countezero
Registered Senior Member
You people? Your myths? You need help. All I did was post a link to an article that is germane to the discussion...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Iraq: Violence 70% Down Since June
- Thread starter Hani
- Start date
You people? Your myths? You need help. All I did was post a link to an article that is germane to the discussion...
countezero: "You people?"
It's a general reference to the people who have been supporting extremely reckless US foreign policy, and rallying to the rollout of each successive propaganda campaign. If the shoe fits, wear it out.
"Your myths?"
A general reference to the lies that have been used to justify that misguided policy.
"You need help."
Buffalo Roam: "[hypewaders] just got back from his electroshock therapy."
Thanks for the samples of traditional authoritarianistic response to dissent. Authoritarianists should be defensive, because continual failures will bring about the continued unseating of the liars you consider defensible as our leaders. Go ahead and call me crazy, and the Surge another Mission Accomplished- This is your chance to sell this point for all it's worth, before the next convulsion of American-precipitated carnage in Iraq. Go ahead and rally for the next Surge, and declare "Mission Accomplished" again at the next prompting from your minders. Keep repeating the same behavior, expecting a different result. And keep denying the results. We'll soon all clearly see if it is the supporters or dissenters from present policy who are most detached from reality.
Iraq remains still demolished as a state. American clout in the Mideast is in freefall. The props beneath the US economy are splintering one by one. Those of you who supported this hubristic over-reach own it, and nobody else is buying. Enjoy.
It's a general reference to the people who have been supporting extremely reckless US foreign policy, and rallying to the rollout of each successive propaganda campaign. If the shoe fits, wear it out.
"Your myths?"
A general reference to the lies that have been used to justify that misguided policy.
"You need help."
Buffalo Roam: "[hypewaders] just got back from his electroshock therapy."
Thanks for the samples of traditional authoritarianistic response to dissent. Authoritarianists should be defensive, because continual failures will bring about the continued unseating of the liars you consider defensible as our leaders. Go ahead and call me crazy, and the Surge another Mission Accomplished- This is your chance to sell this point for all it's worth, before the next convulsion of American-precipitated carnage in Iraq. Go ahead and rally for the next Surge, and declare "Mission Accomplished" again at the next prompting from your minders. Keep repeating the same behavior, expecting a different result. And keep denying the results. We'll soon all clearly see if it is the supporters or dissenters from present policy who are most detached from reality.
Iraq remains still demolished as a state. American clout in the Mideast is in freefall. The props beneath the US economy are splintering one by one. Those of you who supported this hubristic over-reach own it, and nobody else is buying. Enjoy.
hypewaders,
I don't think anybody is declaring "Mission Accomplished" now. All we're saying that violence is 80% down, foreign fighters numbers are down, refugees are going back to Iraq in busloads. These are facts.
Our American friends are adding to these facts the fact that these facts were the direct result of the surge. The surge was proposed by the president, fact. It was opposed by democrats, fact. It worked great, fact. Someone was right and another was wrong, fact.
Live with facts.
I don't think anybody is declaring "Mission Accomplished" now. All we're saying that violence is 80% down, foreign fighters numbers are down, refugees are going back to Iraq in busloads. These are facts.
Our American friends are adding to these facts the fact that these facts were the direct result of the surge. The surge was proposed by the president, fact. It was opposed by democrats, fact. It worked great, fact. Someone was right and another was wrong, fact.
Live with facts.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
It's a general reference to the people who have been supporting extremely reckless US foreign policy, and rallying to the rollout of each successive propaganda campaign. If the shoe fits, wear it out.
I haven't supported anything, which if you bothered to read my posts before attempting to label me as a part of your fit of juvenile anger, you might understand. I've said the War in Iraq is mistake. Several times. Arguing that leaving would only exacerbate the problem there is not the same thing as "supporting" current US foreign policy. To that, I would also add that reacting to and commenting on reality (IE that the surge appears to be working, as best as I can tell) hardly warrants your petulance and your labels.
A general reference to the lies that have been used to justify that misguided policy.
Well, frankly, I can think of several places you can shove your general references, largely because they are that: General. In other words, don't use me as a foil for you to rant and rave about with your hyperbolic slander. I know that sort of behavior is probably cathartic for you, but when it involves wrongly applying labels that distort and slander a person's positions, you should be prepared for that person to be pretty pissed off with you.
Thanks for the samples of traditional authoritarianistic response to dissent. Authoritarianists should be defensive, because continual failures will bring about the continued unseating of the liars you consider defensible as our leaders. Go ahead and call me crazy, and the Surge another Mission Accomplished- This is your chance to sell this point for all it's worth, before the next convulsion of American-precipitated carnage in Iraq. Go ahead and rally for the next Surge, and declare "Mission Accomplished" again at the next prompting from your minders. Keep repeating the same behavior, expecting a different result. And keep denying the results. We'll soon all clearly see if it is the supporters or dissenters from present policy who are most detached from reality.
You remind me of the teacher from the Peanuts. You know, the one who drones on and one and the words are never quite clear? Again, your post is little more than a rant, and it's a wasted one, in that it assumes things that aren't true and assigns positions to people that aren't accurate.
