« Illegal doodling | Main | Christians and Jews are 'pigs and monkeys' »
August 25, 2007
The Dems version of 'staying the course'
Posted by Darleen at August 25, 2007 11:55 PM
Comments
What do you mean by "work"? The surge "works" in the sense of reducing some violence, but only where there are large numbers of US troops in the local area.
But the US can't stay there forever.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at August 26, 2007 10:04 AM
They were never meant to stay forever, they were meant to provide the extra muscle needed to change our strategy to "clear and hold", in conjunction with Iraqi army units, who have been steadily improving in numbers and, more importantly, effectiveness. The "surge" was also intended to reduce the violence in order to give the central government time to regroup and make some headway in hammering out some vital compromises about power sharing.
All of this seems to be happening. So, by all means, let's declare our new strategy a failure before it's been given time to do what it was designed to do. Better yet, let's just begin to withdraw now, so that, having finally found a military and political means of solving some of the problems in standing up a democratic and stable Iraq, we can let the country slide into genocide and chaos, and become a much more viable base for Islamists than Afghanistan ever could be.
Posted by: Chris at August 27, 2007 07:30 AM
All of this seems to be happening.
Except for this part: central government time to regroup and make some headway in hammering out some vital compromises about power sharing.
Since there is little sign of any political progress, a more accurate description of the Administration's current strategy is to prop up an ineffective and floundering government until it becomes someone else's problem.
Posted by: Josh at August 27, 2007 11:36 AM
Since there is little sign of any political progress...
Funny you should say that today, Josh, in the face of this announcement.
Do you expect the Iraqis to be incapable of peaceful self governance?
Posted by: Pablo at August 27, 2007 01:44 PM
Yeah, Pablo! Three cheers for re-Ba'athification!
And you should really have read the article before grasping at this particular straw:
It was not immediately clear how, or when, these moves would be implemented and how far they would go to reversing the almost total Sunni boycott of the cabinet - the centre of Mr Maliki's difficulties.
Posted by: Josh at August 27, 2007 02:14 PM
Josh, do you really think the Baath party is going to take over in Iraq?
You do miss Saddam, don't you?
Posted by: Pablo at August 27, 2007 02:53 PM
And I'm still wondering: Do you expect the Iraqis to be incapable of peaceful self governance?
Posted by: Pablo at August 27, 2007 02:53 PM
Uh, I'm not the one who's excited to see Saddam's old cronies making political gains. You sure did love those rape rooms, didn't you?
Do you expect the Palestinians to be incapable of peaceful self governance?
Posted by: Josh at August 27, 2007 04:19 PM
Uh, I'm not the one who's excited to see Saddam's old cronies making political gains.
Personally, I like seeing them hang. But the goal here is participatory, democratic governance in which everyone is represented. It sounds as though you'd prefer ongoing conflict to reconciliation.
Do you expect the Palestinians to be incapable of peaceful self governance?
Yes, at least for a couple of generations. This is to be expected of a culture that has been nurtured on hate as a religious value and has so glorified "martyrdom". See Farfur Mouse. GIGO.
Now, are you going to answer the same question in regard to the Iraqis?
Posted by: Pablo at August 27, 2007 09:32 PM
But the goal here is participatory, democratic governance in which everyone is represented.
Then why were they excluded? And I thought Saddam's regime was just as bad as Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR. OMG Plastic shredders!!!Gassed his own people!!Marsh Arabs!! Why are you happy to see such horrible horrible men embraced by the government?
Remember, now that the WMD and Al Quaeda rationales for invading have fallen away, pretending to care about Ba'athist crimes is the about the only card you have left.
Do you expect the Iraqis to be incapable of peaceful self governance?
What a silly question. Who cares if they're "capable" or not? The question is whether it's likely to happen, and it isn't.
Posted by: Josh at August 28, 2007 06:44 PM
Given Iraq's long history of civil wars, assassinations, miliary coup d'etats, and sectarian massacres, the idea that 160,000 US troops in just a few years can give Iraq any kind of stability, is just pure
neocon dreaming.
But then again the neocons specialize in ignoring history.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at August 29, 2007 07:23 PM
Pablo, you may not want to be so quick to believe the hype.
Posted by: Josh at August 29, 2007 08:39 PM
Then why were they excluded?
Do you really need to ask that question? They weren't excluded from elections, they were excluded from government jobs while such were being administered by the CPA. That was quite some time ago, the Baath party is now decimated, and the Iraqis are in charge of their own affairs and should proceed as they see fit.
