kallend 2,182
Skyrad 0
Do sharks shit in the sea?
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
that poll is a quagmire
www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how
You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net
You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net
headoverheels 334
QuoteI don't need to, The results will be the same as your poll and have about the same credibility.
You don't think that someone can be in favor of the war, and still recognize the quagmire?
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteI don't need to, The results will be the same as your poll and have about the same credibility.
You don't think that someone can be in favor of the war, and still recognize the quagmire?
Not if you have the "you're either for us or against us" mentality.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Lucky... 0
QuoteDo sharks shit in the sea?
Not ones that live in the ocean
Lucky... 0
Quotethat poll is a quagmire
No, that poll is a rhetorical question.
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>want to see why we could not lose militarily but can lose politically?
We can't lose militarily as long as we have military goals (destruction of an organized army, for example.) We can easily lose militarily if we give our military goals they cannot accomplish - like, say, ending violence. (Soldiers CAUSE violence; it's their job.)
The basic problem here is that we were misled into a war based on false information. Once that was obvious, our government started casting about for new reasons to justify the war. Problem with that is that once you say "we invaded so the people of Iraq do not have to live in fear" then you've automatically set a goal - you must end terrorism in Iraq to "win." And with enough impossible goals, you are destined to fail.
Example of how one can fail to achieve one's objective without "losing" any military battles:
---------------
Iraq is more free every day. The lives of the citizens are improving every day. And one thing is for certain; there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms. (GWB, 1/12/04)
No one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces. Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? (GWB, 3/19/04)
Daylight Tuesday brought the discovery of at least 86 shot or strangled men across the city, most of them with hands tied and many of them tortured, according to police. They included 27 corpses in one of the first mass graves to be found in the capital since the U.S. invasion three years ago..
(WaPo, 3/12/06)
Torture in Iraq is reportedly worse now than it was under deposed president Saddam Hussein, the United Nations' chief anti-torture expert said Thursday. Manfred Nowak described a situation where militias, insurgent groups, government forces and others disregard rules on the humane treatment of prisoners. "What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Nowak, the global body's special investigator on torture. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." (AP 9/21/06)
-----------
So we're losing that particular battle. Not because our troops are incapable or incompetent, and not because the democrats are trying to make us lose. We are losing because our president made a boneheaded decision to shift the focus of the war from stopping a WMD program, or finding Bin Laden, to "ending torture" (and half a dozen other justifications.) Which has turned out to be politically troubling as well; turns out other countries sometimes expect us to live up to our word when it comes to issues like torturing enemies.
We can't lose militarily as long as we have military goals (destruction of an organized army, for example.) We can easily lose militarily if we give our military goals they cannot accomplish - like, say, ending violence. (Soldiers CAUSE violence; it's their job.)
The basic problem here is that we were misled into a war based on false information. Once that was obvious, our government started casting about for new reasons to justify the war. Problem with that is that once you say "we invaded so the people of Iraq do not have to live in fear" then you've automatically set a goal - you must end terrorism in Iraq to "win." And with enough impossible goals, you are destined to fail.
Example of how one can fail to achieve one's objective without "losing" any military battles:
---------------
Iraq is more free every day. The lives of the citizens are improving every day. And one thing is for certain; there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms. (GWB, 1/12/04)
No one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces. Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? (GWB, 3/19/04)
Daylight Tuesday brought the discovery of at least 86 shot or strangled men across the city, most of them with hands tied and many of them tortured, according to police. They included 27 corpses in one of the first mass graves to be found in the capital since the U.S. invasion three years ago..
(WaPo, 3/12/06)
Torture in Iraq is reportedly worse now than it was under deposed president Saddam Hussein, the United Nations' chief anti-torture expert said Thursday. Manfred Nowak described a situation where militias, insurgent groups, government forces and others disregard rules on the humane treatment of prisoners. "What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Nowak, the global body's special investigator on torture. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." (AP 9/21/06)
-----------
So we're losing that particular battle. Not because our troops are incapable or incompetent, and not because the democrats are trying to make us lose. We are losing because our president made a boneheaded decision to shift the focus of the war from stopping a WMD program, or finding Bin Laden, to "ending torture" (and half a dozen other justifications.) Which has turned out to be politically troubling as well; turns out other countries sometimes expect us to live up to our word when it comes to issues like torturing enemies.
Amazon 7
QuoteNot if you have the "you're either for us or against us" mentality.
Hey... the correct line is STAY THE COURSE...