For someone who is capable of erudite and challenging posts, the above offering, as well as the one that preceeded it, are somewhat surprising. In other words, I know you're capable of more. Unfortunately, having been on the wrong-end of several in the past, I also know your capable of these types on nonsensical tantrums...
What contrived melodrama. I have not abused you, countzero- Only your apparent operating assumptions. I have been assailing the distortions that are being readily accepted and upheld as truth, without singling you out for "hyperbolic slander". Your protestations seem like just another attempt at diversion from the subject.
Unfortunately, 2007 has been the deadliest year yet for the American expedition in Iraq. But thankfully, civilian casualties -never accounted for with much American diligence or concern before- have indeed abated in recent months. Fighting has been relatively slight lately. From a flux of refugees that has been even larger than that caused by the events of 1948, a trickle has been seen to return. When we take the time to learn their stories, we find that desperation and not optimism is the most apparent motivator. These Iraqis have discovered the limitations of hospitality in neighboring countries for those fleeing the occupation and civil war. Among those who have gone back, there are many stories from them about returning to find their own neighborhoods and homes entirely inaccessible to them, while favored militias have been hastily deputized (not by the Iraqi gov't, but by American forces) and armed up to rule their new sectarian enclaves. Meanwhile, no political reconciliation among Iraqis has been occurring during the recent lull in fighting, and we're being told (and some of us hail the news) that this all means great progress has been made.
I remember the lulls I experienced first-hand in Lebanon in the 70s and 80s. I know that war doesn't have a steady appetite- especially civil wars. Combattants go through phases of consolidating politically and logistically, then return to slugging it out, until one or more sides can't sustain the fight, or until there is an accord or truce among warring parties. None of the competing sects in Iraq are out of the fight, or making concessions by any means- They are still being armed up right now by their various international sponsors, and still mum about their intentions. Civil war in Iraq has not come to any conclusion, and the American occupation is not healing the shredding of Iraq that it wrought. Because a resented foreign intervention precipitated sectarian conflict in Iraq, it has a crippled mandate for the resolution of Iraq's deepening political crisis.
hani: "I don't think anybody is declaring "Mission Accomplished" now."
The Bush White House is declaring "Mission Accomplished" for the Surge. They have been using this lull to help America pretend that we are gaining control of the situation with neighborhood lockdowns and weapons handouts. It's a very hasty assumption, intended to shore up domestic American support for "Staying the Course".
"All we're saying that violence is 80% down, foreign fighters numbers are down, refugees are going back to Iraq in busloads. These are facts."
So if this is not propaganda, why has there been silence from the same sources when violence has rocketed up by 80% or more? Who invented this silly game of percentages of violence, anyway? What do you mean by "foreign fighter numbers"? And "busloads" of refugees? Surely you are aware that something over 2 million Iraqis have fled their country since its "liberation", and surely you are aware that millions more are internally displaced- fearful to return to their homes.
"Our American friends are adding to these facts the fact that these facts were the direct result of the surge. The surge was proposed by the president, fact. It was opposed by democrats, fact. It worked great, fact. Someone was right and another was wrong, fact."
It isn't that simple. Many important factors are being ignored, and a highly-simplistic cause and effect is being assumed.
"Live with facts."
We have official and parroted propaganda running strong at present, that has recently been taking a micro view of things and extrapolating it into Mission Accomplished for the Surge, but it really isn't as simple as that, however much some might wish it to be so. Iraq is not a more secure nation, just because separate enclaves are being armed up and locked down, while the Iraqi "government" persists in failure to assert itself. We're being lied to again. Those who still can't see that now will watch with the rest of us at this promising "news" about the Triumph of the Surge matures, and our tragic story continues.
Because I recognize both window-dressing and false advertising in recent propaganda, I have differing expectations than you, countezero, and hani. But there's no call for whining about being personally slighted, and nothing to be gained by repeating official oversimplications and convenient implications. With time, we'll know who has been putting recent events into the most realistic context here, and who has been part of the spinning.
Unfortunately, 2007 has been the deadliest year yet for the American expedition in Iraq. But thankfully, civilian casualties -never accounted for with much American diligence or concern before- have indeed abated in recent months. Fighting has been relatively slight lately. From a flux of refugees that has been even larger than that caused by the events of 1948, a trickle has been seen to return. When we take the time to learn their stories, we find that desperation and not optimism is the most apparent motivator. These Iraqis have discovered the limitations of hospitality in neighboring countries for those fleeing the occupation and civil war. Among those who have gone back, there are many stories from them about returning to find their own neighborhoods and homes entirely inaccessible to them, while favored militias have been hastily deputized (not by the Iraqi gov't, but by American forces) and armed up to rule their new sectarian enclaves. Meanwhile, no political reconciliation among Iraqis has been occurring during the recent lull in fighting, and we're being told (and some of us hail the news) that this all means great progress has been made.