And I thought Saddam's regime was just as bad as Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR.
And I'll bet you think the Pope wants to gas Jews. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but those responsible for atrocities under Saddam have been/are being put on trial for those crimes.
Remember, now that the WMD and Al Quaeda rationales for invading have fallen away, pretending to care about Ba'athist crimes is the about the only card you have left.
Nice strawman, Josh. No, wait. It's pathetic. What else you got?
What a silly question. Who cares if they're "capable" or not? The question is whether it's likely to happen, and it isn't.
If it's so silly, it should be easy to answer, and yet you refuse to answer it after I've already answered your identical question about the Palestinians.
Why is it unlikely, Josh? Is it because they're incapable?
Posted by: Pablo at August 30, 2007 07:17 AM
So you don't care about Ba'athist crimes, and it was a strawman to assume that you do? Thanks for elucidating.
If it's so silly, it should be easy to answer,
No, it's nonsensical, which makes it impossible to answer.
You can read the link I helpfully provided to gain a better understanding of why a stable democracy does not appear to be in the offing.
Posted by: Josh at August 30, 2007 07:28 AM
Don't believe the hype part II.
Posted by: Josh at August 30, 2007 07:36 AM
So you don't care about Ba'athist crimes, and it was a strawman to assume that you do? Thanks for elucidating.
You know, you could try actually reading what I've written. It might prevent you from saying idiotic things like that.
No, it's nonsensical, which makes it impossible to answer.
No, it's quite simple to answer. It's either yes or no. So, why don't you answetr it, Josh? Bigotry got your tongue?
Posted by: Pablo at August 30, 2007 11:01 AM
So, why don't you answetr it, Josh? Bigotry got your tongue?
Because it's a stupid question. But thanks for revealing once again that you're only interested in ad hominem. Got anything of substance to say about the two links I posted?
Posted by: Josh at August 30, 2007 11:18 AM
Because it's a stupid question.
No, it's an extraordinarily simple question and the answer to it is central to what we're trying to do in Iraq.
That you can't conceive of an answer to it speaks to your complete lack of seriousness about the issue and its possible outcomes. Thank you and good bye.
Posted by: Pablo at August 30, 2007 03:37 PM
Please, little Pablo. You're just hoping I'll say yes so you can go "SEE OMG YOU THINK BROWN PEOPLE ARE INFERIOR!!1!" I'm not interested in your stupid hypothetical game-playing.
Which, incidentally, coupled with the fact that you've said not a word about the links I posted indicating that your happy dance was premature, is a pretty good indication that you can't argue the merits. How sad for you.
Posted by: Josh at August 30, 2007 04:14 PM
Answer the question, Josh. The only thing I'm hoping is that you'll answer the question.
I'm not addressing your links because you're not addressing my question, as I did yours. Try a bit of good faith argumentation and then I might waste some time on you.
Posted by: Pablo at August 31, 2007 12:10 AM
Yeah, trying to bait people so you can call them bigots is really good faith argumentation. You've got nothing to say about the facts, so you resort to cheesy ad hom tactics. Pathetic but not surprising.
Posted by: Josh at August 31, 2007 06:51 AM
What were you doing when you asked me if the Palestinians were capable of peaceful self-governance? And yet, I answered you, I answered in the affirmative, and I didn't hear another peep out of you about it.
This is a central question to the situation in Iraq. If you feel that the Iraqis are incapable of doing what we hope they'll do, then that will inform your view in a very significant way, and we'll have to agree to disagree. But it would help if you'd state your belief.
OTOH, if you think they are capable of it, then we should talk about the best way they can get there, and whether it includes any preventable genocide.
If you can't answer that very simple question, Josh, you should just quit while you're behind.
Posted by: Pablo at August 31, 2007 07:57 PM
That should be "incapable" in my first sentence.
Posted by: Pablo at August 31, 2007 07:58 PM
Actually, your question is stupid and irrelevant because two things can both be true: (1) the Iraqis are "capable" (in whatever sense you mean that imprecise word) of peaceful self-governance, and (2) it is nonetheless unlikely that peaceful self-governance will emerge. Of these two, the only proposition of any significance in the real world is the second one, and the first is just a silly abstraction. But you'd prefer not to dispute the second proposition on its own terms, since it's unlikely to be resolved in your favor. Plus, pretending that the first proposition is meaningful gives you an opening to call me a bigot, which is all you're really interested in anyway. So congratulations, but try again if and only if you have actual arguments to make.
