Victory - Iraqi Freedom

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Now if you want to be balanced and not just a puppet for the radical Left you can quote the quotes from Kerry, Clinton, Gore and other Democrats making the same claims.

---

Let's see...we are talking about Bush and the Iraq War...So what does Clinton and Gore have in common with this subject? Well,....nothing...They are the past, not the current administration...Now, Kerry, ran against the current administration...He did say that there were WMDs, but when he found out they were not there, he voted against it....

So, you are sore and still living in the past over Clinton and Gore. And you like to gloat over Kerry. What does that have to do with YOUR boy's poor handling of the war ....?

[Dr. Shane]

I guess that means you choose to be a puppet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Ah, so when faced with facts that you can not answer, you resort to name calling....

Bad form, Shane, bad form....

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Neil, I challenged you to show your objectivity in finding the quotes from Democrats that made the same claims as Bush. (The quotes are out there) You decided to remain biased and partisan - thus acting like a puppet. That is your choice. You choose which color to paint yourself.

The fact is that President Bush consulted former President Clinton before invading Iraq and former President Clinton supported the action. How is that not relavant?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I challenged you to show your objectivity in finding the quotes from Democrats that made the same claims as Bush.

---

It is not the responsibility of the opposing party, Shane, to bear responsibility of the decisions of the current leaders. The opposing party is to find and demand accountability for those decisions of those responsible. Bush and his ilk are responsible for leading this country into an illegal war. It is a failure of leadership when the oposing party fails to do it's part in holding the leadership accountable. You voted for him, and I am holding you accountable for it. The buck stops with YOU, Shane. Face it...you made a mistake and you know it.

[Dr. Shane]

More biased opinion and lack of objectivey. (yawn.....) I am growing tired.

[Neil D]

Shane, since I am a puppet of the left....care to tell me who is pulling my strings? Who am I mimicking? Whose words am I using to rebutt your position?

According to you, my opinion is biased. I must be reflecting someone else's opinion. So, since you are well versed in who is telling me what to say, whose point of view am I reflecting?

Come on, Shane. You have pointed out that I am a puppet. Someone must be pulling my strings...Who is it, Shane? It's put up or shut up time.

[bevin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...surviveforyears

Quote:

---

Iraq (news - web sites)'s insurgency will last many years, a senior U.S. official in Baghdad predicted Wednesday, tempering expectations that the success of the recent election would help end the violence that still threatens to undermine Iraq's journey toward democracy.

---

Quote:

---

Although the insurgency failed in its threat to significantly disrupt the voting, it is also becoming clear that the election is unlikely to make a major dent in the insurgency's base of support, an assortment of committed Islamic radicals and former regime supporters as well as disaffected Sunnis opposed to the U.S. presence.

---

Quote:

---

After a brief postelection lull, the pace of the violence has picked up. On Wednesday, a journalist, a government official and three politicians were assassinated and a top police officer was abducted from his car in Baghdad.

---

Interesting result so far.

The Shiites voted against Bush's puppet, in favor of a pro-Iranian group.

The Sunnis have rejected the whole voting process.

GWB has declared success (again).

/Bevin

[there buster]

Wow, and I just read how goin' around complainin', pointin' out what's wrong, isn't a good thing to do.

Musta been another Bevin.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The Shiites voted against Bush's puppet, in favor of a pro-Iranian group.

The Sunnis have rejected the whole voting process.

GWB has declared success (again).

---

It's a pity you don't see how cheap and easy what you do is.

If the elections favor (who?) whoever you think Bush does, you say it isn't really democratic.

If they don't, you say they rejected Bush's puppet.

Cheap. Easy. Unworthy.

Second-guessing and substituting fantasy perfection is a game any third grader can play.

Quote:

---

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt

---

That's what's happened to the Left. They've been reduced to carping. No ideas left. Cold and timid souls, indeed.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

That's what's happened to the Left. They've been reduced to carping. No ideas left. Cold and timid souls, indeed.

---

Ed, the left is saying that if we are going to have elections, let's do it so that it keeps the peace....What we see is the begining of civil war. The right is short sighted on this...I see Turkey, the Kurds, the Shiites. the Sunnis all fighting as soon as the americans leave. And we will leave....That's the problem...The right wingers break it, and the result is war. They make money playing each side against the other..... The neo-conservative like war so that they can sell weapons to each side.

[Bravus]

Those points are well taken, Ed, but the flip-side of that is the perspective that any comment that is not sycophantic is just sniping.

The election was a great and positive thing, but I don't think it's kneejerk criticism to suggest that (a) it's a bit early to be claiming success (flight suit or no flight suit) and ( the fact that the Sunnis, the former rulers of the country, boycotted the vote large-scale suggests that the fix is not going to be simple. I'd call that a clear-eyed look at the situation on the ground.

If we can all take off our partisan glasses - or at the very least know what color they are - we can move beyond sniping and criticism to trying to understand.

[there buster]

Sorry, no.

The left is not talking about peace, about liberty, or any long term goal. They are talking about an "exit strategy," which is what you talk about when you have no vision of victory.

[there buster]

No. the flip side is no sycophancy.

And here I thought the left was supposed to be so "nuanced?"

There is thoughtful criticism, and there is thoughtless criticism. There is difference of opinion on how to best implement a policy, and difference of opinion for the sake, as Neil says, of "opposing."

From England we get the expression "loyal opposition," which means, at base, we both desire the success of the country, and we'll do nothing to sabotage that, but we disagree about the means.

Today, the left has become just "the opposition," cheering every setback, selectively magnifiying episodes that undermine the country's efforts, all in the pursuit of -- I no longer can imagine what. For if their feverish wishes were granted, there would be no country worth governing.

I see it in the media, and I see it on CA: the total disdain the left has for anyone who disagrees with them. The anger, the invective-- call Bush a Nazi, call Ashcroft Hitler, assume that every motive of anyone slightly sympathetic to this administration is in the employ of the Devil.

And then talk about personal attacks!?? It takes one's breath away. And it does nothing to persuade.

Well, mindless opposition and mindless sycophancy are both stupid.

The problem is mistaking the strategy and tactics, details versus the big picture, similarity versus identity, the small for the great.

These things are not that difficult to distinguish. What is lacking is not intelligence, but will.

The endless, mindless mantra "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied." When examined in detail, these "lies" vanish.

No one is responsible for all the conclusions another might draw. I can tell you as someone who has published quite a few articles, no matter how carefully you edit something, someone will find something there that you never intended. Often they don't read what you wrote at all, they just take off on their favorite hobbyhorse.

I don't take issue with serious disagreement. I take issue with unserious arguments. Serious arguments cannot be based on thin air.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. There is, however, only one set of facts. When people cease to distinguish between the two, the argument is not worth my time.

[there buster]

One more thing

The "flight suit" comment is really petty. I've seen civilians taken up in military jets on the Discovery Channel, for example. They have to wear the flight suit.

The news media were there to cover the landing. What was he supposed to do, change in the cockpit?

Yes, it caused a temporary bump in Bush's popularity. But only until an absurd partisan attack reduced it.

We now know Gen Franks wanted the "Mission Accomplished" banner up. It was a signal that major combat operations were over. It was also a truism for the crew of the Abraham Lincoln. They had accomplished their mission.

Any sensible President would have done exactly the same thing. But the left would have welcomed it if Kerry had done it, or if Gore had done it, or if Clinton (irony of ironies) had done it.

This is the kind of trumped up indignation that makes sensible people write off the rest of the left's arguments.

It also tells people in the red states that the left is angry that anything went right for us in Iraq. With predictable electoral consequences.

[Bravus]

Will you posit the two facts I stated above? It's too early to talk about victory (as the title of this thread does) and the path to victory still has some way to go?

I believe both of those are facts, and that trumpeting success in their face is counter-factual and deserves to be thoughtfully challenged.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Sorry, no.

The left is not talking about peace, about liberty, or any long term goal. They are talking about an "exit strategy," which is what you talk about when you have no vision of victory.

---

Excuse me...I thought I was tallking to an intelligent individual who was willing to listen and discuss. Instead, I get told what the left thinks and everybody tells me that I'm on the left....[well, at least Shane keeps telling me that

]

Come on, Ed. Open your mind up and take out the Limbaugh filters. Truely, if you listen carefully, you can hear rational reason talk, and it would NOT sound like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh.

The left is talking peace...and yes, there is an exit stratigy because the middle east has a cultural problem...

Perhaps you have heard of Vandemans illustration of the Middleast with the frog and the scorpion...The scorpion wanted to get accross this pond and ask the frog to take him over to the other side. But the frog said "No, I will not do it. You have nver been a peaceful creature and you will sting me with your tail." But the scorpion said, "It is true that my stinger will kill, but I will not use it if you take me accross. You will be doing me a favor and you will earn some gratitude from my fellow creatures." So, the frog was persuaded to take the scorpion over. The Scorpion climbed onto the back of the frog and the frog started to swim accross. About half way across, the scorpion stung the frog with his stinger and the frog lamented, " What have you done? You have doomed both of us to die." "Ah, " said the scorpion, 'it is in my nature to sting".

And that is why the middle east is a hot bed of violance. It is in the nature of the various tribes to destroy one another at the first oppertunity. That is why the Kurds and the sunnis and the shiites are already preparing for civil war. Sure, they voted, but the shiites voted so that they will have power over the sunni and the kurds hold the oil fields, and the shiites will look over at the economic wealth and desire it. And the US will not know what to do once the civil war breaks out.

[there buster]

Well, there you go. Whether it's "too early" or not is a judgment call.

Was it "too early" to declare any victory at all in Europe before the Germans signed the treaty? Or had their been many signal victories along the way?

Was D-Day a victory? Should we have told the troops "You've done nothing until it's all over?"

Should Meade have wired Lincoln that there was no victory at Gettysburgh? Should Lincoln have not dedicated the cemetery there until it was all over?

It really boosted Lincoln's re-election prospects when Sherman conquered Atlanta late in the election campaign. Should that have been de-bunked as "taking partisan advantage" of the troops sacrifice. Did Karl Rove plan it?

Well, if we want to discourage the troops, and undermine morale on the home front, we can always say it's "too early." After all we still have troops in Korea, and it's not totally democratic according to some. I guess we shouldn't declare victory there, either.

On the other hand, if we think the entire civilized world has a stake in the success of Iraq as a free and just country, we might admit some things have gone well. We might declare little victories, accept that missions have been accomplished, that the troops' sacrifice is not all in vain until some utopian future.

Is there "some way to go." Of course. When I taught in the local college some years ago, I always urged my students to vote. Unlike my professors, I did not discuss politics in class at all, but I did urge students to vote. And I always related this story.

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, a woman walked up to Benjamin Franklin, and asked, "What kind of government did you give us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." And I always added. "It is still an open question whether we can keep it. That's why it's important to vote."

Yes, Iraq has ethnic, tribal, and regional divisions. Unlike the thirteen independent colonies in 1783--who went through 82 years of conflict to settle the slavery issue, and another 100 to deal with civil rights.

Yes, there's a long way to go before Philadelphia or Detroit resembles a real democracy. We're still working on it.

Your point was?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Open your mind up and take out the Limbaugh filters. Truely, if you listen carefully, you can hear rational reason talk, and it would sound like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh.

---

If you think I listen to them, you're not paying attention. Discussion over.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane, since I am a puppet of the left....care to tell me who is pulling my strings?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think you are in a better position to answer that question than I. I do admit that it is a good question. If you demonstated as much skepticism about the opinions of the radical Left as you do about Soo you would likely not be nearly as biased as you are. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I see it in the media, and I see it on CA: the total disdain the left has for anyone who disagrees with them. The anger, the invective-- call Bush a Nazi, call Ashcroft Hitler, assume that every motive of anyone slightly sympathetic to this administration is in the employ of the Devil.

---

Oh bother,....

I have never called Bush names, ie hitler, nazi....None of that is in my discussions. I leave that to someone who really hates Bush. Trouble is, I don't find those people here on C/A.

Ed, you say you never have listened to Limbaugh or O'Riley, or Hannity...Yet, the stuff you espouse is the same clap trap that comes from thier mouths. It has a source, and that source is the mindless sheep from Karl Rove, whose only purpose is to keep the Republican agenda on top.

Quote:

---

And then talk about personal attacks!?? It takes one's breath away. And it does nothing to persuade.

---

Personal attacks? I have defended myself and given the same foder that was given to me...Shane has said that I was a puppet for the left. Yet, he can not identify who I am mirroring...or who pulls my strings...And the reason is simple...there isnt anyone. And yes, it hurts when people, like Shane do those things. And what you have espoused in this post is the very same right wing dogma that continues. You may not listen to "those guys", but you listen to thier source....And you are not open to anything other than what they have said.

I will say it again because you will not listen....The middle east is heading for a civil war, and it was caused by Bush. He broke it.

Quote:

---

The endless, mindless mantra "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied." When examined in detail, these "lies" vanish.

---

You know, if he didn't lie, he sure gave an impression that he could have. Personally, I really do think that he mislead the US people to cause a war in the Middle East, all in the name of "national security". And now we got this ..new vietnam...He claims that there will be liberty and freedom spreading out in the middle east. All I see is the Shiite gaining more of a foot hold to import thier terror from Iran. Of course, Bush might just invade Iran or N. Korea...I hope to God that he doesn't. But I am afraid that he will.

And guess what? He will spend his political money because he has a political mandate from YOU.....

[there buster]

Feel better?

In any case, I'm not discussing this with you until your fever breaks.

[Neil D]

See Ed, that's exactly what a right winger would do....Do the personal attack. Turn the problem upon the left leaning individual.

And that's YOUR problem....not mine...

[there buster]

Shane, you'll never guess, I just heard the nuttiest thing:

"The middle east is heading for a civil war, and it was caused by Bush. He broke it."

Isn't that rich? Bush was born in 1946. So at two years of age he went over and broke the middle east. Wow! Was he precocious. Wars in '48, '67, '73.

Course, that's just Israel and her neighbors. The Arabian peninsula was in a state of constant war until the 1920's when King Saud personally hamstrung, then beheaded his tribal rival, then kissed the sword.

The Hashemites were moved from Mecca and Medina, where they'd lived for 1000 years, up to the Transjordan, where they suffered a civil war from Arafat in the '70's. And they feuded with the other Hashemites in Iraq off and on.

Syria invaded Lebanon in the 1970's and still occupies large parts of that. Suppose that's what they mean when they talk about the "occupied territories?"

Or is that Alsace-Lorraine?

Then there was the Iran/Iraq war that went on for nine years, and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Not to mention coups and assassinations from Algeria and Libya and Egypt and Ethiopia and the Sudan to Syria to Iran.

George W. was elected in 2000.

Guess they didn't know how good they had it.

Must've been a really nice place before George broke it.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Shane, since I am a puppet of the left....care to tell me who is pulling my strings?

---

I think you are in a better position to answer that question than I. I do admit that it is a good question. If you demonstated as much skepticism about the opinions of the radical Left as you do about Soo you would likely not be nearly as biased as you are. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.

---

Since you can not tell me who is my puppet master, then you need to shut that line of thinking up.

I can quote your sources. You can not quote mine...And since you are so quick to call me a puppet, but are unable to tell me who is pulling my strings, I think you should probably concider the allegation to yourself....Cause I can tell you who is pulling YOUR strings.