I remember the lulls I experienced first-hand in Lebanon in the 70s and 80s. I know that war doesn't have a steady appetite- especially civil wars. Combattants go through phases of consolidating politically and logistically, then return to slugging it out, until one or more sides can't sustain the fight, or until there is an accord or truce among warring parties. None of the competing sects in Iraq are out of the fight, or making concessions by any means- They are still being armed up right now by their various international sponsors, and still mum about their intentions. Civil war in Iraq has not come to any conclusion, and the American occupation is not healing the shredding of Iraq that it wrought. Because a resented foreign intervention precipitated sectarian conflict in Iraq, it has a crippled mandate for the resolution of Iraq's deepening political crisis.
hani: "I don't think anybody is declaring "Mission Accomplished" now."
The Bush White House is declaring "Mission Accomplished" for the Surge. They have been using this lull to help America pretend that we are gaining control of the situation with neighborhood lockdowns and weapons handouts. It's a very hasty assumption, intended to shore up domestic American support for "Staying the Course".
"All we're saying that violence is 80% down, foreign fighters numbers are down, refugees are going back to Iraq in busloads. These are facts."
So if this is not propaganda, why has there been silence from the same sources when violence has rocketed up by 80% or more? Who invented this silly game of percentages of violence, anyway? What do you mean by "foreign fighter numbers"? And "busloads" of refugees? Surely you are aware that something over 2 million Iraqis have fled their country since its "liberation", and surely you are aware that millions more are internally displaced- fearful to return to their homes.
"Our American friends are adding to these facts the fact that these facts were the direct result of the surge. The surge was proposed by the president, fact. It was opposed by democrats, fact. It worked great, fact. Someone was right and another was wrong, fact."
It isn't that simple. Many important factors are being ignored, and a highly-simplistic cause and effect is being assumed.
"Live with facts."
We have official and parroted propaganda running strong at present, that has recently been taking a micro view of things and extrapolating it into Mission Accomplished for the Surge, but it really isn't as simple as that, however much some might wish it to be so. Iraq is not a more secure nation, just because separate enclaves are being armed up and locked down, while the Iraqi "government" persists in failure to assert itself. We're being lied to again. Those who still can't see that now will watch with the rest of us at this promising "news" about the Triumph of the Surge matures, and our tragic story continues.
Because I recognize both window-dressing and false advertising in recent propaganda, I have differing expectations than you, countezero, and hani. But there's no call for whining about being personally slighted, and nothing to be gained by repeating official oversimplications and convenient implications. With time, we'll know who has been putting recent events into the most realistic context here, and who has been part of the spinning.
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
hypewaders
You need to live with the facts, and the facts are that violence is down, and the Iraqis are abandoning alQueda in Iraq, and deciding that sectarian violence is not the answer,.
The breather, brought with the surge allowed for more Iraq units to come on line, and they are having a effect.
You need to live with the facts, and the facts are that violence is down, and the Iraqis are abandoning alQueda in Iraq, and deciding that sectarian violence is not the answer,.
The breather, brought with the surge allowed for more Iraq units to come on line, and they are having a effect.
Buffalo Roam: "You need to live with the facts, and the facts are that violence is down"
Make no mistake, I'm glad violence is down. We differ on expectations, regarding the long-term meaning of the past few weeks.
"the Iraqis are abandoning alQueda in Iraq"
Al-Qaeda, and the variously-applied al-Qaeda label has never been the real issue in Iraq. That's just propaganda talking.
"deciding that sectarian violence is not the answer."
I don't think it's the answer. But I do expect it will be the result of carving up neighborhoods and enabling the arming-up of sectarian militias.
"The breather, brought with the surge allowed for more Iraq units to come on line, and they are having a effect."
The effect is the drawing of multiplying battle lines. The changes have not been in the Iraqi Army- they have been in the freedom of operation for smaller militias. There has been no national reconciliation in this recent period- only further division.
Make no mistake, I'm glad violence is down. We differ on expectations, regarding the long-term meaning of the past few weeks.
"the Iraqis are abandoning alQueda in Iraq"
Al-Qaeda, and the variously-applied al-Qaeda label has never been the real issue in Iraq. That's just propaganda talking.
"deciding that sectarian violence is not the answer."
I don't think it's the answer. But I do expect it will be the result of carving up neighborhoods and enabling the arming-up of sectarian militias.
"The breather, brought with the surge allowed for more Iraq units to come on line, and they are having a effect."
The effect is the drawing of multiplying battle lines. The changes have not been in the Iraqi Army- they have been in the freedom of operation for smaller militias. There has been no national reconciliation in this recent period- only further division.
hypewaders,
The analogy to Lebanon is totally incorrect and I'll tell you why.
The Lebanese war was between Syria (with which were allied 50-60% of the Lebanese) and Lebanon (~40% of Lebanese were loyal to the Lebanese state, namely the Christians because they were the ones who invented that country anyway).
The Iraqi war is between Iraq (to which ~80% of Iraqis are loyal) and the alliance of Al-qaida, Iran, and Syria (to which less than 20% of Iraqis are loyal).
