"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Gattigap]

I cannot fucking believe I read through page after page of The Surge argument and noone pointed out that the poster with an affectation for writing "woman" to describe a large group of same also employed the effort here to write "crème" -- with the accent.

I'm not buying it, and remain open to the chance, no matter how small, that Spanky has been replaced on this board by a robot with a workable neo-conservative algorithm. Until it has been definitively proven that Spanky is NOT a robot, I hold out hope that we will stay and keep testing this algorithm for its flaws.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
with an affectation for writing "woman" to describe a large group of same

When did I do that and how many times did I do that?

Originally posted by Gattigap
also employed the effort here to write "crème" -- with the accent.

I hate to dissapoint you but that was the spell checker. I don't even know how to add an accent to a letter.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course I dsiagree with the only in US strategic interests just as much as I disagree with the pacifists.

In a year or two, there will be enough riots in China and the middle East over inflation that they will be forced to let the US dollar fall. (There have already been some riots, if you follow these things.) After that happens, interest rates in the US will spike, and political support for idealistic adventures abroad to advance some grand idealistic political agenda will die. It will die just like the UK's grand ideas of foreign policy died in Egypt after the pound crumbled and stopped being the world's reserve currency.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Putting aside that you're incorrect, and that we are having trouble with both Shiite and Sunni elements, are you really suggesting we up and leave and hand the world's second largest oil reserve to Iran?

I meant that Al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shia. And we just wiped out the minority Sunni government in Iraq and disbanded its military, handing power to the Shiites. Are you planning an indefinite military occupation to keep Iraq's majority from ruling the country?

What about Iran gives you comfort?

Not much. You? Have you noticed that our occupation of Iraq undercuts our ability to pressure Iran?

And worse, what on earth makes you think Al Queda would allow Shiites to run Iraq? The place would be in an endless civil war.

This makes about as much sense as asking whether the Symbionese Liberation Army would let the Republican Party run California.

We fucked up. We destabilized an area that could only be controlled by a dictator and now we're stuck with it. Yes, the only option is to keep a large presence there indefinitely. I don't like it either, but that's the shitty mess we're in, and I don't here any serious Plan B from you. Your plan sounds more like a spin of a roullette wheel, or some faith-based conjecture that things would just magically coalesce into a happy stasis in our absence. Isn;t that a lot like Cheney's "faith" we'd be greeted with flowers?

I'm not spinning any wonderful stories about what will happen when we leave. I just don't see the wisdom in occupying a hostile country at great expense of different sorts -- money, lives, strategic power -- to forestall the inevitable. It's not like we're going to be able to reinstall a Sunni dictator. So what's the plan?

[Hank Chinaski]

Because Presidents Day is not the official name of the federal holiday, there is variation in how it is rendered. Both Presidents Day and Presidents’ Day are today common, and both are considered correct by dictionaries and usage manuals. Presidents’ Day was once the predominant style, and it is still favored by the majority of significant authorities—notably, The Chicago Manual of Style (followed by most book publishers and some magazines), The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Webster’s Third International Dictionary, and Garner’s Modern American Usage. In recent years, as the use of attributive nouns (nouns acting as adjectives) has become more widespread, the popularity of Presidents Day has increased. This style is favored by the Associated Press Stylebook (followed by most newspapers and some magazines) and the Writer’s Digest Grammar Desk Reference.

President’s Day is a misspelling when used with the intention of celebrating more than one individual; however, as an alternate rendering of “Washington’s birthday,” or as denominating the commemoration of the presidency as a singular institution, it is a proper spelling. Indeed, this spelling was considered for use as the official federal designation by Robert McClory, a congressman from Illinois who was tasked with getting the 1968 federal holiday reorganization bill through the House Judiciary Committee. Nonetheless, while Washington’s Birthday was originally established to honor George Washington, the term Presidents Day was informally coined in a deliberate attempt to use the holiday to honor multiple presidents, and is virtually always used that way today.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I didn't stick any words in your mouth. You're the one clinging to an amusing hypertechnical standard to justify your earlier post that McCain's judgment is compromised because he believes the surge is not a failure.

You are so full of shit. My first post -- my first one -- said that the surge had not met the benchmarks set by its proponents when they proposed it. Here is what the President said when he addressed the nation:

• I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
  
  This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
  
  A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
  
  To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
  
  America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks.

