Preemptive Attack on Sept. Surge Report: Part II

1272830323335

Comments

  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Ah yes, the "shifting" argument. First, it was "shifting justifications for war." Now it's the same for staying. It's really quite amusing. Asked for the reasons we needed to go to war, the admin listed many. When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" So the admin then pointed out the other ten or so reasons. Critics responded "see...now you're shifting justifications!"



    So now, critics ask why we're staying. The reasons are presented. The critics first dismiss those reasons, then accuse the administration of...wait for it....shifting justifications for staying.



    " When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" "



    Sigh! SDW we've been through this a billion times now!



    There's a big difference between reasons that were presented for going there before the war and things he emphasized later like " Iraqi freedom ".



    Iraqi freedom would have never got the support of the american people or anyone else to go to war over! There are many little regimes just like this all over the world that have thumbed their nose at us and treat their people in a dispicable manner.



    Of course if you'd like to present a link to support your argument about Bush saying Saddam would sell or give one of his nonexistant WMD to a terrorist to attack us before the war as support for the same. Go right ahead.
  • lunocratlunocrat Posts: 95member
    Isn't pre-emptive strike and homicide a Harvard Law School thing? Who cares about the surge at this point? It didn't work. It won't work, anymore than putting a security fence around California will work. Washington is loaded with stupids bastard pretending to know something about the world.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post


    Isn't pre-emptive strike and homicide a Harvard Law School thing? Who cares about the surge at this point? It didn't work. It won't work, anymore than putting a security fence around California will work. Washington is loaded with stupids bastard pretending to know something about the world.



    Hey, now! SDW2001 cares about The Surge? so much that six months ago he was saying that we needed to begin drawing down in 6 months and now that it's six months he's saying that as long as we begin drawing down within 6 months he's cool.
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Ah yes, the "shifting" argument. First, it was "shifting justifications for war." Now it's the same for staying. It's really quite amusing. Asked for the reasons we needed to go to war, the admin listed many. When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" So the admin then pointed out the other ten or so reasons. Critics responded "see...now you're shifting justifications!"



    So now, critics ask why we're staying. The reasons are presented. The critics first dismiss those reasons, then accuse the administration of...wait for it....shifting justifications for staying.



    So you see, ladies and gentlemen, those that would note that our justifications for invading Iraq and the expectations for the subsequent occupation have been all over the map, are themselves all over the map! Indeed, awareness of duplicity is the most duplicitous thing of all! It's really quite amusing! I am amused! The headaches are getting worse!
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    So you see, ladies and gentlemen, those that would note that our justifications for invading Iraq and the expectations for the subsequent occupation have been all over the map, are themselves all over the map! Indeed, awareness of duplicity is the most duplicitous thing of all! It's really quite amusing! I am amused! The headaches are getting worse!



    It's not the headaches that you have to watch out for.



    It's the voices.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    " When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" "



    Sigh! SDW we've been through this a billion times now!



    Yes, and you still don't get it.



    Quote:



    There's a big difference between reasons that were presented for going there before the war and things he emphasized later like " Iraqi freedom ".



    The operation was called Iraqi Freedom, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there.



    Quote:



    Iraqi freedom would have never got the support of the american people or anyone else to go to war over!



    That might be true, but it doesn't mean it was based on lies. As I've said, one of the administration's mistakes was not focusing on the other, very real reasons for going into Iraq. But that's another matter.



    Quote:

    There are many little regimes just like this all over the world that have thumbed their nose at us and treat their people in a dispicable manner.



    Ahh..that's a fun argument. Tell me then...should we have invaded one of those regimes instead? Would you have supported invading North Korea or Iran?



    Quote:



    Of course if you'd like to present a link to support your argument about Bush saying Saddam would sell or give one of his nonexistant WMD to a terrorist to attack us before the war as support for the same. Go right ahead.



    Wait...are you serious? I mean, if you honestly don't remember, I'll go look for the quote. But are you actually saying you don't recall Bush saying we were concerned Saddam would hand off WMD to terrorists?



    In the meantime, please enjoy watching and reading these quotes.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post


    Isn't pre-emptive strike and homicide a Harvard Law School thing? Who cares about the surge at this point? It didn't work. It won't work, anymore than putting a security fence around California will work. Washington is loaded with stupids bastard pretending to know something about the world.



    The surge has lowered violence in Iraq considerably. You're wrong.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Hey, now! SDW2001 cares about The Surge? so much that six months ago he was saying that we needed to begin drawing down in 6 months and now that it's six months he's saying that as long as we begin drawing down within 6 months he's cool.



    What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    So you see, ladies and gentlemen, those that would note that our justifications for invading Iraq and the expectations for the subsequent occupation have been all over the map, are themselves all over the map! Indeed, awareness of duplicity is the most duplicitous thing of all! It's really quite amusing! I am amused! The headaches are getting worse!