Personally I want to see Bush.. and Cheney... and Rummy and the rest of the PNAC Chickenhawks.... ON THE FUCKING COURSE.
QuoteSoldiers CAUSE violence; it's their job
Ummm Bill.........I know you weren't in the military so I don't expect you to know this........"Security and Stability Operations" ARE conduted by the military. Stick to what ya know.
QuoteThey included 27 corpses in one of the first mass graves to be found in the capital since the U.S. invasion three years ago..
27 WHOLE corpses? I'm not saying that's great news but I think you are comparing apples and oranges. When Saddam did mass graves he did it in a BIG way. How about the "Anfal" operations where he first gassed the Kurds and then took the ones that survived out into the desert and shot them. There were THOUSANDS of bodies in those mass graves. I think that report was attempting to be a bit inflamatory. Thanks for biting on that one.
QuoteManfred Nowak described a situation where militias, insurgent groups, government forces and others disregard rules on the humane treatment of prisoners.
OK..........now this was the funniest one. Come on Bill...........since when do "Militias and insurgent groups" follow any rules?
billvon 3,132
>"Security and Stability Operations" ARE conduted by the military.
And does the military perform these operations by giving out flowers - or by using (or threatening to use) violence?
The military uses violence to accomplish its aims. That's why they give you weapons rather than flowers.
>There were THOUSANDS of bodies in those mass graves.
Right. So our claim to fame is now "our mass graves are smaller than Saddam's." (Although our "new Iraq" does seem to torture people more often.) Pretty sad when we go from claiming "there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms" to "our mass graves are smaller, and at least we're not usually the people doing all the torturing."
>since when do "Militias and insurgent groups" follow any rules?
Seldom! Too bad we didn't think about that _before_ going to war, eh?
And does the military perform these operations by giving out flowers - or by using (or threatening to use) violence?
The military uses violence to accomplish its aims. That's why they give you weapons rather than flowers.
>There were THOUSANDS of bodies in those mass graves.
Right. So our claim to fame is now "our mass graves are smaller than Saddam's." (Although our "new Iraq" does seem to torture people more often.) Pretty sad when we go from claiming "there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms" to "our mass graves are smaller, and at least we're not usually the people doing all the torturing."
>since when do "Militias and insurgent groups" follow any rules?
Seldom! Too bad we didn't think about that _before_ going to war, eh?
Quoteor by using (or threatening to use) violence?
So you're saying that police in the states use nothing but violence to accomplish their goals? Bill.......stop being silly.
QuotePretty sad when we go from claiming "there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms" to "our mass graves are smaller, and at least we're not usually the people doing all the torturing."
So get busy building US troops a "Mind Scope" for all their weapons. So you'll know who is a terrorist or insurgent and only shoot the bad guys.
QuoteSeldom! Too bad we didn't think about that _before_ going to war, eh?
So we shouldn't have come here because the enemy might do something scary and bad?
Thanks for the entertainment Bill.
bch7773 0
iraq is very quagmireriffic.
MB 3528, RB 1182
MB 3528, RB 1182
billvon 3,132
>So you're saying that police in the states use nothing but violence
>to accomplish their goals? Bill.......stop being silly.
Police in the US have the advantage that most people here obey laws. They write tickets. When's the last time you wrote a terrorist a ticket? How many points on their license do they get if they blow up a fruit stand?
But when the shit hits the fan, and they are presented with a guy who does NOT respect the law, the nightsticks and the weapons come out. They rely on violence as a last resort as well. Our military is our last resort when diplomacy fails. And they do a great job as that last resort. They're just not so good at nation-building.
>So get busy building US troops a "Mind Scope" for all their weapons.
Sorry, you'll have to rely on good judgement for those sort of calls.
>So we shouldn't have come here because the enemy might
>do something scary and bad?
?? Are you answering someone else? That had nothing to do with what I was saying.
To get back to what I was talking about - Most people understand the usefulness of planning FIRST, acting SECOND. Perhaps the next administration will realize that as well. I hope so.
>to accomplish their goals? Bill.......stop being silly.
Police in the US have the advantage that most people here obey laws. They write tickets. When's the last time you wrote a terrorist a ticket? How many points on their license do they get if they blow up a fruit stand?
But when the shit hits the fan, and they are presented with a guy who does NOT respect the law, the nightsticks and the weapons come out. They rely on violence as a last resort as well. Our military is our last resort when diplomacy fails. And they do a great job as that last resort. They're just not so good at nation-building.
