75 Percent of Al Qaeda in Iraq has been Destroyed! by Skywalken

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

wow...did you remember that whole thing?

Yes, but it's kind of an adaptation, because the real quote is a dialogue between at least two, maybe three people, as I remember.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Korean war is over, and South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy.

Actually finn, the Korean war is not over, it is enjoying a protracted cease-fire. North and South Korea are historically part of Korea, that is they were part of the same county prior to the Second World War and the Korean war; North Korea is hardly a prosperous liberal democracy. South Korea is still packed full of foreign troops.

But hey, if we ignore all the inconvenient facts, its ok. Hey maybe if we partitioned Iraq in to Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni countries we'd have better luck? After all at the moment we need to get the whole country to become a prosperous liberal democracy, if we split it we only need one third to play straight before we can declare victory. Why fix the whole problem when we can declare it fixed halfway?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:56 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

75% destroyed. Great! And how do they know this exactly?

What really bugs me is the way that the government is using this war as an exscuse to beef up the tools/procedures used to spy on Americans.

But hey, when we all have to use SpeedPass to drive on the highways, Metro pass to use the subway, a checkcard to make purchases, all our emails are checked, phone calls monitored, and the cameras on all the streetcorners are up and running....we should all be a lot safer. Right? Right?

Or would we be well monitored and controlled slaves/prisoners?

I cant seem to figure it out.

But we should always put our faith in the government, right? They wouldnt EVER want to do something like that...Right?

*sigh

When we completely lose the ability for an armed revolt, we will really be screwed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 7:15 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Korean war is over, and South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually finn, the Korean war is not over, it is enjoying a protracted cease-fire. North and South Korea are historically part of Korea, that is they were part of the same county prior to the Second World War and the Korean war; North Korea is hardly a prosperous liberal democracy. South Korea is still packed full of foreign troops.

But hey, if we ignore all the inconvenient facts, its ok. Hey maybe if we partitioned Iraq in to Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni countries we'd have better luck? After all at the moment we need to get the whole country to become a prosperous liberal democracy, if we split it we only need one third to play straight before we can declare victory. Why fix the whole problem when we can declare it fixed halfway?

We didn't partition korea citizen - as i remember it we fought out a stalemate with a massive chinese/North korean communist army, so their invasion of the south didn't get any further than the 38th parallel.

I don't see why you are holding us responsible for the development of the subsequently soviet administrated, communist north. Or do you suggest that the stalemate should never have been good enough, and call for a renewal of hostilities to conquer the communist north?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
We didn't partition korea citizen - as i remember it we fought out a stalemate with a massive chinese/North korean communist army, so their invasion of the south didn't get any further than the 38th parallel.

Actually we did partition Korea, after the Second World War. In 1945 the fledgling UN set it up much like Germany with the North administered by Soviet Russia, and the South by the United States. The two administrative areas were supposed to be reunited in short order, but in 1948 with increasing cold war tensions two governments were set up. This partition was at the 38th parallel, and in 1950 the North invaded the south over that line, and was eventually pushed back to the 38th parallel by the time of the cease fire of 1953. So yes we did partition Korea, we did so in 1945.

Quote:
I don't see why you are holding us responsible for the development of the subsequently soviet administrated, communist north. Or do you suggest that the stalemate should never have been good enough, and call for a renewal of hostilities to conquer the communist north?

I'm not blaming anyone, and I'm certainly not suggesting we invade North Korea, but I don't think we can be all self-congratulatory and start talking about victory because we've got half a country out of a whole one. Finn wants to ignore half of the Korean peninsula so that he can say Korea is a success story, but I don't think we can do that, any more than we can say Germany had been rebuilt after the Second World War until at least East and West Germany had been reunited.

If we can say that, then we could equally say Iraq was a victory if we cut it up into Kurdish, shiite and Sunni countries, even if only one of those partitions became a liberal democracy and the other two spiralled in to warlordism, which I would hope would sound like nonsense.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Korean war is over, and South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy.
Actually finn, the Korean war is not over, it is enjoying a protracted cease-fire. North and South Korea are historically part of Korea, that is they were part of the same county prior to the Second World War and the Korean war; North Korea is hardly a prosperous liberal democracy. South Korea is still packed full of foreign troops.

But hey, if we ignore all the inconvenient facts, its ok. Hey maybe if we partitioned Iraq in to Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni countries we'd have better luck? After all at the moment we need to get the whole country to become a prosperous liberal democracy, if we split it we only need one third to play straight before we can declare victory. Why fix the whole problem when we can declare it fixed halfway?

Inconvenient facts? Like these facts:

Korea was partitioned in 1945.