20% cannot beat 80%. They can cause chaos and a lot of destruction but they can never win. Sunnis are slowly beggining to understand that and this is why they have been changing their course lately. More and more Sunnis are joining Iraq and less are staying with the other side. So you have to realize that things are moving forward, Iraq is improving because of political reasons not because of the surge.
To believe that additional few thousands of American troops have brought violence in Iraq 80% down is, in my modest opinion, too simplistic and maybe absurd. Democrats were right when they said that the surge would not change anything because it really wouldn't. What has happened is that most Sunnis now are on the side of Iraq and this is what has turned things around.
This is my official opinion, I may have sometimes ascribed the improvement to the surge but I wasn't serious then. The surge has been a facilitating factor, that's all.
The analogy to Lebanon is totally incorrect and I'll tell you why.
The Lebanese war was between Syria (with which were allied 50-60% of the Lebanese) and Lebanon (~40% of Lebanese were loyal to the Lebanese state, namely the Christians because they were the ones who invented that country anyway).
The Iraqi war is between Iraq (to which ~80% of Iraqis are loyal) and the alliance of Al-qaida, Iran, and Syria (to which less than 20% of Iraqis are loyal).
20% cannot beat 80%. They can cause chaos and a lot of destruction but they can never win. Sunnis are slowly beggining to understand that and this is why they have been changing their course lately. More and more Sunnis are joining Iraq and less are staying with the other side. So you have to realize that things are moving forward, Iraq is improving because of political reasons not because of the surge.
To believe that additional few thousands of American troops have brought violence in Iraq 80% down is, in my modest opinion, too simplistic and maybe absurd. Democrats were right when they said that the surge would not change anything because it really wouldn't. What has happened is that most Sunnis now are on the side of Iraq and this is what has turned things around.
This is my official opinion, I may have sometimes ascribed the improvement to the surge but I wasn't serious then. The surge has been a facilitating factor, that's all.
Hani: "The analogy to Lebanon is totally incorrect and I'll tell you why."
An analogy can only be carried so far- just because a particular set of factors correlate, does not mean that all factors (especially dissimilar ones) will correlate. This should always be understood by both the writer and readers of analogies.
A comparison similarly compares similar things, but does not typically extrapolate that what is being compared will wind up the same: Apples can rot in much the same way as oranges. This does not mean that apples are like oranges in every way.
Analogies and comparisons can be useful in illustrating a concept, such as the reality that things are no more simple and stable in Iraq than Lebanon. No, Iraq is not equivalent to Lebanon in every way. Of course, the future of Iraq will not follow the exact past of Lebanon. But they are both Arab countries that are suffering because of sectarianism, war, and the aftermath thereof. I evoked Lebanon only to illustrate this, and nothing more. This does require that you know a little bit about the War of Lebanon (1975-1982).
"The Lebanese war was between Syria ... and Lebanon ..."
Absolutely not. It was and remains much more complex than that. That's like saying Iraqi good-guys are at war with terrorist bad-guys- It's such an overgeneralization that it's useless to approach except to dismiss it.
"The Iraqi war is between Iraq (to which ~80% of Iraqis are loyal) and the alliance of Al-qaida, Iran, and Syria (to which less than 20% of Iraqis are loyal)."
A useless overgeneralization.
"20% cannot beat 80%."
20% of Iraqis did not destroy the equalibrium that held Iraq together in the Saddam era. 0% of Iraqis did. This disaster was hatched by acolytes of the Project for a New American Century, who had very little interface with, and even less understanding of Iraq.
"They can cause chaos and a lot of destruction but they can never win."
That's true of most despoilers.
"Sunnis are slowly beggining to understand that and this is why they have been changing their course lately. More and more Sunnis are joining Iraq and less are staying with the other side."
Sources?
"So you have to realize that things are moving forward, Iraq is improving because of political reasons not because of the surge."
The Surge did not ameliorate Iraqi divisions. The Surge has intensified them.
"To believe that additional few thousands of American troops have brought violence in Iraq 80% down is, in my modest opinion, too simplistic and maybe absurd."
I disagree. The larger the occupation force, the more unrest can be suppressed. It's a direct relationship. The United States is increasingly isolated in its Iraq policy, and lacks both the sustainable forces and political capital to permanently ramp up troop levels. With forces comparable to the Nazi or Soviet occupations of Czechoslovakia or Poland (for example) resistance and insurgency could be suppressed for a sustained period of time.
Obviously, that is not, and never will be the case in Iraq. This is not a controlled burn. American leadership launched this expedition without a basic understanding of the strategic requirements. As a result, minorities continue to maintain, and improve upon with outside support, the means of asserting themselves violently. It has happened frequently in the Mideast for well-armed minorities to kick the shit out of less-prepared majorities. If you can't see that, you really haven't paid very keen attention to modern history; human history for that matter.
"Democrats were right when they said that the surge would not change anything because it really wouldn't."
It has changed the domestic political dialogue in the USA. It has given the expedition breathing room until after the Presidential election, unless there is some disaster. Mission Accomplished.
"What has happened is that most Sunnis now are on the side of Iraq and this is what has turned things around."
