economist article doesn't present the other side of the Mahdi militia with its abuse of the populace and iron-fisted efforts to enforce Shia law on all Iraq. Sadr's counterpart here in the US would be some sort of charismatic ultra-evangelist; the exact kind of person that the Times and Economist, along with that vast majority of this forum including myself, would despise with a passion. I guess when it suits your purpose though it's OK to polish a turd?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Now tell us another one TLC---btw, I'd like to remind you that doting on GWB's strategies in this thread is patently ridiculous since Basra and going after the militias was entirely Maliki's plan.

That is sure not the impression I got from reading the Ryan Crocker comments. Much of this plan was made in the USA and Crocker was quite specific about making the point Maliki weakened the plan by rushing into Basra too fast. I don't have the link handy, its already been cited on similar recent threads, but your ENTIRELY word is something I think will be impossible for you to justify.

At best, Maliki was supposed to use Iraqi forces to implement the plan and had a part in the planning.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now tell us another one TLC---btw, I'd like to remind you that doting on GWB's strategies in this thread is patently ridiculous since Basra and going after the militias was entirely Maliki's plan.

That is sure not the impression I got from reading the Ryan Crocker comments. Much of this plan was made in the USA and Crocker was quite specific about making the point Maliki weakened the plan by rushing into Basra too fast. I don't have the link handy, its already been cited on similar recent threads, but your ENTIRELY word is something I think will be impossible for you to justify.

At best, Maliki was supposed to use Iraqi forces to implement the plan and had a part in the planning.
Since you don't "have a link handy," I do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...93a32893&ex=1207540800

When Mr. Maliki met with General Petraeus on the morning of March 22, he indicated that his goal was to take on the ?criminals and gang leaders? in Basra, according to an account of the meeting by an American official. Mr. Maliki explained that the operation would be an Iraqi affair but that he might need air support from the Americans.

He said that he was going to meet with sheiks, religious figures and other local leaders, taking advantage of the additional leverage he hoped to gain by sending in troops, fostering economic development programs and sending teams of judges to try to punish corrupt and violent behavior.

?It was a unilateral decision by Maliki,? said an American official familiar with the session. ?It was a fait accompli.?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
TLC, all your link proves is that was jointly planned, the question of when Maliki got headstrong is academic.

But there is breaking news, it seems Al Sadr is now calling for dialog, and offers to disband the Mahdi army if senior Islamic clerics recommend it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...ckoRjwY42xwc.dQBys0NUE

I can do some speculating by saying it seems a clever move that may slow Maliki while buying Al Sadr some time.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,977
30,685
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Where have you been the last 5 years?
Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.
Do you behave this way in real life? This is a willful misrepresentation.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Where have you been the last 5 years?
Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.
Do you behave this way in real life? This is a willful misrepresentation.
That's amusing coming from a guy that unabashedly and shamefully misrepresents my comments in this forum to purposefully mold them into something I didn't say in the first place so he can argue those straw men. Then when asked to show me where I said what he claimed, he conveniently disappears into a puff of smoke and vapors.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,977
30,685
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Where have you been the last 5 years?
Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.
Do you behave this way in real life? This is a willful misrepresentation.
That's amusing coming from a guy that unabashedly and shamefully misrepresents my comments in this forum to purposefully mold them into something I didn't say in the first place so he can argue those straw men. Then when asked to show me where I said what he claimed, he conveniently disappears into a puff of smoke and vapors.
I didn't disappear at all. I told you very clearly that I would not participate in another argument over definitions with you when you had clearly retreated to it in an attempt to cut your losses yet again.

You were attempting to claim interpretations of your postings that no reasonable person would make, and I have no interest in indulging you considering your past history with such arguments.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I think eveybody is in too much of a hurry to judge who won or lost this latest skirmish. I suppose it's the American habit of wanting to see the scorecard immediately.

I don't think those of us in the West have a deep enough understanding of the situation in Iraq to get it right at this point in time.