    I take it duplicity is now defined as "having more than one reason for war."
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down?



    well, first it was that if we're at June and they're still saying "6 more months" you would be pissed. Then, when I started to point out that nothing was changing at that the surge hadn't worked, it was "surge til the end of spring, then negin drawing down." Then when I started to point out that we were nearing the end of spring, it was "sometime this year," which, as I have pointed out, means that YOU are now saying "give it six more months."



    It's all here in this thread.



    PS



    Spring ends today.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Yes, and you still don't get it.







    The operation was called Iraqi Freedom, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there.







    That might be true, but it doesn't mean it was based on lies. As I've said, one of the administration's mistakes was not focusing on the other, very real reasons for going into Iraq. But that's another matter.







    Ahh..that's a fun argument. Tell me then...should we have invaded one of those regimes instead? Would you have supported invading North Korea or Iran?







    Wait...are you serious? I mean, if you honestly don't remember, I'll go look for the quote. But are you actually saying you don't recall Bush saying we were concerned Saddam would hand off WMD to terrorists?



    In the meantime, please enjoy watching and reading these quotes.









    The surge has lowered violence in Iraq considerably. You're wrong.









    What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down?







    I take it duplicity is now defined as "having more than one reason for war."



    No. no SDW! I'm waiting for a very specific quote. I mean you are always so specific about my spelling. And it's not good enough if he sort of said it.



    And remember that's before the war. As in support of. I'll keep repeating it because I know I've got you by the short hairs. Sorry but you've already lost.



    This : " What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down? " is just lame and pathetic. I told I'd have more time to spend on this.



    Saddam may have had some WMD in 1998. What does that have to do with a war that was waged in 2003? No war was started then because of it. Bush did that later. Also the others as I've said before based their opinions on info that came from your lord and savior George W. Bush. Who was wrong it turns out.



    But we've already been over this several times.





    Also you're the one who doesn't get it. The same old bag of tricks just don't work anymore. That was a part of another age. Bush and the neocon's little house of cards is about to fold and you're still acting like it's yesterday. Come on SDW! Correct my spelling some more.



    Honestly you'll say anything or make up anything to try to bolster your argument. But by all means get it in while you can.



    You can keep on trying to start old arguments you lost a long time ago but in the end Bush is going out and he's not being replaced by John McCain.



    In the end SDW Bush will take the place in history he deserves. The Worst President In History. A lesson for all to never vote for someone like that again.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    well, first it was that if we're at June and they're still saying "6 more months" you would be pissed. Then, when I started to point out that nothing was changing at that the surge hadn't worked, it was "surge til the end of spring, then negin drawing down." Then when I started to point out that we were nearing the end of spring, it was "sometime this year," which, as I have pointed out, means that YOU are now saying "give it six more months."



    It's all here in this thread.



    PS



    Spring ends today.



    How does it feel to be a liar?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    No. no SDW! I'm waiting for a very specific quote. I mean you are always so specific about my spelling. And it's not good enough if he sort of said it.



    You remember it, as does everyone else, you intellectually dishonest hack. I'm not playing your game.

    Quote:



    And remember that's before the war. As in support of. I'll keep repeating it because I know I've got you by the short hairs. Sorry but you've already lost.



    You've got nothing. Nothing. I mean shit...I can't believe you are ACTUALLY claiming Bush didn't talk about Saddam handing off WMD to terrorist groups before the war. It's laughable, as are you.



    Quote:



    This : " What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down? " is just lame and pathetic. I told I'd have more time to spend on this.



    My position is that we should start drawing down this year in a responsible fashion. How is that lame and pathetic?



    Quote:



    Saddam may have had some WMD in 1998. What does that have to do with a war that was waged in 2003?



    Because there was no evidence he had destroyed them. He was required by your friend, Mr. International Law, to provide that evidence.



    Quote:

    No war was started then because of it. Bush did that later.



    Irrelevant, especially because democrats argued in 2002 and 2003 that he had them and that we had to act to disarm him.



    Quote:





    Also the others as I've said before based their opinions on info that came from your lord and savior George W. Bush. Who was wrong it turns out.



    Bullshit. Fucking total and utter bullshit. It's the "Bush Tricked Me" defense.



    Quote:



    But we've already been over this several times



    Another jimmacism and I could do without.



    Quote:





    Also you're the one who doesn't get it. The same old bag of tricks just don't work anymore. That was a part of another age. Bush and the neocon's little house of cards is about to fold and you're still acting like it's yesterday. Come on SDW! Correct my spelling some more.



    If there has been more empty rhetoric here on AI, I've never seen it. Seriously...that paragraph you posted doesn't mean anything.



    Quote:



    Honestly you'll say anything or make up anything to try to bolster your argument. But by all means get it in while you can.



    You mean like "Bush Tricked Me?"



    Quote:



    You can keep on trying to start old arguments you lost a long time ago but in the end Bush is going out and he's not being replaced by John McCain.



    Right, because you're the arbiter of winning and losing arguments. Your definition of winning is "several liberals on the internet agree with me."



    Quote:



    In the end SDW Bush will take the place in history he deserves. The Worst President In History. A lesson for all to never vote for someone like that again.



    Time will tell.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    You remember it, as does everyone else, you intellectually dishonest hack. I'm not playing your game.





    You've got nothing. Nothing. I mean shit...I can't believe you are ACTUALLY claiming Bush didn't talk about Saddam handing off WMD to terrorist groups before the war. It's laughable, as are you.







    My position is that we should start drawing down this year in a responsible fashion. How is that lame and pathetic?







    Because there was no evidence he had destroyed them. He was required by your friend, Mr. International Law, to provide that evidence.







    Irrelevant, especially because democrats argued in 2002 and 2003 that he had them and that we had to act to disarm him.







    Bullshit. Fucking total and utter bullshit. It's the "Bush Tricked Me" defense.







    Another jimmacism and I could do without.







    If there has been more empty rhetoric here on AI, I've never seen it. Seriously...that paragraph you posted doesn't mean anything.







    You mean like "Bush Tricked Me?"







    Right, because you're the arbiter of winning and losing arguments. Your definition of winning is "several liberals on the internet agree with me."







    Time will tell.





    Still can't come up with that quote?



    Oh well I'll give you two points for being stubborn. About history and the election you know I'm right.



    And the thing is so do most of the american people SDW. Who also are voters.





    Hmmm? On alot of those other threads people seem to asking you for data and links also.



    Hmm?



    By the way. My definition of winning is when the opposition can't come up with a good counter argument or facts ( links / data ) to back their argument up. Things you seem to be in short supply of.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    How does it feel to be a liar?



    To be called a liar by someone who has admitted that they're a water-carrier? Pretty fucking funny, honestly. To be called a liar by someone who has admitted that they're a water-carrier and who is denying that they've said things in this thread that they've said? Even fucking funnier.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    As for waiting a few more months: I for one said that if the surge didn't help matters I would call for us to pull out. I don't know as I thought about it in these terms before it started, but my feeling was actually that it wouldn't work, or stood less chance of working than it did failing. In percentage terms, I'd say I was about 60/40 against thinking it would work. Honestly. So yes, I am willing to wait a few more months and see what can be done. After mid-2008, enough is enough.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    Given that we will hit a deployment crunch withe military next spring, we're going to have to start bringing the troops home around then.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    There is no reason to think that such improvement won't continue in the next few months, where can begin to draw down the right way...in a slow and deliberate fashion as Iraqi units take over.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    I'm saying that by mid-2008 it would seem we'd be at a point where we can safely start to draw down. And yes, personally, I think 5 years is enough already. But that's just my feeling about it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    My hope would be that by mid-2008 we'd be drawing down. If not, I'm going to want to know why, and what we plan to get to the point where we can. We can't just have an endless cycle of "6 months more."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    I'll say this again: If next Spring we are told we need another 6 months to decide, I am going to have a fit. Mark my words.



    And now, of course, SDW2001, you are the one saying we need to give it another 6 months.



    And then I prophesied:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Midwiner


    Here's what's going to happen, SDW2001, you mark my words: when, next summer, we come to June and the question comes up—"is our children surging?"—there will be furious debate between YOU and the 75% of America who see this for what it is. And what will the debate be about? How we define "results." How we define "progress."



    And then you moved the goalposts from Spring to "sometime in 2008":



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    There will be NO debate offered [about how we define progress]. I want troops to start drawing down in 2008 and continue gradually until the vast majority of American forces are out of there. The ones that do remain need to transition to non-combat roles and act in an advisory capacity. I'm quite serious. I will be furious if we're not on our way out of there.



    And now we're being flatly told that we're not drawing down this year. And you're not furious.



    And then I said this:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter


    If, in June of 2008, you are screaming bloody murder about withdrawal, I'll certainly not complain and may even start a thread in praise of your sensiblenessissitudeicity.



    I may have to start a thread before June runs out.



    After Patronus said we need 6 more months to decide whether we need to begin thinking about drawing down, you said



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    I'll be pretty pissed, really. If we get more "6 more months" talk, I will not be amused.



    And yet here you are. Still amused.



    And then you said this:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001


    Say we get to June 2008 and he violence has gotten worse and AQI has gained more ground. That would indicate that everything we've tried has not helped. The only thing left at that point (in my view) is to withdraw and do what some have advocated for years now....let the Iraqi's fix it themselves. What would the other options be?



    Keep in mind that in the event the surge showed no progress, I felt we should pull out (as I said, I was not at all sure it was going to work...I hoped it would, of course, but I had serious doubts). So what I'm saying is not inconsistent.



    And here we are. But you're still not furious, like you promised.
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Holy mackerel, that's one of the more epic takedowns we've seen, e'er these parts. I think SDW is under the impression this is all one long, drunken bull session, and he's free to change it up as he goes along without fear of being caught out. Or maybe he just figures being consistently belligerent is all the consistency you need?



    But you're wrong about one thing, Mid-- SDW is furious. At you, me, Obama, the Democrats, hippiedom in general, and anyone who notices the complete bankruptcy of what passes for his ideology. Intellectually dishonest, one and all, and liars, to boot.



    I know they say the best defense is a good offense, but if you don't have any game at all, that just makes you look like a particularly energetic lunatic.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Can hardly wait for SDW's rebuttal.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Holy mackerel, that's one of the more epic takedowns we've seen, e'er these parts. I think SDW is under the impression this is all one long, drunken bull session, and he's free to change it up as he goes along without fear of being caught out. Or maybe he just figures being consistently belligerent is all the consistency you need?



    Indeed.

    Bravo midwinter.







    Quote:

    But you're wrong about one thing, Mid-- SDW is furious. At you, me, Obama, the Democrats, hippiedom in general, and anyone who notices the complete bankruptcy of what passes for his ideology. Intellectually dishonest, one and all, and liars, to boot.



    We are at fault too. All politicians misguide us, betray us and when the truly honest, determined ones do try to stand up for Americans, they are ridiculed, slandered and even killed.



    Quote:

    I know they say the best defense is a good offense, but if you don't have any game at all, that just makes you look like a particularly energetic lunatic.



    I'm waiting for SDW's new thread on the new Iraqi peace and calm "teh surge" has brought, why we should stay there and how great Bush is. Because honestly, it seems to have progressed there. But again it will be for all the wrong reasons. Also, in many ways, it just could only be the calm before the storm.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Indeed.

    Bravo midwinter.











    We are at fault too. All politicians misguide us, betray us and when the truly honest, determined ones do try to stand up for Americans, they are ridiculed, slandered and even killed.







    I'm waiting for SDW's new thread on the new Iraqi peace and calm "teh surge" has brought, why we should stay there and how great Bush is. Because honestly, it seems to have progressed there. But again it will be for all the wrong reasons. Also, in many ways, it just could only be the calm before the storm.







    " Also, in many ways, it just could only be the calm before the storm.[/QUOTE] "



    Well it could happen but who's going to start it? Bush? He's shot his wad! If he tried this I think he would be impeached ( or hung in the town square ). Iran would have to do something pretty bad and if I'm right most of those countries are also waiting for Bush to be out of office so at least they have someone they can talk to ( this is not saying they're nice reliable people either but we're supposed to be the ones that are the reasonable good guys ).



    Devil's Advocate Part :

    On the other hand maybe they're dreading Bush leaving office. I mean look at what chaos it's brought to the united states.

    Just what terrorists want. It's kind of like having a drunk at the wheel!
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Devil's Advocate Part :

    On the other hand maybe they're dreading Bush leaving office. I mean look at what chaos it's brought to the united states.

    Just what terrorists want. It's kind of like having a drunk at the wheel!



    Saber rattling...



    Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Obama's Going To Win'



    Quote:

    On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.



    However, "if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.



    ------------------

    Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be ?Delighted?



    Quote:

    I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don?t think they will do anything before our election because they don?t want to affect it. And they?d have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush?s term in office or wait for his successor.

    ...

    I don?t think you?d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.



    The Surge: Part Trois?
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Heh. I like that bombing Iran is now "following through on a policy."



    Does Kristol think he's being helpful? And why doesn't his every appearance on the TV include a chyron stating "has been wrong about everything for as long as anyone can remember"?
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Heh. I like that bombing Iran is now "following through on a policy."



    Does Kristol think he's being helpful? And why doesn't his every appearance on the TV include a chyron stating "has been wrong about everything for as long as anyone can remember"?



    Good thing he was wrong about Burma and China...



    Kristol is a neoconservative main stream media mouthpiece. He was also a co-founder of the PNAC which defined much of the Bush foreign policy under their first term.



    Let us just say that if we bomb Iran prior to the election it sets McCain up to be the de-facto person to deal with Iran's reprisals and sets Obama up to fail. According to the neo-cons, we're up to WW4 now. Those guys would be happy to push it to 5 or 6.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    *bump*



    *waits for SDW*



Sign In or Register to comment.