Posted by: Josh at September 4, 2007 11:56 AM
No, Josh, the question stands: Are the Iraqis capable?
If they are, then there is reason to believe that they will. If they're not there is no reason to believe that they will.
Why are you so afraid to state your belief about this very crucial factor?
Capable is not a terribly precise word. But let me ask again with smaller words: Can they do it? It's a yes or no question, Josh.
But you'd prefer not to dispute the second proposition on its own terms, since it's unlikely to be resolved in your favor.
There are many people in a much better position to know than yours who are much less pessimistic about Iraq. You saying it doesn't make it true.
Can they do it, Josh? Or not?
Posted by: Pablo at September 4, 2007 01:51 PM
They question is not whether they can in some hypothetical sense, it's whether they will. Simply because something is possible doesn't make it likely. Why are you afraid to acknowledge this rather obvious principle of logic? Why are you so hung up on potentiality rather than actuality?
Posted by: Josh at September 5, 2007 08:56 AM
But do you think it's possible, Josh? It really isn't a hard question, and it's central. That other things come into play is true, but there's no point in discussing them if the basic goal is impossible?
So, is it?
Here, read a little Ardolino. Maybe that will help you decide on a position regarding this question that so confounds you.
Posted by: Pablo at September 5, 2007 04:34 PM
What's funny, Josh, is that your refusal to admit that success is possible speaks directly to your desire for failure.
You want the Iraqis to be screwed and America to be humiliated because you hate George Bush. And for that to happen, you're perfectly willing to have murderous religious fanatics take over there.
Do you have any idea how sick that is?
Posted by: Pablo at September 5, 2007 04:40 PM
Sure it's possible, in the same sense it's possible that Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination. But it certainly isn't central - just because you say it doesn't make it true.
Thanks for the stupid ad hominem rant, though. It was good for a chuckle, but doesn't it bother you that that's all you have? Recall you jumped in here disputing my assertion that little political progress was being made. Then when I posted two links indicating that your rebuttal was ill-founded, you decided to completely ignore them and make this about stupid hypotheticals and my motives. Do you think that your utter inability to discuss the issues like an adult has to do with the broader intellectual bankruptcy of your brand of fringe nuttery, or do you simply enjoy acting like a complete fool?
Posted by: Josh at September 6, 2007 08:14 AM
Recall you jumped in here disputing my assertion that little political progress was being made.Yes, and I asked if you thought it was possible that the Iraqis are capable of peaceful self governance.
You still can't answer me. You just can't do it.
Poor form, Josh. And that wasn't ad hominem, that was an attack on your position, not your person. I stand behind it, while you cower and dance because you can't spit out a simple freaking yes or no.
Your politics, which inform your entire being, are disgusting, Josh. That, BTW, is pretty much ad hominem. But you've earned it.
Ebrace life and liberty, Josh. You'll be glad you did.
Posted by: Pablo at September 6, 2007 05:03 PM
You still can't answer me. You just can't do it.
Reading is fundamental:
Sure it's possible, in the same sense it's possible that Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination.
And that wasn't ad hominem
You don't know anything about me, you silly little POS. You can't argue the facts so you just rant and rave and toss out insults you'd never say to someone's face.
Posted by: Josh at September 7, 2007 07:24 AM
Sure it's possible, in the same sense it's possible that Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination.
Well, that's really NOT possible, is it? Ron Paul really isn't capable of winning the nomination. So, you're saying you believe that there's a theoretical possibility, but not a real one. Thanks for clarifying your opinion of the people of Iraq.
Attacking your desire to see America humiliated is not ad hominem, you fool. It is to attack the person and not the position. next time, try a freaking dictionary instead of You Tube.
Posted by: Pablo at September 9, 2007 06:41 AM
Attacking your desire to see America humiliated is not ad hominem, you fool.
Attacking a person's motives is ad hominem, actually. Poor little Pablo, looking more foolish with every comment.
Posted by: Josh at September 11, 2007 09:55 AM
Oh, and since you're interested in dictionaries, here you go.
I'll pull the quote out since you're not very bright: "Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."
This is too easy. Take some learning annex courses in basic logic and rhetoric, Pablo, before you try again.
Posted by: Josh at September 11, 2007 09:59 AM