The Korean War didn’t begin until 1952. Korea had been partitioned for seven years, by then

The Korean War was NOT fought to reunite North and South Korea, but to protect the partition, from Northern Communist invasion.

Which it did, because the US did not give up on South Korea.

And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War.

Today South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy, in stark contrast to North Korea which is a starving Stalinist state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I don't see why you are holding us responsible for the development of the subsequently soviet administrated, communist north. Or do you suggest that the stalemate should never have been good enough, and call for a renewal of hostilities to conquer the communist north?

Heads should roll

Basically, citizen is obfuscating with this childish argument that because we didn’t fight China to control North Korea that the successes of South Korea don’t count. But controlling North Korea was never the goal. The goal was to protect South Korea, which we did, to great success. Something we might have been able to repeat in Vietnam had we not given up, but who knows what might have been. I can only say what was, and South Korea is a stunning success story, which I wish Vietnam had been, as well, and hope Iraq becomes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, you mean the UN did something right with their 'police action' in Korea ?

"And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War."

For the record, it was not a war, it was a UN police action. Also, armistice means a truce, not peace. If the war had really ended, there would be no justification for US troops in Korea.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, you mean the UN did something right with their 'police action' in Korea ?

"And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War."

For the record, it was not a war, it was a UN police action. Also, armistice means a truce, not peace. If the war had really ended, there would be no justification for US troops in Korean.

So World War II is still going on, huh? We still have troops in Europe and Japan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:00 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

So the Iraqis are paying their oil money, to rebuild their infrastructure, but its Americans deciding where that money goes and invariably receiving it. There's a name for that, at least when people like the mafia do it, it's called Money Laundering

The Iraqis are barely making enough money in oil revenues to keep their government running. Iraq is an independent country and can spend their oil revenues however they please, there's just not enough coming in now to rebuild infrastructure. Because of this, almost all of the infrastructure money is coming from US funds. As a US taxpayer I want to see my tax dollar go to US companies when possible. I realise the Iraqi people are great engineers and could do some of the work and I'm sure some of the US companies would love to hire them if they are qualified. When I spoke of China and Russia turning to the US for infrastructure I wasn't suggesting that Americans did most of the work. General Electric has a Chinese division that does huge power plant projects and they can do the same thing in Iraq.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Inconvenient facts? Like these facts:

Korea was partitioned in 1945.

The Korean War didn’t begin until 1952. Korea had been partitioned for seven years, by then

The Korean War was NOT fought to reunite North and South Korea, but to protect the partition, from Northern Communist invasion.

Which it did, because the US did not give up on South Korea.

And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War.

Today South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy, in stark contrast to North Korea which is a starving Stalinist state.

Most of which proves my point, but thanks for the childish tempertantrum.

So I guess if Iraq was partitioned, and one of the partitions turned out ok while the others became starving stalinist states that would be 'success' in your world? I think success is where you succeed, not where you say "people who disagree with me are childish, whaa!"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Inconvenient facts? Like these facts:

Korea was partitioned in 1945.

The Korean War didn’t begin until 1952. Korea had been partitioned for seven years, by then

The Korean War was NOT fought to reunite North and South Korea, but to protect the partition, from Northern Communist invasion.

Which it did, because the US did not give up on South Korea.

And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War.

Today South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy, in stark contrast to North Korea which is a starving Stalinist state.
Most of which proves my point, but thanks for the childish tempertantrum.

Well if your point was that the Korean War was fought to protect the already existent partition from invasion by Northern communists and in doing so, South Korea became a successful democracy, then yes, it does prove your point, even though one is hard-pressed to find that point in your previous statements.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So I guess if Iraq was partitioned, and one of the partitions turned out ok while the others became starving stalinist states that would be 'success' in your world? I think success is where you succeed, not where you say "people who disagree with me are childish, whaa!"

So then you support fighting the Iraq war until the entire country is a successful democracy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Iraqis are barely making enough money in oil revenues to keep their government running. Iraq is an independent country and can spend their oil revenues however they please, there's just not enough coming in now to rebuild infrastructure.

Sure, when the contracts are going to companies charging many times the minimum bid. As a US tax payer I would have thought getting the job done at a minimum hit to your pocket would have been important, but I applaud your selflessness in helping the struggling US construction firms

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So World War II is still going on, huh? We still have troops in Europe and Japan."

They are stationed there, not on active duty as in Korea.

Finn, Finn, Finn ... you know better than that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well if your point was that the Korean War was fought to protect the already existent partition from invasion by Northern communists and in doing so, South Korea became a successful democracy, then yes, it does prove your point, even though one is hard-pressed to find that point in your previous statements.