No sovereign, viable Iraqi government exists in reality for Sunnis, or for anyone to ally themselves with. The present regime in Iraq is entirely propped up by an occupation that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis within every ethnic delineation rejects.
"This is my official opinion, I may have sometimes ascribed the improvement to the surge but I wasn't serious then."
We can change our opinions, and remain serious. It's part of learning.
"The surge has been a facilitating factor, that's all."
You should be able to recognize that this respite has also afforded Sunni militias who are not satisfied with Shi'a leadership to separate and organize politically and militarily.
You should also be able to recognize that Saudi Arabia is terrified of new Shi'a regimes in the Gulf region, because they have a valid fear of a Shi'a domino effect running right down through the Eastern Province, through the heart of their petroleum holdings.
You should be able to recognize that there are powerful elements trying to keep the Sunni minority throughout the Gulf region disproportionately armed and dangerous. These interests have certainly not been idle during the lull.
An analogy can only be carried so far- just because a particular set of factors correlate, does not mean that all factors (especially dissimilar ones) will correlate. This should always be understood by both the writer and readers of analogies.
A comparison similarly compares similar things, but does not typically extrapolate that what is being compared will wind up the same: Apples can rot in much the same way as oranges. This does not mean that apples are like oranges in every way.
Analogies and comparisons can be useful in illustrating a concept, such as the reality that things are no more simple and stable in Iraq than Lebanon. No, Iraq is not equivalent to Lebanon in every way. Of course, the future of Iraq will not follow the exact past of Lebanon. But they are both Arab countries that are suffering because of sectarianism, war, and the aftermath thereof. I evoked Lebanon only to illustrate this, and nothing more. This does require that you know a little bit about the War of Lebanon (1975-1982).
"The Lebanese war was between Syria ... and Lebanon ..."
Absolutely not. It was and remains much more complex than that. That's like saying Iraqi good-guys are at war with terrorist bad-guys- It's such an overgeneralization that it's useless to approach except to dismiss it.
"The Iraqi war is between Iraq (to which ~80% of Iraqis are loyal) and the alliance of Al-qaida, Iran, and Syria (to which less than 20% of Iraqis are loyal)."
A useless overgeneralization.
"20% cannot beat 80%."
20% of Iraqis did not destroy the equalibrium that held Iraq together in the Saddam era. 0% of Iraqis did. This disaster was hatched by acolytes of the Project for a New American Century, who had very little interface with, and even less understanding of Iraq.
"They can cause chaos and a lot of destruction but they can never win."
That's true of most despoilers.
"Sunnis are slowly beggining to understand that and this is why they have been changing their course lately. More and more Sunnis are joining Iraq and less are staying with the other side."
Sources?
"So you have to realize that things are moving forward, Iraq is improving because of political reasons not because of the surge."
The Surge did not ameliorate Iraqi divisions. The Surge has intensified them.
"To believe that additional few thousands of American troops have brought violence in Iraq 80% down is, in my modest opinion, too simplistic and maybe absurd."
I disagree. The larger the occupation force, the more unrest can be suppressed. It's a direct relationship. The United States is increasingly isolated in its Iraq policy, and lacks both the sustainable forces and political capital to permanently ramp up troop levels. With forces comparable to the Nazi or Soviet occupations of Czechoslovakia or Poland (for example) resistance and insurgency could be suppressed for a sustained period of time.
Obviously, that is not, and never will be the case in Iraq. This is not a controlled burn. American leadership launched this expedition without a basic understanding of the strategic requirements. As a result, minorities continue to maintain, and improve upon with outside support, the means of asserting themselves violently. It has happened frequently in the Mideast for well-armed minorities to kick the shit out of less-prepared majorities. If you can't see that, you really haven't paid very keen attention to modern history; human history for that matter.
"Democrats were right when they said that the surge would not change anything because it really wouldn't."
It has changed the domestic political dialogue in the USA. It has given the expedition breathing room until after the Presidential election, unless there is some disaster. Mission Accomplished.
"What has happened is that most Sunnis now are on the side of Iraq and this is what has turned things around."
No sovereign, viable Iraqi government exists in reality for Sunnis, or for anyone to ally themselves with. The present regime in Iraq is entirely propped up by an occupation that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis within every ethnic delineation rejects.
"This is my official opinion, I may have sometimes ascribed the improvement to the surge but I wasn't serious then."
We can change our opinions, and remain serious. It's part of learning.
"The surge has been a facilitating factor, that's all."
You should be able to recognize that this respite has also afforded Sunni militias who are not satisfied with Shi'a leadership to separate and organize politically and militarily.
You should also be able to recognize that Saudi Arabia is terrified of new Shi'a regimes in the Gulf region, because they have a valid fear of a Shi'a domino effect running right down through the Eastern Province, through the heart of their petroleum holdings.
You should be able to recognize that there are powerful elements trying to keep the Sunni minority throughout the Gulf region disproportionately armed and dangerous. These interests have certainly not been idle during the lull.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
What contrived melodrama.
This from the person ranting and raving...
I have not abused you, countzero- Only your apparent operating assumptions.