"Hypertechnical" my ass. This was the plan. "Benchmarks," "breathing space," "reconciliation" -- those weren't my words, they were the President's.

Too many people treat the President as a simpleton whose words can't be taken seriously. As Hank will tell you, he's actually a smart man who deserves to be taken seriously.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say when you were in high school, you finally get a date with Polly cheerleader. You borrow a rubber from your older bro. then, on the date, she gives you a hand job, but no fucking. Failure?

How many people died to get me that date?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are so full of shit. My first post -- my first one -- said that the surge had not met the benchmarks set by its proponents when they proposed it. Here is what the President said when he addressed the nation:

• I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
  
  This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
  
  A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
  
  To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
  
  America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks.

"Hypertechnical" my ass. This was the plan. "Benchmarks," "breathing space," "reconciliation" -- those weren't my words, they were the President's.

Too many people treat the President as a simpleton whose words can't be taken seriously. As Hank will tell you, he's actually a smart man who deserves to be taken seriously.

This doesn't change anything about my point that you mis-spoke and that you were over-reaching in your initial comments, and that you knowingly omitted important caveats about the Surge's tactical and military successes in overbroadly deeming it a complete failure which had no chance of any success going forward.

The argument, Ty, is about how you argued. The blogosphere isn't going to help you on reconsideration, counselor.

You know I like you, but you're biased. That's a just a fact, and it works its way into your writing the same way it works its way into the writing of the right wingers on this board. You seem to think your posts are above that degradation, and I'm telling you they're not.

You're an advocate who fancies himself a fact-finder and you spoke in absolutes when you shouldn't have. That's the only thing I sought to prove and I think I did.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This doesn't change anything about my point that you mis-spoke and that you were over-reaching in your initial comments, and that you knowingly omitted important caveats about the Surge's tactical and military successes in overbroadly deeming it a complete failure which had no chance of any success going forward.

The argument, Ty, is about how you argued. The blogosphere isn't going to help you on reconsideration, counselor.

You know I like you, but you're biased. That's a just a fact, and it works its way into your writing the same way it works its way into the writing of the right wingers on this board. You seem to think your posts are above that degradation, and I'm telling you they're not.

You're an advocate who fancies himself a fact-finder and you spoke in absolutes when you shouldn't have. That's the only thing I sought to prove and I think I did.

I dunno, I think it probably stems from perspective. Ty's initial comment was that he was worried because it appeared that McCain thinks that the surge "worked."

From that point on, at ridiculously tedious lengths, ya'll have been arguing about what "worked" means. I think that it's pretty clear that there's been a decrease in violence in Iraq over the last six months or so, and I don't think Ty ever argued that there wasn't. You've been arguing with Ty about his own biases, and he's been arguing with you about what "worked" means. You're never come to resolution if you're not arguing about the same thing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This doesn't change anything about my point that you mis-spoke and that you were over-reaching in your initial comments, and that you knowingly omitted important caveats about the Surge's tactical and military successes in overbroadly deeming it a complete failure which had no chance of any success going forward.

The argument, Ty, is about how you argued. The blogosphere isn't going to help you on reconsideration, counselor.

You know I like you, but you're biased. That's a just a fact, and it works its way into your writing the same way it works its way into the writing of the right wingers on this board. You seem to think your posts are above that degradation, and I'm telling you they're not.

You're an advocate who fancies himself a fact-finder and you spoke in absolutes when you shouldn't have. That's the only thing I sought to prove and I think I did.

Bullshit. My initial post, #1412, said:

• The scary thing is that McCain thinks the surge worked. Its proponents set out benchmarks by which its success could be judged. By those benchmarks, it failed. This a Tinker Bell foreign policy -- if you just really believe, Iraq will be OK.

What I said was and is right. Hank believes Tinker Bell is going to bring him a magic handjob-bestowing pony, which is great if it makes him happy but is not a sensible way to construct a foreign policy.

The real issue is that you think we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Why this drives you to justify how we got here, I'm not sure. To me, the more interesting conversation would be about when and how you envision us ever leaving.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I dunno, I think it probably stems from perspective. Ty's initial comment was that he was worried because it appeared that McCain thinks that the surge "worked."