If al Sadr decides to convert his Mahdi army into a "disciplined political party" I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

I see he's now trying pull al-Sistani into it:

Al-Sadr aide Hassan al-Zarqani said the cleric will consult Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other top Shiite clerics in the holy city of Najaf if the government continues to pressure him to disband the militia.

Al-Zarqani said in a telephone interview that al-Sadr "will obey" if al-Sistani, the highest Shiite authority in Iraq, and the other clerics recommend that he do so.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in an interview Sunday with CNN, issued his strongest warning yet to al-Sadr to disband his militia or face political isolation.

He said al-Sadr's followers would not be allowed "to participate in the political process or take part in upcoming elections unless they end the Mahdi Army."

He was referring to provincial elections expected in the fall that are likely to redistribute power in Iraq. The Sadrists have accused al-Maliki's government and rival parties of trying to diminish their standing ahead of the vote.
This could be interesting, but I doubt al-Sistani will take the bait. He and al Sadr are far apart as to the theology and role of Islam in government from what I've been led to believe.

Fern
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Where have you been the last 5 years?
Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.
Do you behave this way in real life? This is a willful misrepresentation.
That's amusing coming from a guy that unabashedly and shamefully misrepresents my comments in this forum to purposefully mold them into something I didn't say in the first place so he can argue those straw men. Then when asked to show me where I said what he claimed, he conveniently disappears into a puff of smoke and vapors.
I didn't disappear at all. I told you very clearly that I would not participate in another argument over definitions with you when you had clearly retreated to it in an attempt to cut your losses yet again.

You were attempting to claim interpretations of your postings that no reasonable person would make, and I have no interest in indulging you considering your past history with such arguments.
There you go again.

It wasn't about definitions so don't try to pretend it was. It was about YOU putting words in my mouth and making false claims about my statements; claims you clearly could not back up so you slithered away back into your hole.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,977
30,685
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There you go again.

It wasn't about definitions so don't try to pretend it was. It was about YOU putting words in my mouth and making false claims about my statements; claims you clearly could not back up so you slithered away back into your hole.
Whatever you need to tell yourself man. That thread, as most threads that you are involved in ended in me putting up my hands in disgust with you. If you want to take that as a sign of your victory, by all means do so.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Where have you been the last 5 years?
Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.
Do you behave this way in real life? This is a willful misrepresentation.
That's amusing coming from a guy that unabashedly and shamefully misrepresents my comments in this forum to purposefully mold them into something I didn't say in the first place so he can argue those straw men. Then when asked to show me where I said what he claimed, he conveniently disappears into a puff of smoke and vapors.
I didn't disappear at all. I told you very clearly that I would not participate in another argument over definitions with you when you had clearly retreated to it in an attempt to cut your losses yet again.

You were attempting to claim interpretations of your postings that no reasonable person would make, and I have no interest in indulging you considering your past history with such arguments.
There you go again.

It wasn't about definitions so don't try to pretend it was.[/b] It was about YOU putting words in my mouth and making false claims about my statements; claims you clearly could not back up so you slithered away back into your hole.
It absolutely WAS about "definitions."

The discussion was about a common-sense definition of what "lie" means, in the context of years of Bush/Cheney statements (conflating 9/11 with our invasion of Iraq) that any normal person would understand to mean that Saddam/Iraq had some causal connection to 9/11.

We KNOW that Saddam/Iraq had no causal relationship with 9/11, yet Bush/Cheney - even now - keep bringing up 9/11, tell us we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, and tell us that Iraq is the front line in the war of terror.

But you kept claiming that if people understand Bush or Cheney to by implying a causal relationship between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11, that's their problem. You refuse to acknowledge that Bush and Cheney are lying (since they know exactly what the common man understands their words to mean, yet keep using the same rhetoric). Instead, your response is, "I want absolute proof. Show me the hard evidence."

Despite numerous direct questions to establish a reasonable definition of the word "lie"- for example, asking you if it's a lie to make a statement that one KNOWS people will misunderstand to mean something contrary to the truth - you evade, evade, evade.