You have attempted to lump me in with people and a mindset that are not my own, and in doing so, condemn me through your appreciation of my guilty associations. This is rhetorical foolishness.
You also babbled incoherantly and spewed forth a lot of other nonsense, which was noticed by people other than myself. If you can't recognize this, that's not my problem.
I have been assailing the distortions that are being readily accepted and upheld as truth, without singling you out for "hyperbolic slander". Your protestations seem like just another attempt at diversion from the subject.
I've posted numerous links in this thread, each of them laden with facts. All we get from you are rants, attacks, anecdotal observations, opinions and subjective appreciations. The rants and attacks aside, that's fine. But observation, opinion and subjective appreciations are not terribly compelling without factual data to back them up, no matter how articulately they are argued.
I have nothing invested in this discussion. Nothing. I am merely reacting to the data I see before me. When the data changes, I reassess my appreciation of it and arrive at new conclusions. You, however, seem invested in being right, and in having your opinion proven. OK. Fine. As I said to your buddy a few pages ago, this discussion has begun to bore me, largely because it's not a reality-based discussion. It's people defending their ideologies and their prisms. Defend all you want. I really don't care. I'll go back to reading my magazines and my newspapers, and I'll leave you to your babbling about how you know more about what's going on thousands of miles beyond your horizon than anyone else on this website.
"You have attempted to lump me in with people and a mindset that are not my own"
Although I have consistently avoided making this thread about you, it is in fact my understanding that you support the idea that the recent decline in combat in Iraq is indicative of successful nation-building on the part of the USA; that recent events indicate an improvement in the Iraqi political situation. That has been the impression you have left me. If I have misread you, instead of whining or resignation, why not clarify your position right now? Don't be afraid- I'll respond politely and attentively.
Although I have consistently avoided making this thread about you, it is in fact my understanding that you support the idea that the recent decline in combat in Iraq is indicative of successful nation-building on the part of the USA; that recent events indicate an improvement in the Iraqi political situation. That has been the impression you have left me. If I have misread you, instead of whining or resignation, why not clarify your position right now? Don't be afraid- I'll respond politely and attentively.
That is not a fact. That is a presumption, with as yet no supporting evidence, and there is much reason to doubt it.hani said:Our American friends are adding to these facts the fact that these facts were the direct result of the surge.
I listed several sources of doubt, and there are others.
But beyond the simple observation of complexity, there is the further point that even if the surge did that directly and without help and jsut as advertised, no praise is yet in order - because those things would then be just possible indicators of future success, not present success itself.
We did not invade Iraq to keep the violence there to the 2004/2005 levels. So far the surge has achieved nothing in results. It is input, not output.
I just noticed that I overlooked some of your questions above, Hani- so here goes:
"so who do you think is responsible for you not returning to your places?"
Reckless and harmful US policies have made it dangerous to be American in many places, some of which are old favorites of mine.
"is it America or Hizbullah and its ALLIES?"
It has been consistently bad American foreign policy that has resulted in resentments on top of resentments. The rise of Hezbullah began while I was in Lebanon. They had a militia post not far from my apartment, and they were never creepy toward the Americans in the community.
"did America do harm to your country?"
Yes, my country (the USA) has done considerable harm to others, fomenting a pervasive resentment all across the Mideast that has sharply increased in response to the policies of the present US Administration.
"No."
Yes. Still the US Government has long been deeply involved in Mideast affairs, but rarely as an impartial agent, and often as a disruptor of progress.
"Did Iran do?"
I remember when triumphal Khomeini posters were all over Beirut, and the Islamic Revolution was being proclaimed- yet it wasn't a threatening environment for Americans then.
"So who's the wrong side?"
This isn't a football match. It's no simple situation of two sides, one "wrong" and one "right". But if it were, it would be far better for American policymakers to refrain from referee-ing, and refrain from introducing further gunplay in the Arab League. We aren't welcome, and forcing the issue only makes us less so, leaving Americans abroad, and American national interests increasingly vulnerable to angry reprisals.
"so who do you think is responsible for you not returning to your places?"
Reckless and harmful US policies have made it dangerous to be American in many places, some of which are old favorites of mine.
"is it America or Hizbullah and its ALLIES?"
It has been consistently bad American foreign policy that has resulted in resentments on top of resentments. The rise of Hezbullah began while I was in Lebanon. They had a militia post not far from my apartment, and they were never creepy toward the Americans in the community.
"did America do harm to your country?"
Yes, my country (the USA) has done considerable harm to others, fomenting a pervasive resentment all across the Mideast that has sharply increased in response to the policies of the present US Administration.
"No."
Yes. Still the US Government has long been deeply involved in Mideast affairs, but rarely as an impartial agent, and often as a disruptor of progress.
"Did Iran do?"
I remember when triumphal Khomeini posters were all over Beirut, and the Islamic Revolution was being proclaimed- yet it wasn't a threatening environment for Americans then.
"So who's the wrong side?"