Well if 'one' bothered to listen to a word anyone else said for a change, one may become enlightened. I don't compartmentalise the whole situation as you do, nor do I look at a job half done and say "yeah, we done good, next!" (hardly a good position to take when talking about sticking 'till the jobs done, I might add). Korea was one country, it was broken up after the Second World War and the Korean war (which still hasn't ended BTW) resulted from that partitioning and the following Cold war climate.

Yeah, the Korean war was fought to defend South Korea from Northern aggression, not only did I not refute that, but stated it myself (in one of those posts you didn't bother to read). It is, however completely irrelevant. We can't have a complete success in Korea, until it returns to a state prior to our partitioning, or at the very least both North and South Korea become prosperous and good places to live.

Half the country is prosperous, but just because you don't care about the other half, doesn't mean it just goes away.

Quote:
So then you support fighting the Iraq war until the entire country is a successful democracy?

I have stated time and again on this forum that although I did not support the invasion, I likewise do not support an early withdrawl. Neither do I support American tactics, but that's a different matter. Perhaps if you read what I write, rather than assuming that everything I said is childish and irrational because I don't agree with you, you'd become enlightened as to what I really think?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"So World War II is still going on, huh? We still have troops in Europe and Japan."

They are stationed there, not on active duty as in Korea.

WHAT???!! What a load of crap. “Active Duty” refers to full-time service in the military. Station simply refers to the post at which a Active Duty member or Reservist is located. I promise you that there are plenty of ACTIVE DUTY servicemen and servicewomen STATIONED in Europe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well if your point was that the Korean War was fought to protect the already existent partition from invasion by Northern communists and in doing so, South Korea became a successful democracy, then yes, it does prove your point, even though one is hard-pressed to find that point in your previous statements.
Well if 'one' bothered to listen to a word anyone else said for a change, one may become enlightened. I don't compartmentalise the whole situation as you do, nor do I look at a job half done and say "yeah, we done good, next!" (hardly a good position to take when talking about sticking 'till the jobs done, I might add). Korea was one country, it was broken up after the Second World War and the Korean war (which still hasn't ended BTW) resulted from that partitioning and the following Cold war climate.

Yeah, the Korean war was fought to defend South Korea from Northern aggression, not only did I not refute that, but stated it myself (in one of those posts you didn't bother to read). It is, however completely irrelevant. We can't have a complete success in Korea, until it returns to a state prior to our partitioning, or at the very least both North and South Korea become prosperous and good places to live.

Half the country is prosperous, but just because you don't care about the other half, doesn't mean it just goes away.

So you support the war in Iraq until Iraq is a prosperous liberal democracy. Glad to hear it.

And you evidently support invading North Korea to make North Korea a prosperous Liberal Democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you support the war in Iraq until Iraq is a prosperous liberal democracy. Glad to hear it.

I said as much in my post. I do not, however support most of the tactics the American military is using to fight it. Winning hearts and minds isn't about scooping them off the pavement afterwards and mounting them on a wall.

Quote:
And you evidently support invading North Korea to make North Korea a prosperous Liberal Democracy.

No, that would be a strawman, or you know a 'lie'. A spectacularly foolish one, given that I said the exact opposite in one of my posts (evidently one of the ones you couldn't be bothered to read). Unless you can quote me where those words appear in any of my posts?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you support the war in Iraq until Iraq is a prosperous liberal democracy. Glad to hear it.
I said as much in my post. I do not, however support most of the tactics the American military is using to fight it. Winning hearts and minds isn't about scooping them off the pavement afterwards and mounting them on a wall.

So you would support the tactics used in the Korean War that successfully liberated South Korea.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No, that would be a strawman, or you know a 'lie'. A spectacularly foolish one, given that I said the exact opposite in one of my posts (evidently one of the ones you couldn't be bothered to read). Unless you can quote me where those words appear in any of my posts?

So then you support leaving North Korea as a starving Stalinist state. Just making sure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you would support the tactics used in the Korean War that successfully liberated South Korea.

It's a completely different circumstance and time, unless you think an occupation of civilian centres is the same as a military conflict? Do you support the tactics used to liberate the Falkland Islands? What about the tactics of the British in Northern Ireland (which are nowhere near as heavy handed as those in Iraq I add). Do you have a point, or even a relevant question?

Quote:
So then you support leaving North Korea as a starving Stalinist state. Just making sure.

Well, I guess I have to point it out again in lieu of you reading what I've already posted. I do not support a war of aggression in North Korea. That doesn't mean I think Korea is a stunning success. Believing it is either a success, or we have to go to war, would be a false dichotomy.