What it comes down to is that there are common-senses notions of what it means to lie, and Bush/Cheney meet the 95% theshold for that definition. Yet, with that argument staring you in the face, you hold out that last 5% ("Proof! Proof! I want proof!") and claim that Bush and Cheney are being truthful.

An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

But you play your games of evasion. So why should anyone engage in a dialog with you when you so obviously have no respect for intellectual honesty?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Generator asks--what does Sadr want.

Which sadly seems to invite the murky area of psychoanalysis and guess work.

But to hazard a guess, it would be to preserve the status quo and avoid being goaded into a fight Al Sadr does not want. If nothing else Al Sadr has the handicap of being perceived as still too young in a country that demands age of its clerics. And only a decade or so of time will cure that.

The more interesting question in my mind is Maliki. Who seems to be a man on a mission lately. Its also speculation, but I think Maliki was tired of being the guy everyone blamed for two long years. And decided to go for being an effective leader or bust. If nothing else, no one can say he is being too passive now.

But even then, I will label all that as speculation and not certainty. And I will also invite other comments because others may have some other takes on the matter.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,977
30,685
136
Originally posted by: shira

It absolutely WAS about "definitions."

The discussion was about a common-sense definition of what "lie" means, in the context of years of Bush/Cheney statements (conflating 9/11 with our invasion of Iraq) that any normal person would understand to mean that Saddam/Iraq had some causal connection to 9/11.

We KNOW that Saddam/Iraq had no causal relationship with Iraq, yet Bush/Cheney - even now - keep bringing up 9/11, tell us we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, and tell us that Iraq is the front line in the war of terror.

But you kept claiming that if people understand Bush or Cheney to by implying a causal relationship between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11, that's their problem. You refuse to acknowledge that Bush and Cheney are lying (since they know exactly what the common man understand their words to mean, yet keep using the same rhetoric). Instead, your response is, "I want absolute proof. Show me the hard evidence."

Despite numerous direct questions to establish a reasonable definition of the word "lie"- for example, asking you if it's a lie to make a statement that one KNOWS people will misunderstand to mean something contrary to the truth - you evade, evade, evade.

What it comes down to is that there are common-senses notions of what it means to lie, and Bush/Cheney meet the 95% theshold for that definition. Yet, with that argument staring you in the face, you hold out that last 5% ("Proof! Proof! I want proof!") and claim that Bush and Cheney are being truthful.

An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

But you play your games of evasion. So why should anyone engage in a dialog with you when you so obviously have no respect for intellectual honesty?
I think he's actually referring to another thread, but both the one you mentioned and mine were about definitions. After seeing what had happened in previous threads with those sorts of things, I declined to participate.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well the Shira question falsely maybe boils down to this statement----An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

When in fact, and there comes a point, where an Honest person has to say "Bush and Cheney are very very very very very very very likely lying" ( how many veryies do you want?)

At a certain point, an honest person has to admit the the reasonable shadow of the doubt assertion is so vanishingly small, that it can be safely discarded.

Maybe in a better situation we could precisely put a statistical confidence interval number on it. But right now your chance is about 99.99% against. Now do the math, .01 vs. 99.99. Its roughly 10,000 to 1 against. Yet because of that one chance in 10,000, you assert you have equal footing in the forum of truth. It does not work that way in the real world.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: shira
"definitions."

The discussion was about a common-sense definition of what "lie" means, in the context of years of Bush/Cheney statements (conflating 9/11 with our invasion of Iraq) that any normal person would understand to mean that Saddam/Iraq had some causal connection to 9/11.

We KNOW that Saddam/Iraq had no causal relationship with 9/11, yet Bush/Cheney - even now - keep bringing up 9/11, tell us we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, and tell us that Iraq is the front line in the war of terror.

But you kept claiming that if people understand Bush or Cheney to by implying a causal relationship between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11, that's their problem. You refuse to acknowledge that Bush and Cheney are lying (since they know exactly what the common man understands their words to mean, yet keep using the same rhetoric). Instead, your response is, "I want absolute proof. Show me the hard evidence."