This isn't a football match. It's no simple situation of two sides, one "wrong" and one "right". But if it were, it would be far better for American policymakers to refrain from referee-ing, and refrain from introducing further gunplay in the Arab League. We aren't welcome, and forcing the issue only makes us less so, leaving Americans abroad, and American national interests increasingly vulnerable to angry reprisals.
Last edited:
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Although I have consistently avoided making this thread about you, it is in fact my understanding that you support the idea that the recent decline in combat in Iraq is indicative of successful nation-building on the part of the USA; that recent events indicate an improvement in the Iraqi political situation. That has been the impression you have left me.
Then you need to learn how to read for comprehension. The main thrust of my posts in this thread have had nothing to do with nation-building or the Iraqi political situation. Most of my participation, minus my tangential disagreement with your buddy, has dealt with my appreciation of stories about the military successes of the surge.
You also need to be accurate and remember what has happened here. What set you off was not any position I argued, but a link I posted to a story about Democratic and Republican attitudes about the surge. How this provides you with an adequate springboard for your bizarre and generalization-filled rant, I don't know — but it did.
If I have misread you, instead of whining or resignation, why not clarify your position right now? Don't be afraid- I'll respond politely and attentively.
Don't try to cover your ridiculous behavior with this chest-thumping malarky about being "afraid." And don't posit that pointing out your asinine behavior and correcting your gross inaccuracies is "whining." It's pointing out your asinine behavior and your gross inaccuracies.
Baloney. Almost none of your posting here has had any such subject.count said:Most of my participation, minus my tangential disagreement with your buddy, has dealt with my appreciation of stories about the military successes of the surge.
This is the thread I line-counted your posts in, if you recall. So memory can be corrected by observation.count said:You also need to be accurate and remember what has happened here.
Well if you want to be technical, you haven't argued any position at all except your opinions of the failings of other posters. Anyone who wants to stay on topic in the thread has to make some guesses as to what these - arguments? - mean as far as the OP. Have these guesses really been all that far wrong ?count said:What set you off was not any position I argued, but a link I posted to a story about Democratic and Republican attitudes about the surge. How this provides you with an adequate springboard for your bizarre and generalization-filled rant, I don't know — but it did.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
The last thing this argument needs is for you to butt in and add your two-cents, but if you insist on playing the consumate jerk, then by all means continue.
I've posted numerous links in this thread, laden with facts that support the reality that the violence is down in Iraq.
"Count" and "correct" away. I've already addressed elsewhere how your fradulently attempted to portray my posts in this thread because you had an axe to grind. If you want to go through all that again, and in doing so, further derail this discussion, I can't stop you. I can, however, point out how silly and how useless it is by saying the following: It's useless.
That's an interesting intepretation of how you view the thread, which was originally derailed because you wanted to fight about or dispute (numerous) sources (with nothing more than your opinion) and engage in a puerile and woefully inaccurant rant about the New York Times (with nothing more than your opinion). But hey, you like apparently like repeating yourself. So go right ahead.
Baloney. Almost none of your posting here has had any such subject.
I've posted numerous links in this thread, laden with facts that support the reality that the violence is down in Iraq.
This is the thread I line-counted your posts in, if you recall. So memory can be corrected by observation.
"Count" and "correct" away. I've already addressed elsewhere how your fradulently attempted to portray my posts in this thread because you had an axe to grind. If you want to go through all that again, and in doing so, further derail this discussion, I can't stop you. I can, however, point out how silly and how useless it is by saying the following: It's useless.
Well if you want to be technical, you haven't argued any position at all except your opinions of the failings of other posters. Anyone who wants to stay on topic in the thread has to make some guesses as to what these - arguments? - mean as far as the OP. Have these guesses really been all that far wrong ?
That's an interesting intepretation of how you view the thread, which was originally derailed because you wanted to fight about or dispute (numerous) sources (with nothing more than your opinion) and engage in a puerile and woefully inaccurant rant about the New York Times (with nothing more than your opinion). But hey, you like apparently like repeating yourself. So go right ahead.
And little or no "appreciation", contrary to your claim. Just the links, not even with quotes illustrating your point (whatever it was).count said:I've posted numerous links in this thread, laden with facts that support the reality that the violence is down in Iraq.
So am I correct in guessing that you mean to imply that the violence being down in Iraq is a positive gain brought about by the surge as presented, and represents a step or two of progress toward the ostensible goals, rather thancount said:{rest of post, once again illustrating standard content and style, freely insertable into almost any thread on this forum}
say, for one possibility,
a consequence of Petraeus having given up on the original purpose of US occupation, adjusted to the reality on the ground and in Washington, and taken what he can get in the short run by cutting deals with the tribal Sunni and Iranian-allied Baghdad Shia ?
countezero: "The last thing this argument needs is for you to butt in and add your two-cents"
It's not an argument- It's a sidebar, wherein I've been trying to tease an opinion from behind your bristling armor. I've followed iceaura's participation with interest, not only because we often agree, but first because there's no need to guess about where he stands. I've appreciated and followed your links countezero, but would appreciate your opinion even more.
This isn't SciReadingLists. Hang around here enough, and people may frequently seek your opinion.
I suspect yours goes deeper than "violence is down in Iraq" and "my appreciation of stories about the military successes of the surge". Fear isn't causing you to hold back, you say, and that's great- Duly noted.
So returning to the topic- Since we all know that violence went down in Iraq this Fall- Let's move further in our discussion.
Do you perceive it that the US agenda is gaining traction there? Does it appear to you that ethnic segregation and empowerment of sectarian militias promote American goals such as pacification and re-unification of Iraq in the medium and long term?
It's not an argument- It's a sidebar, wherein I've been trying to tease an opinion from behind your bristling armor. I've followed iceaura's participation with interest, not only because we often agree, but first because there's no need to guess about where he stands. I've appreciated and followed your links countezero, but would appreciate your opinion even more.
This isn't SciReadingLists. Hang around here enough, and people may frequently seek your opinion.
I suspect yours goes deeper than "violence is down in Iraq" and "my appreciation of stories about the military successes of the surge". Fear isn't causing you to hold back, you say, and that's great- Duly noted.
So returning to the topic- Since we all know that violence went down in Iraq this Fall- Let's move further in our discussion.
Do you perceive it that the US agenda is gaining traction there? Does it appear to you that ethnic segregation and empowerment of sectarian militias promote American goals such as pacification and re-unification of Iraq in the medium and long term?
countezero
Registered Senior Member
And little or no "appreciation", contrary to your claim. Just the links, not even with quotes illustrating your point (whatever it was).
My point is that the violence is down. It would have been nice to move on to additional points or talk about what the violence being down means, but some people, like yourself, wouldn't even accept the violence is down, because they wanted to attack the sources, attack the methodology behind the sources and attack the American media in general (all with nothing more than opinion, of course). So any limitations on my postings here are due entirely to those sort of "sidebars," as Hype calls them.
So am I correct in guessing that you mean to imply that the violence being down in Iraq is a positive gain brought about by the surge as presented, and represents a step or two of progress toward the ostensible goals, rather than say, for one possibility, a consequence of Petraeus having given up on the original purpose of US occupation, adjusted to the reality on the ground and in Washington, and taken what he can get in the short run by cutting deals with the tribal Sunni and Iranian-allied Baghdad Shia ?
Yes, I think the surge decreased the violence, but I have no idea what Petraeus' motivations is or what philosophy is driving his strategy. Nor would I presume to make any claims that go beyond what the man says. He was given a job to reduce the violence in Iraq. What we're seeing today is his solution to that problem. Will it last? Does it lead to larger American goals? I'm not sure this thread was started to address that, but we can certainly talk about them if the discussion is destined to evolve that way, and if the "sidebars" are kept to a minimum.
It's not an argument- It's a sidebar, wherein I've been trying to tease an opinion from behind your bristling armor. I've followed iceaura's participation with interest, not only because we often agree, but first because there's no need to guess about where he stands. I've appreciated and followed your links countezero, but would appreciate your opinion even more.
My opinion is the violence in Iraq is down, and I've supported that with numerous facts. Several people initially resisted this claim, despite its apparent evidence, and sought instead to launch into issues that have little or nothing to do with the thread's topic. Some, like yourself, have even blessed everyone with bizarre rants that are so esoteric that they border on incomprehensible.
This isn't SciReadingLists. Hang around here enough, and people may frequently seek your opinion.
Oh, cherish the day when people like you actually seek my opinion (and don't attempt to undermine it or ridicule me). As for the reading list quip, I post links to bolster my argument and to educate people who are offering up little more than the glory of their unsubstantiated opinion. Facts with opinions tend to make said opinions more persuasive. The education component is key, too. I seem to remember you make several claims in another thread about Al-Qaeda that directly disputed known facts. And this is why facts are good. They help show truth and nonsense for what they are.
So returning to the topic- Since we all know that violence went down in Iraq this Fall- Let's move further in our discussion.
So you and Ice are both willing to accept this claim? How kind of you both. It's only taken several months of wrangling...
Do you perceive it that the US agenda is gaining traction there? Does it appear to you that ethnic segregation and empowerment of sectarian militias promote American goals such as pacification and re-unification of Iraq in the medium and long term?
As I suggested with Ice, I don't know and I'm not really sure that anyone is in a position to know right now. Obviously, the political situation in Iraq isn't much better now than it was a year ago. However, I think it's equally obvious that progress on that front cannot be made unless there is a sustained lull in violence so the politicians and various ethnic groups can "buy in" to future of the country. What is happening now should have happened years ago when the major combat operations ended. But as we all know, it did not. It might take a further three or four years for the political process to catch up to the military progress. And how this all fits into anyone's appreciation of the US agenda is problematic. For starters, does anyone know what the US agenda is? The Congress is somewhat divided on the issue and the Bush administration will be gone in less than a year. It would be helpful if the politicians all came together and presented a united front on what they want to do, so the policy could effectively be shaped and massaged for the next 12 months, but that is unlikely to happen...
i have said it before i will say it again A tactic that cannot be sustained till it succeceds complete should be scraped in favor of a plan that can irregardless if the first tactic works or not.