Just because I don't think Korea is a stunning success, doesn't mean I think we should make the situation even worse, and destabilise the entire region if not the wider international community by going to war.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ok, let me rephrase that "COMBAT DUTY". Are US troops in Germany on COMBAT DUTY as they are in Korea ? Just curious.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If true, that's great news. But I'm really tracking only two things:

Will we w/draw our troops before we twist the Iraqis' arms into signing the Oil Law? Or will we keep them there until someone cries uncle? And...
What happens to the permanent bases that we're building?

I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil. – Alan Greenspan

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 2:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Some thoughts - when the Brits withdrew from Basra - and they didn't have nearly the problems the US does with the rest of Iraq - the place blew apart. It's true - it doesn't matter how tamped-down your occupying troops have things. If you don't solve the other problems violence will ensue.

I'm guessing the US will stall on w/drawal and in the end extract a permanent US presence.

The reasons are these: if the US doesn't get the oil deal it wants, any delay at w/drawal is more money in the pocket for contractors AND a further draining of the US economy (starving the beast). If the US does get the oil deal it wants, then that's an extra heaping of gravy. It's a win less/ win more situation. Either way, by postponing w/drawal there are no losses. AND - the longer they postpone w/drawal the better the chances get for wedging in those permanent bases.

As for ultimate security, prosperity and democracy for the area of Iraq - either in one chunk or in pieces - that's not even on the drawing board. All they're trying to do is create enough of a paper mache image so that they can occasionally point to victory after success after corner.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well, I guess I have to point it out again in lieu of you reading what I've already posted. I do not support a war of aggression in North Korea. That doesn't mean I think Korea is a stunning success. Believing it is either a success, or we have to go to war, would be a false dichotomy.

Just because I don't think Korea is a stunning success, doesn't mean I think we should make the situation even worse, and destabilise the entire region if not the wider international community by going to war.

Okay, just to clarify, you do support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state then?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ok, let me rephrase that "COMBAT DUTY". Are US troops in Germany on COMBAT DUTY as they are in Korea ? Just curious.

There aren’t any troops on combat duty in South Korea or Germany, right now. But, there have been more troops in Europe on combat duty in the last 20 years, then there have been in Korea. The Korean war ended in 1953. It’s been a long time since there were any US servicemen or servicewomen on combat duty in Korea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay, just to clarify, you do support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state then?

I am an advocate of not causing massive wars and killing millions of people because we can. Perhaps you are? Just to clarify, do you support killing millions of people so you can say "I was right"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 5:33 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Who also post articles without the "Yay! We're winning!" spin that dominates the f*x at f*x.
How about an example of the "Yay! We're winning!" spin from the Fox article, please.

Actually, I did look this article over closely before I posted what I did above, and I compared it to other articles I found online. Apparently, you didn’t.

First, I find that very few other news sources focused on the 75% number as this one did. Second, there was one only line of caution in Fox's article, which was mentioned then skipped right by: "Khalaf's assertion that three-fourths of al-Qaida in Iraq had been destroyed could not be independently verified and he did not elaborate on how the percentage was determined."

As many other posters have covered, this claim of 75% could be total BS. And look again at the source: the Iraq Interior Ministry. I admit that I know nothing of this organization, but the fact that they have nothing to substantiate their claim means something to me. I know that Iraq is capable of spokesmen like Saddam's Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Remember him? http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

So, this 75% number is completely unsupported, and yet Fox will put it in a headline to grab attention and set the tone of their message. And it was similarly used as the header of this thread.

Now let’s talk wording.

Fox says: "Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, told a small group of western reporters on Saturday that despite the success against al-Qaida in Iraq, destroying the group is still a top concern for the U.S. military."

You see how they did that? This does not admit to Al Qaeda having any power. The power is all ours. We are in command, we are winning. We have success. Yet we are steadfast in pursuing them. Like a doctor continuing to give antibiotics to a patient who’s outwardly all better.

From the NY Times: “But top US commander Gen David Petraeus warned al-Qaeda remained the greatest threat facing the country and security gains could easily reverse." Completely different spin. Surely you see that? This is cautious optimism, allowing that there’s still a threat and we don’t know everything.

Fox: "After nearly five years of war, American military commanders have learned to couch even optimistic reports in cautious terms."Now, geezer, what is this telling us? That any “cautious” words we hear are just the commanders couching their terms. The message: commanders aren't sounding cautious because there is danger (although Petreus said there is, according to every other news source I saw). Certainly, he's not sounding cautious because this 75% estimate might be pure BS. It’s only because Petreus has learned to be cautious in *how he speaks*. The true situation is how Fox already told us: Success! Go us! Yay!