Despite numerous direct questions to establish a reasonable definition of the word "lie"- for example, asking you if it's a lie to make a statement that one KNOWS people will misunderstand to mean something contrary to the truth - you evade, evade, evade.

What it comes down to is that there are common-senses notions of what it means to lie, and Bush/Cheney meet the 95% theshold for that definition. Yet, with that argument staring you in the face, you hold out that last 5% ("Proof! Proof! I want proof!") and claim that Bush and Cheney are being truthful.

An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

But you play your games of evasion. So why should anyone engage in a dialog with you when you so obviously have no respect for intellectual honesty?
You don't even know the thread we're discussing, so stay out of this.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,977
30,685
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: shira
"definitions."

The discussion was about a common-sense definition of what "lie" means, in the context of years of Bush/Cheney statements (conflating 9/11 with our invasion of Iraq) that any normal person would understand to mean that Saddam/Iraq had some causal connection to 9/11.

We KNOW that Saddam/Iraq had no causal relationship with 9/11, yet Bush/Cheney - even now - keep bringing up 9/11, tell us we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, and tell us that Iraq is the front line in the war of terror.

But you kept claiming that if people understand Bush or Cheney to by implying a causal relationship between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11, that's their problem. You refuse to acknowledge that Bush and Cheney are lying (since they know exactly what the common man understands their words to mean, yet keep using the same rhetoric). Instead, your response is, "I want absolute proof. Show me the hard evidence."

Despite numerous direct questions to establish a reasonable definition of the word "lie"- for example, asking you if it's a lie to make a statement that one KNOWS people will misunderstand to mean something contrary to the truth - you evade, evade, evade.

What it comes down to is that there are common-senses notions of what it means to lie, and Bush/Cheney meet the 95% theshold for that definition. Yet, with that argument staring you in the face, you hold out that last 5% ("Proof! Proof! I want proof!") and claim that Bush and Cheney are being truthful.

An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

But you play your games of evasion. So why should anyone engage in a dialog with you when you so obviously have no respect for intellectual honesty?
You don't even know the thread we're discussing, so stay out of this.
The principle is the same in both.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: shira
"definitions."

The discussion was about a common-sense definition of what "lie" means, in the context of years of Bush/Cheney statements (conflating 9/11 with our invasion of Iraq) that any normal person would understand to mean that Saddam/Iraq had some causal connection to 9/11.

We KNOW that Saddam/Iraq had no causal relationship with 9/11, yet Bush/Cheney - even now - keep bringing up 9/11, tell us we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, and tell us that Iraq is the front line in the war of terror.

But you kept claiming that if people understand Bush or Cheney to by implying a causal relationship between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11, that's their problem. You refuse to acknowledge that Bush and Cheney are lying (since they know exactly what the common man understands their words to mean, yet keep using the same rhetoric). Instead, your response is, "I want absolute proof. Show me the hard evidence."

Despite numerous direct questions to establish a reasonable definition of the word "lie"- for example, asking you if it's a lie to make a statement that one KNOWS people will misunderstand to mean something contrary to the truth - you evade, evade, evade.

What it comes down to is that there are common-senses notions of what it means to lie, and Bush/Cheney meet the 95% theshold for that definition. Yet, with that argument staring you in the face, you hold out that last 5% ("Proof! Proof! I want proof!") and claim that Bush and Cheney are being truthful.

An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

But you play your games of evasion. So why should anyone engage in a dialog with you when you so obviously have no respect for intellectual honesty?
You don't even know the thread we're discussing, so stay out of this.
The principle is the same in both.
You ran away in the other one too?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,977
30,685
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: shira
"definitions."

The discussion was about a common-sense definition of what "lie" means, in the context of years of Bush/Cheney statements (conflating 9/11 with our invasion of Iraq) that any normal person would understand to mean that Saddam/Iraq had some causal connection to 9/11.

We KNOW that Saddam/Iraq had no causal relationship with 9/11, yet Bush/Cheney - even now - keep bringing up 9/11, tell us we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, and tell us that Iraq is the front line in the war of terror.