>So get busy building US troops a "Mind Scope" for all their weapons.
Sorry, you'll have to rely on good judgement for those sort of calls.
>So we shouldn't have come here because the enemy might
>do something scary and bad?
?? Are you answering someone else? That had nothing to do with what I was saying.
To get back to what I was talking about - Most people understand the usefulness of planning FIRST, acting SECOND. Perhaps the next administration will realize that as well. I hope so.
QuoteBut when the shit hits the fan, and they are presented with a guy who does NOT respect the law, the nightsticks and the weapons come out
Ummm..........same thing happens here Bill.
They're just not so good at nation-building.
That's why there are a TON of other agencies here taking care of the lion's share of those duties. The State Dept does most of the "Nation Building."
QuoteSorry, you'll have to rely on good judgement for those sort of calls.
I make those decisions MANY times most days. It's a tough job but isn't near as scary now that I have been doing it for over a year. It was down right terrifying when I first started.
QuoteAre you answering someone else?
Nope..........you said we should have somehow planned for and inferred that we might have been able to change the behavior of the enemy here. Ummm.........Please enlighten me. I wouldn't have a clue as to how we could do that.
billvon 3,132
>Ummm..........same thing happens here Bill.
Right. Cops DO use violence as a last resort. Soldiers use it as a first resort because the militart is ALREADY a last resort. Calling the military to build a nation is like calling the SWAT team to give someone a parking ticket.
>That's why there are a TON of other agencies here taking care of the lion's share of those duties.
Yep. (Although they are apparently not doing a very good job.)
>Nope..........you said we should have somehow planned for and
> inferred that we might have been able to change the behavior of the
> enemy here. Ummm.........Please enlighten me. I wouldn't have a
> clue as to how we could do that.
Think about how we beat our enemy in the Cold War. (How we 'changed their behavior' in your parlance.) The USSR was a much more dangerous enemy than the Iraqi insurgence; yet we did a much better job at defeating them. How did we do that?
Right. Cops DO use violence as a last resort. Soldiers use it as a first resort because the militart is ALREADY a last resort. Calling the military to build a nation is like calling the SWAT team to give someone a parking ticket.
>That's why there are a TON of other agencies here taking care of the lion's share of those duties.
Yep. (Although they are apparently not doing a very good job.)
>Nope..........you said we should have somehow planned for and
> inferred that we might have been able to change the behavior of the
> enemy here. Ummm.........Please enlighten me. I wouldn't have a
> clue as to how we could do that.
Think about how we beat our enemy in the Cold War. (How we 'changed their behavior' in your parlance.) The USSR was a much more dangerous enemy than the Iraqi insurgence; yet we did a much better job at defeating them. How did we do that?
QuoteSoldiers use it as a first resort because the militart is ALREADY a last resort.
Not these days Bill. Not even close.
QuoteThe USSR was a much more dangerous enemy than the Iraqi insurgence; yet we did a much better job at defeating them. How did we do that?
I see what point you are trying to make Bill but you're comparing apples and oranges. With the USSR we had the option of deterrance. Basically "You attack us and we nuke you." This gave us TIME to fight them in proxy wars and do all the other stuff that led to their downfall. Can't exactly do that with transnational terrorists.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
billvon 3,132
>>Soldiers use it as a first resort because the military is ALREADY a last resort.
>Not these days Bill. Not even close.
Which is sad, and is one reason (IMO) that we are in the current quagmire.
>With the USSR we had the option of deterrance.
Right. "You attack us and we destroy you." They didn't attack us (other than via weaker proxies that weren't much of a threat) and we just sat back and let them disintegrate. We could have easily done the same with Saddam.
>Not these days Bill. Not even close.
Which is sad, and is one reason (IMO) that we are in the current quagmire.
>With the USSR we had the option of deterrance.
Right. "You attack us and we destroy you." They didn't attack us (other than via weaker proxies that weren't much of a threat) and we just sat back and let them disintegrate. We could have easily done the same with Saddam.
That is the work of Politicians who choose to play by the Giap school of patriotism.
want to see why we could not lose militarily but can lose politically? look at who want us to lose in order to gain politically.
The report in question refers to Iraqi politics, not US politics. If we have lost that, it is the fault of our leaders and the Iraqi government they have installed.
None of which is actually relevant to discerning whether or not the situation in Iraq fits the dictionary definition of "quagmire".
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.