These wording things are small, but they're intentionally done. It sets a tone. This is what leads the Fox-brain-washed to dismiss any cautious words by someone like Petreus as something the “evil liberal left” has forced him to say, and deny the facts that every other news source carries.

Fox also completely ignored this, which I already quoted, if you'd noticed and compared it to the Fox article yourself: “Although the data showed a sharp fall in civilian deaths from their peak between mid-2006 and mid-2007, the rate of decline appeared to level off in the past two months... However, he conceded that while attacks were down in the rest of the country, they had not fallen in the northern province of Nineveh, which includes Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, with a population of 1.7 million.”

OK, I doubt my ability to hold anyone's attention even this long, so I’m quitting now.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:05 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Iraqis are barely making enough money in oil revenues to keep their government running. Iraq is an independent country and can spend their oil revenues however they please, there's just not enough coming in now to rebuild infrastructure.

Wow. I mean - wow. Do you have any idea of the wealth that's coming out of the ground in that little country? Every day? Barely interrupted in the invasion because - you'll note - the oil wells were secured by US forces before the supposed WMD sites that the White House know of so very precisely.

There is more than enough oil money to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastucture. Plenty more than enough. And there's plenty of expertise, too. I was in Kuwait last spring at a technical meeting - these people are not stupid. Just because they wear robes and funny hats doesn't mean they can't build shit. The problem is, the money from the oil that THEY OWN is going through our hands, and it's directed as we see fit. It's going to the oil companies and the war companies and to the American-friendly government that we set up, like the Iraq Interior Ministry... hey, and that's who gave us this 75% number, huh? *scratches head*

Quote:
I realise the Iraqi people are great engineers and could do some of the work and I'm sure some of the US companies would love to hire them if they are qualified.

Oh. My. God. Please just don't speak again until you go talk to an Iraqi engineer. Get this superiority knocked right out of you.

Unbelievable. Do you even hear yourself? "Would love to hire them if they're qualified..."

Laotienye.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay, just to clarify, you do support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state then?
I am an advocate of not causing massive wars and killing millions of people because we can. Perhaps you are? Just to clarify, do you support killing millions of people so you can say "I was right"?

Why are you afraid of answering the question? You support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state? Yes or No.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why are you afraid of answering the question? You support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state? Yes or No.

I'm not afraid of answering the question, I already have, if you care to bother to read my posts. Since you need simplistic answers: No. Just don't try to force a false dichotomy on the conversation, please.

Why are you so afraid of my question? You support the killing of millions of people so that you can say "I was right"? Yes or No.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why are you afraid of answering the question? You support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state? Yes or No.
No.

Okay then, do you support invading North Korea to provide them with the same liberal Democracy that was provided to South Korea? Keeping in mind such an invasion would mean a full on war with China.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why are you so afraid of my question? You support the killing of millions of people so that you can say "I was right"? Yes or No.

I’m not afraid of answer it, and maybe someday we will discuss that, but right now, I’m trying to figure out your little tirade towards the Korean War, and why you think South Korea's freedom and prosperity as a direct result of the Korean War and the commitment to it's stability is so unimportant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay then, do you support invading North Korea to provide them with the same liberal Democracy that was provided to South Korea? Keeping in mind such an invasion would mean a full on war with China.

I really hope you aren't surprised when I say you don't read posts by other people. I've answered this several times. I answered it two posts back. I keep answering it. I'll answer it again, please have some semblance of courtesy this time, and bloody well read what I have written.

No, I do not support an Invasion of North Korea. Learn to listen to other people for a change please.

Quote:
I’m not afraid of answer it, and maybe someday we will discuss that,

Yet you're not answering it, while demanding answers I've already provided several times from me. If you're not afraid to answer my question, why don't you?

Quote:
I’m trying to figure out your little tirade towards the Korean War, and why you think South Korea's freedom and prosperity as a direct result of the Korean War and the commitment to it's stability is so unimportant.

Again you show you don't read what I have written. What is the point in asking all these questions if you don't read any of the answers? I did not make any 'tirades' against the Korean war, I've stated that multiple times very clearly. Please read what I write, or don't bother talking to me.

I said that you can't hold up South Korea as an overwhelming success, it's half a success at best. If only half of Iraq becomes a liberal democracy, and the other half becomes a starving Stalinist state, would you declare that as an overwhelming victory in Iraq? I wouldn't, but your suggestion that we only need to look at the success of South Korea and ignore the existence of North Korea would suggest you would.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
OK, I doubt my ability to hold anyone's attention even this long, so I’m quitting now.