But you kept claiming that if people understand Bush or Cheney to by implying a causal relationship between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11, that's their problem. You refuse to acknowledge that Bush and Cheney are lying (since they know exactly what the common man understands their words to mean, yet keep using the same rhetoric). Instead, your response is, "I want absolute proof. Show me the hard evidence."

Despite numerous direct questions to establish a reasonable definition of the word "lie"- for example, asking you if it's a lie to make a statement that one KNOWS people will misunderstand to mean something contrary to the truth - you evade, evade, evade.

What it comes down to is that there are common-senses notions of what it means to lie, and Bush/Cheney meet the 95% theshold for that definition. Yet, with that argument staring you in the face, you hold out that last 5% ("Proof! Proof! I want proof!") and claim that Bush and Cheney are being truthful.

An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

But you play your games of evasion. So why should anyone engage in a dialog with you when you so obviously have no respect for intellectual honesty?
You don't even know the thread we're discussing, so stay out of this.
The principle is the same in both.
You ran away in the other one too?
You sure you're over 40?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
You sure you're over 40?
What's very clear is that you are not. Not even close.

In other news, here's a bit of a different, and more in-depth, insight into Maliki's political isolation of Sadr:

Text

By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Associated Press Writers

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's major Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties have closed ranks to force anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or leave politics, lawmakers and officials involved in the effort said Sunday.

Such a bold move risks a violent backlash by al-Sadr's Shiite militia. But if it succeeds it could cause a major realignment of Iraq's political landscape.

The first step will be adding language to a draft election bill banning parties that operate militias from fielding candidates in provincial balloting this fall, the officials and lawmakers said. The government intends to send the draft to parliament within days and hopes to win approval within weeks.

"We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament," lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie said Sunday. "Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament."

Al-Sadr controls 30 of the 275 parliament seats, a substantial figure but not enough to block legislation.

Al-Rubaie said the threat was so serious that a delegation might have to discuss the issue with al-Sadr in person. The young cleric, who has disappeared from the public eye for nearly a year, is believed to be in the Iranian holy city of Qom.

In a rare public signal of dissent in Sadrist ranks, al-Rubaie complained that "those close" to al-Sadr "are radicals and that poses problems," suggesting that some of the cleric's confidants may be urging him toward a showdown.

"We must go and explain to him in person that there's a problem," he said.

U.S. officials have been pressing Iraq's government for years to disband the militias, including the Mahdi Army.

All major political parties are believed to maintain links to armed groups, although none acknowledge it. Some groups, including militias of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party and al-Sadr's chief rival, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, have been integrated into the government security services.

That put them nominally under the government's authority, although they are believed to maintain ties to the political parties and retain their command structures.

...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
At least in my opinion, a link posed by TLC that somewhat gets to part of the heart of the matter. And is maybe best summed up with the last of the link---All major political parties are believed to maintain links to armed groups, although none acknowledge it. Some groups, including militias of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party and al-Sadr's chief rival, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, have been integrated into the government security services.

That put them nominally under the government's authority, although they are believed to maintain ties to the political parties and retain their command structures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the big weasel words, at least in my opinion, is nominally under government control.

And now it seems that Maliki has singled out just Al Sadr. When the real problem Maliki must confront is to break the power of all the Iraqi insurgencies. When the natural enemy of all Iraqi insurgencies is the central government as an oil and water never mix problem. As Maliki loses some Shia political support, he has gained some Sunni and Kurdish support. The real joker in the deck may be what international support Maliki can pick up. And the other joker is what happens if Sadr simply deals off the Mahdi army to a supporter yet retains the civilian social service arm that delivers social services to much of Sadr city. All of these questions and more are likely to be put to the test in the coming months.
As the Iraqi civilian government finally starts to become relevant. And who knows, it may happen, starts to tell GWB&co that they are no longer the sole deciders in Iraq. Something that never happened in Vietnam, and as we all know, that one went in the L column.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY