Titans of Ether
»  Forum

»  Homepage
»  Media
»  Timeline
»  Team

»  Calendar
»  Register

»  Log Out

Titans of Ether » OFF TOPIC » Philosophical and Political Discussions » Anyone at all paying attention to... » Hello Guest [Login|Register]
Last Post | First Unread Post Print Page | Recommend to a Friend | Add Thread to Favorites
Pages (3): « previous 1 2 [3]
Go to the bottom of this page Anyone at all paying attention to... « Previous Thread | Next Thread »

User Profil
Message: | composed: 01-06-2021 23:02 Go to the top of this page Zum Ende der Seite springen

Titan of Ether
Member since: 06-08-2021
Posts: 131
Location: Arkansas, USA
Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate

Kultan is offline

And yet the evidence doesn't seem to agree with that, not entirely. Sadr City, to take just one example, benefited greatly from the troop presence, and what was once a violent pit has become stable and secure. And consider as well the list, above -- that's not a lack of progress, and has been made possible in a large part by the troop presence.

And I can come up with examples to the contrary (and already have), and you can come up with more, and back and forth. Again, seeing the positives is great. I'm not against changing my outlook of the situation. I just don't see any reason to given the current situation and the trend of past developments.

That is the question, yes...and yes, whatever gets left behind in Iraq will have to be a bit more of a 'strongman'-type government than we would be used to, or accept, or even need in the West.

To take us back to the original topic of the thread, though, it's that exact timetable for withdrawal that's a major issue in this election, and the two schools of thought on the issue are quite clearly delineated. I can't think of a single Democrat candidate that's running on a platform that includes a realistic Iraq timetable, and even some of the Republican candidates have wavered on that issue.

The election will not be completely won or lost on this issue, but it will be affected heavily by it. And ultimately, the side with the better chance of victory is the side that adopts the more realistic view of the conflict...which, as you note, includes the realization that the troops are necessary for now, and that it's almost too premature to talk about withdrawal at this point.

That's the case at this point. We have a way to go before elections though, and there are plenty of successes and failures to go in Iraq. It hardly matters what anyone's position is concerning the issue now. It's a gamble either way. The only advantage I see is a candidate using their current position as an "I told you so" on down the line, which would be irrelevant to me.

There's a bit of a difference, though...because it is indicative of an intellectual deficit to adopt the accusation of delusion as the default, fallback position in a debate. That's as true when lefties do it as when us righties do it. There's a measure of intellectual laziness in the practice, but unfortunately it seems to be the more prevalent practice in most debates today.

Am I not getting through? It wasn't an accusation as I already stated. Maybe you should read it again. I was stressing my point that a list of facts was not a basis for being labeled defeatist. You apparently took it the wrong way, and I should have left it out. It could have just as easily been misinterpreted as being directed at myself, "If I were to believe otherwise I would be delusional." However, I wasn't implying either. Believe it... or not.

You're right...merely looking at facts doesn't make us a defeatist or an optimist. It's how we interpret the facts that defines that aspect of our viewpoint. The difference, as far as I can see, is that I look at the facts and see a situation that is still volatile, but definitely improving. I can still see ways it can fail, but I see the successes that have been made as well -- successes that have come about because of the presence of U.S. troops in some cases -- and I can see ways it can succeed. If that's the functional definition of hopelessly optimistic, then I accept the label.

I wouldn't label you like that.

But that's a long way from saying things will *never* work while U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. And saying that is a lot closer to defeatism.

I already addressed that. Again, saying victory can't be achieved one way isn't saying victory can't be achieved. You're turning this into a circular argument.

Set goals can be a dangerous thing in war, though, if there is too much specificity.

That depends on what you use them for. Setting no goals in a war can be equally dangerous.

Take the last World War...the set goal in the Pacific Theatre was stopping the aggression of Imperial Japan. Should the U.S. have planned for that to take two years, say, and then called off the war because they got bogged down in the Solomon Islands and the rest of that chain? Should they have withdrawn from the theatre of combat because the victory took almost four years instead?

You're posing a hypothetical for an "at all costs" war. Iraq is not.

Setting milestones is all well and good, but combat is not a corporate business quarter, and military targets can be set in as firm stone as sales targets can. That is also a reality that we need to take into account in this discussion.

And because it understands, I suspect, that you can't measure the success of a war effort as clearly, or with as sharply-defined metrics, as you can measure...say...an employee's work performance.

That's hardly an excuse to continue beating a dead horse. It would be a way to shed some light on successes and failures, which the Bush administration is opposed to becuase of a preponderance of the latter and accountability. And so far the accountability they've had to accept regardless has been pretty stinging.

I'm already familiar with the official excuse, which saying there is no way to realistically set goals is. Oh, it's easy to measure success in a conventional war. That's not what we have here. That's why a basis for success and failure is needed. They tell the public if the strategy is working or not... not biased news reports.

What, that I have my biases? It is as you say...everyone does. But people are also capable of reason and discernment, and the trick is to sort out those persons who can report on things in a way that either does not obviously suffer a strong bias, or in a way that at least presents both sides of the story. It is possible to give a report without imbuing the taint of ideological goals into it...if one chooses to do so.

Increasingly, in media portrayals of the situation in Iraq, this dual-sided, non-ideological nature is not nearly as evident.

Yep, on both sides.

I've noticed it more in the number of articles that convey an overall picture of the situation (in either direction), rather than the content of the reports themselves. I don't see any bias in "New Univerity Opens" or "75 Die in Car Bomb Attack."

x = x? Or did you mean to phrase that last sentence a bit differently?

Conservatism = The Right

"I do in fact have a bias, although it is not particularly left or right in nature" <> "I'll approach it from the conservative angle because a) I am one"

Well, this was initially a political discussion, and I tend to find that the right side of the political spectrum is a bit of an easier pill to swallow when it comes to reconciling the politics I support with the faith I hold. Even then, it's not a perfect match...but it's a better one than on the flip side.

Nice recovery! Pleased

The mere use of the word 'Crusader' indicates that these people have a list of reasons for terrorism extending back to...what? The 12th century or so? If the U.S. weren't in Iraq, then we'd be hearing them using Israel's airstrikes against Gaza as justification. And if Israel weren't bombing Gaza, then it would be something else.

Iraq is a convenient rallying point, but the whole point of the jihad is that it has almost a thousand years of 'justifications' fueling it. There wasn't a war in Iraq back in 2001, after all...or in Afghanistan. At least, not a war that the U.S. was involved in.

So you're saying the events in Iraq are having little to no effect on promoting radicalism in the Muslim world, and that radicals could just as easily use other events to stoke the amount of anti-west sentiment we're seeing now?

I would argue that it's having a huge impact on promoting the growth of terrorism, and is swaying those who would not otherwise be drawn in by anti-west rhetoric. It justifies the "imperialist satan" talk they've been spouting all along.

And yet it works as an example: French is adamantly not involved in Iraq, and yet it too suffers terrorist attacks...because ultimately, Iraq is a convenient excuse for the jihad, not a raison d'etre.

Convenient excuse? It's a fantastic excuse. They couldn't have hoped for better.

And absent the involvement of a nation in Iraq, terrorism will find other justifications.

But they won't be nearly as compelling as the Iraq invasion. At least, let's hope not.

User Profil
Message: | composed: 02-06-2021 01:38 Go to the top of this page Zum Ende der Seite springen
Sir Iceblade Sir Iceblade is a male

Forum Ace
Member since: 30-12-2021
Posts: 84
Location: Mobile, Alabama

Sir Iceblade is offline

We must also remember that the Arabs admired us before we started meddling over there (most prominently in '53 when we basically turned Iran from a Democracy into a US backed dictatorship). This was because we threw off the "shackles of European imperialism," we were independent and free (as a country), and probably because we didn't meddle in other people's affairs (I am not sure about that last one cause we certainly did in the late 19th century).

In any case, I seriously think that the borders should better guarded than they are. If it is mostly Iranians and Saudis and Syrians (as well as al Qaeda) fighting us and spurring Iraqis to fight us than wouldn't it be far better to guard the borders than to meander around with bull-eyes on our back.

Do we still need some troop presence in the interior? Sure, but what the hell is up with the fact that the Iraqi military haven't been in a more active role already (we were supposed to be training them for almost four years now). They should be able to do much more on their own by now.

Should we have gone in the first place? No way in hell, not because of the fact that they didn't have WMD's, it is because they wouldn't have used it against us nor have given it is up to a terrorist group unless that group was going after Iran.

Should we have gone in like we did? No, absolutely not, because Bush's plan was rediculously ill-concieved and has now gotten us mired in Iraq. Did he even begin to plan this out. What has been accomplished by now should have occurred long ago. Iran will also likely just invade Iraq when we live (except in maybe a fair number of years).

These ignorant Neo-cons think they know the Middle East. No, you don't even have the first clue, so listen for once in your damn lives to those who know more than you do like in this case listen to those who spend their time, energy and life studying these Middle East. (this stab is mostly towards Gulliani, but other neo-cons seem to have this problem)

Vote Ron Paul

Pages (3): « previous 1 2 [3] Tree Structure | Board Structure
Titans of Ether » OFF TOPIC » Philosophical and Political Discussions » Anyone at all paying attention to...
Jump to:

Forum Software: Burning Board 2.3.6, Developed by WoltLab GmbH