You held mine!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- Butting into your conversation with Citizen... There are situations that sometimes just can't be dealt with quickly or effectively and N Korea may be one of them. (I haven't looked into it deeply enough to decide. But with China being N Korea's steadfast ally, until the PRC gets annoyed enough to do something about N Korean refugees flooding across their border, we'd have a hard time getting China to agree to anything exceptionally punitive, and a very hard time doing anything w/o China's agreement. Unless you want to take on China too?) Even you should recognize nobody is omnipotent except your God, and we're not that God.

So while you may pose some galling examples, the reality is that sometimes the only thing we can do is chip away at it through things like sanctions, diplomacy, and reward. It doesn't mean we condone the situation, we may simply not have a choice.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:39 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This recent argument smacks of dishonest debate tactics.

Q - "Do you support pedophiles? That is, do you support adults who rape little children?"

A - "Why, no. Of course not."

Q - "Do you support hiring an armed guard for each and every child in the world, to protect them from pedophiles?"

A - "Well... no. That doesn't seem practical."

Q - "It sounds like you support pedophiles, since you don't want to protect children. You support pedophiles, don't you?"

A - "No, of course not."

Q - "Then hire the armed guards."

A - "I don't think it's even possible to-"

Q - "Admit it. You're a pedophile, aren't you?"

A - "No! Jesus Christ, man."

Q - "A pedophile and a blasphemer! If you don't support protecting kids from pedophiles, then you are a pedophile supporter, or a pedophile yourself, which is just as bad."

A - "Look, just because I don't accept your choice of solutions doesn't mean-"

Q - "Pedophile!"

A - *Sigh* "I give up..."

Q - "He gave up on our children! Monster!"

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:51 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
OK, I doubt my ability to hold anyone's attention even this long, so I’m quitting now.
You held mine!

Perhaps I should have said what I really meant...

I doubt I held geezer's attention that long.

Anthony: Nice.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 1:09 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This recent argument smacks of dishonest debate tactics.

Q - "Do you support pedophiles? That is, do you support adults who rape little children?"

A - "Why, no. Of course not."

Q - "Do you support hiring an armed guard for each and every child in the world, to protect them from pedophiles?"

A - "Well... no. That doesn't seem practical."

Q - "It sounds like you support pedophiles, since you don't want to protect children. You support pedophiles, don't you?"

A - "No, of course not."

Q - "Then hire the armed guards."

A - "I don't think it's even possible to-"

Q - "Admit it. You're a pedophile, aren't you?"

A - "No! Jesus Christ, man."

Q - "A pedophile and a blasphemer! If you don't support protecting kids from pedophiles, then you are a pedophile supporter, or a pedophile yourself, which is just as bad."

A - "Look, just because I don't accept your choice of solutions doesn't mean-"

Q - "Pedophile!"

A - *Sigh* "I give up..."

Q - "He gave up on our children! Monster!"

--Anthony

ROFL! Lovely, just lovely. You have captured the essence of the framed debate that forms the basis of the neo-con apologists' attack on reason, their rationalization of any and all of their most beloved authoritarian tactics:

"If you don't agree with my choice of how to deal with the problem, you must not believe it's a problem, in fact, you must be causing the problem yourself!"

10 points and a win for the day go to Mr. T! I salute you, sir!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 1:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Congratulations Anthony.

You just summed up the entirety of the pro-establishment folks argument here on any topic whatsover.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:13 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This recent argument smacks of dishonest debate tactics.

Q - "Do you support pedophiles? That is, do you support adults who rape little children?"

A - "Why, no. Of course not."

Q - "Do you support hiring an armed guard for each and every child in the world, to protect them from pedophiles?"

A - "Well... no. That doesn't seem practical."

Q - "It sounds like you support pedophiles, since you don't want to protect children. You support pedophiles, don't you?"

A - "No, of course not."

Q - "Then hire the armed guards."

A - "I don't think it's even possible to-"

Q - "Admit it. You're a pedophile, aren't you?"

A - "No! Jesus Christ, man."

Q - "A pedophile and a blasphemer! If you don't support protecting kids from pedophiles, then you are a pedophile supporter, or a pedophile yourself, which is just as bad."

A - "Look, just because I don't accept your choice of solutions doesn't mean-"

Q - "Pedophile!"

A - *Sigh* "I give up..."

Q - "He gave up on our children! Monster!"

--Anthony

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
ROFL! Lovely, just lovely. You have captured the essence of the framed debate that forms the basis of the neo-con apologists' attack on reason, their rationalization of any and all of their most beloved authoritarian tactics:

Great post by Anthony there.

Though I don't disagree with you at all, HK, on the fact that this is the neo-con apologists' attack on reason, this is hardly exclusive to the right. I'm positive that the $0.61 per pack National tax on smoking is going to go through once Bush is out of office. Personally, I feel it's the only damn time he's defended constitutional rights in 7 years, but every article I've read about him vetoing the bill painted him as a monster for depriving children of healthcare by vetoing this bill. (As if this money were actually going to benefit anyone other than Big Gov once passed anyhow)

Please.... the man is a monster, but for countless other reasons. The veto of that bill is the one single time the man has done his job without overstepping his boundaries and curtailing personal liberties since he's been in office.

Kinda hard for us to see our own side doing the exact same thing sometimes, innit?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 5, 2008 11:17 PM

HKCAVALIER

6ix, I know you like the simplicity of your "they're all

," but I was talking about the neo-con apologists, most notably the ones right here in this community: Messers Finn, Hero, Auraptor, etc. I think you will be hard pressed to find similar irrational bullying from the likes of Signy, Rue and Citizen (though they may get a little strident now and then, a little pig-headed--however, stridency and pig-headedness are not the same as sophistry).

In the larger context, yes, people of all stripes will paint their intellectual adversaries in the darkest hues to suit their agendas, but no one in recent memory has used these tools of misdirection and innuendo with more disastrous effect than our current batch of neo-conservative kleptocrats. The War on Terror, the disasterous adventure in Iraq, the Patriot Acts, the torture and the phone-tapping, all justified using the gambit so precisely described by Anthony's lampoon.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:30 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
6ix, I know you like the simplicity of your "they're all ," but I was talking about the neo-con apologists, most notably the ones right here in this community: Messers Finn, Hero, Auraptor, etc.

Heh.... I'm probably just as bad as them, but on the libertarian/anarchist side of things. I think I probably get into just as many fights with Hero as I do Rue lol.

Quote:
I think you will be hard pressed to find similar irrational bullying from the likes of Signy, Rue and Citizen (though they may get a little strident now and then, a little pig-headed--however, stridency and pig-headedness are not the same as sophistry).

Seriously... no offence to Rue or Signy, but I find that they can be just as infuriating when we disagree as the others you mentioned. I know I can be pretty damned infurating to others myself too. As far as parallels to what Anthony's post was about though, I can attribute that line of thought to anybody here that's on either "side". The further to the left or right you stand, the more it applies to you. The only difference is the topics with which that line of thought is used.

Quote:
In the larger context, yes, people of all stripes will paint their intellectual adversaries in the darkest hues to suit their agendas, but no one in recent memory has used these tools of misdirection and innuendo with more disastrous effect than our current batch of neo-conservative kleptocrats. The War on Terror, the disasterous adventure in Iraq, the Patriot Acts, the torture and the phone-tapping, all justified using the gambit so precisely described by Anthony's lampoon.

The only thing the neo-cons have done different than anyone else in your recent memory is made the serious blunder of blatenly flashing just how much above the law they think they are. The fact that the Democrats have done not one single thing they promised since they've taken control of congress not only reaffirms in the neo-cons minds that what they were doing is right, but quite frankly scares the shit out of me because it's a very foreboding omen of the next 8 years under Democratic rule.

I could be wrong now.... but I don't think so.

Hopefully in 8 years we can still be discussing things like this, (in particular, the fact that I'm right and that things will continue to get worse under Democratic rule) but I seriously doubt that free speech will exist on the internets in 2016.

Here's hoping.

EDITED TO ADD: I think you're mislabeling them as neo-con apologists. I don't think any of them have ever apologized for anything that the administration has ever done, and I don't think you'd ever convince them that they even have anything to apologize for in the first place.

EDITED TO ADD (2): Nevermind. I just looked up the definition of the word apologist and it didn't mean what I thought it meant. You have my blessing to continue to use that word in its current application.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 2:09 AM

USMCHELLRAISER

About Iraq:

If you haven't been there, you'll never know. Just like if I was stranded in an alternate dimension, I would never be able to really describe America to someone, just like I'll never really know how beautiful Sihnon(sp?) is, what Inara looks like in the morning, or why hot dogs and hot dog buns come in different numbers still.

What we're doing in Iraq is working on so many levels, and I wish that people who would never volunteer to serve as a soldier or Marine would be banned from being able to use our casualties as their argument- an overwhelming percentage of the military believe in what we are doing there, 'the war', and I would go back again if I was still physically capable. A friend of mine will have spent 2 years and ten months of his last four years there, divided amongst five different deployments, and he is not a careerist, nor is he going over there "to shoot people" (how ignorant someone would have to be to think that!).

The American Military has done an excellent job there, and continues to do so, because they are idealists (well, at heart) about the cultural ideals we prize here.

Hell, more people die in Detroit in a month than in the entire COUNTRY of Iraq.

Come on, the war argument is old and worthless. In 2004 my company took 70-some odd percent casualties to advance seven or so blocks in Fallujah- just recently, they had a bicycle race through the city with Americans and Iraqis present, minus body armor. Beat that. The friends I've lost luckily, have not died in vain.

The problem is, we've forgotten that the media is a business, not a religious institution- CNN wants sponsors and an increased chunk of the cable t.v. money pool, and newspapers try to sell ads and influence their readers for the benefit of the Paper's investors ideals- Conservative, Liberal, Reublican, or Democrat. They are not Non-Profit organizations.

Last thing (I promise)- people lucky enough to live here and have a t.v., a computer, and the internet can't convince me that a woman thanking me in Arabic, holding her child, and standing on a street where people could start shooting basically at will, was doing it because she was just trying to suck up. How did I know what she was saying? Beacause her cousin, an Iraqi as well, was standing next to me, translating, and fighting alongside me to help his city.

Believe what you want, but please, not just because it was what you believed yesterday.

Semper Fidelis.

"...let's not ruin an otherwise pleasant day with unnecessary bloodshed..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 2:23 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I know you believe what you are doing is noble sir, and people who think the way that you do and believe what you do I could never hold a grudge against. You're out there doing your thing and bringing "Democracy" to the ignorant masses of the Middle East. Certainly you alone have done more for the cause of right in the world than any of our political leaders here could ever dream of.

I'm sure the world will be a better place when they're all masturbating to Afghani Idol every week and text messaging their friends about how funny the "Soup Nazi" episode of Saudifeld was last night.

It's called imperialism, my man. The very thing this country was formed to fight against originally. The very thing our forefathers said we had no business getting into. You boys and girls are over there fighting a war against people pre-emptively and meanwhile our country is being invaded by illegals from Mexico and nobody is doing a goddammed thing to stop it. By the time we finally bring the troops back, it won't even be their country anymore.

They don't want us there, imperialism is not our business, and quite frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of funding this "war" myself.

(You're new here, and if you haven't read any of my posts, I can be quite abrasive. I'm sure you're a great guy and we'd get along swell if the topic of conversation were a whole lot lighter than it gets here in the real world. As it were, your first post is something that I feel very strongly the other way about. Nothing personal, ya understand.)

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 3:23 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by USMCHellraiser:
About Iraq:

The American Military has done an excellent job there, and continues to do so...

Thanks for your service Hellraiser. It's because of guys like you I have been confident throughout the war that things will end good for Iraq. It's been tough at times to keep my optimistic attitude in face of the overwhelmingly negative media coverage. Thanks to a few talk radio hosts, the truth has been getting out. Despite what people in the media and on this site might say, the vast majority of the American people support you and the war. Those that support the war and those that don't both know that the only way the US can lose is if we give up. Because of this the anti-American media has tried their best to demoralize both you and me. Nice to hear it's not working on either front.

Grateful, Kirkukes

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 5:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Moi? Infuriating? I stick with the facts, man. And I'm mostly pretty reasonable. Now, YOU OTOH.....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 5:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hell, more people die in Detroit in a month than in the entire COUNTRY of Iraq.

I can't imagine how you came up with that.

THe problem is that while our armed forces- you included- may be idealists our fearless leaders are anything but. I have no bone to pick with you sir, but just watch what happens to Iraqi oil when all is said and done.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 11:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

First of all, your facts - as usual - are wrong.

The Korean "War" wasn't a war. "In the United States, the conflict was officially termed a police action — the Korean Conflict — rather than a war, largely in order to avoid the necessity of a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress."

And it didn't end in peace. "The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty." http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070531-iraq_rok-model.htm

So, if I get your argument right, you would see a divided Iraq, with one portion permanently housing US troops doing guard duty and still at war with 'insurgents' in other parts - as a success story.

And all because Bush said so - that Korea is a good model for Iraq. And you - without a thought to the fact that Korea is a divided country, at war, with an ongoing US presence patrolling the DMZ for over a half a century ! - went along with it !

he he he he he he he he he he ... I don't know what's funnier - Bush the moron using Korea as an example, or you the parrot repeating it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 11:51 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Hell, more people die in Detroit in a month than in the entire COUNTRY of Iraq.
I can't imagine how you came up with that.

THe problem is that while our armed forces- you included- may be idealists our fearless leaders are anything but. I have no bone to pick with you sir, but just watch what happens to Iraqi oil when all is said and done.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Of course the standard of living is better in Detroit... maybe ? corrupt stooge politicians, lack of services, a majority of second class citizens living hand to mouth...

No wait, it is just like Detroit....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7147162.stm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F22B4D85-59F6-4778-8E9F-C15E7F1
CDB40.htm

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:07 PM