From that point on, at ridiculously tedious lengths, ya'll have been arguing about what "worked" means. I think that it's pretty clear that there's been a decrease in violence in Iraq over the last six months or so, and I don't think Ty ever argued that there wasn't. You've been arguing with Ty about his own biases, and he's been arguing with you about what "worked" means. You're never come to resolution if you're not arguing about the same thing.

Ty's initial comment and a couple immediate follow-ups when he was taken to task on it implied that the Surge was a failure.

He did not admit that the Surge had created any successes until it was almost literally dragged out of him, even though those successes were referenced by me and other posters and in many sources cited by Ty and other posters, some of which he relied on.

It was a knowing, willful omission of the sort litigators use all the time to allow themselves to make broad statements that don't hold up on closer examination, so I called him on it.

I've done it myself and probably will do it in the future, and when I do, I would hope people call me on it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bullshit. My initial post, #1412, said:

• The scary thing is that McCain thinks the surge worked. Its proponents set out benchmarks by which its success could be judged. By those benchmarks, it failed. This a Tinker Bell foreign policy -- if you just really believe, Iraq will be OK.

What I said was and is right. Hank believes Tinker Bell is going to bring him a magic handjob-bestowing pony, which is great if it makes him happy but is not a sensible way to construct a foreign policy.

The real issue is that you think we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Why this drives you to justify how we got here, I'm not sure. To me, the more interesting conversation would be about when and how you envision us ever leaving.

This - "Its proponents set out benchmarks by which its success could be judged. By those benchmarks, it failed" - is a misrepresentation, and it is worded to allow you to say that was has been a partial success is a complete failure. It's a gauzy "litigator's way" of expanding a small point to a broader proposition with just enough "wiggle room" built into the words to preserve plausible deniability if challenged.

You couldn't characterize the policy as a "tinker bell" plan if you admitted it was a partial success, so what you did, playing lawyer, was spin the situation from a glass half empty perspective. The problem was, by using "it failed" while refusing to acknowledge that in reality it was only a partial failure, you over-reached. And you knew it.

You read the nitty gritty on these issues closely enough to know better, and instead of being truthful and acknowledging some successes, your bias and pathological litigiousness that erupts when anyone challenges you kicked in. You dug in your heels and only after twelve or so posts from people saying "Ty, you've overreached and lied by omission" did you concede that the Surge has had some successes.

If the Surge has had some successes, then you can't just say "it failed," and at a minimum, for purposes of being honest in the debate, you were obligated at the outset to admit there were some successes, which you didn't do.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To me, the more interesting conversation would be about when and how you envision us ever leaving.

I don't. There's no way for me to even conceive how or when we would leave. It's a mess.

But I do know this. We have some control in the region while we're there, and no rational indicator shows things getting any better if we cut and run. So rationally, logically, the only course we can follow is to stick it out and continue to try things that have been partial successes like the surge, to see if maybe we can get them to the 300% success level which might even satisfy your definition of the term.

The converse, leaving and just hoping something good appears in our wake, is not a rational choice. It is an emotional choice. And while I sympathize with the emotions driving it, I can't see any good reason to utilize a "faith-based" approach where we know boots on the ground are at least keeping a bad situation from turning to utter ruin.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If the Surge has had some successes, then you can't just say "it failed," and at a minimum, for purposes of being honest in the debate, you were obligated at the outset to admit there were some successes, which you didn't do.

This is the fundamental dispute here, but you are ducking the real issue by pretending it's about my style of arguing rather than what is happening in Iraq. If you win evidentiary rulings and lose the jury verdict, you lose. Likewise, if we win some tactical military successes and don't get political reconciliation, we lose. That's not a partial victory. That's a loss. My fear about McCain is that he will use the military in a way that gets some tactical military victories but also leaves us in a worse position in the world. The reason why McCain scares me is the exact same reason why I think your "the surge is a partial victory" -- my words, not yours -- is pernicious claptrap. Sure there have been some tactical military successes. But that doesn't vindicate the strategy -- that's the whole point. We smoked Saddam Hussein's military, too, but that decision isn't looking so hot now, either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The converse, leaving and just hoping something good appears in our wake, is not a rational choice.

I don't hope something good is going to magically appear. I think the situation there will blow. I just don't see the point in squandering our military, our money, and our global power forestalling the inevitable simply because politicians like George Bush and John McCain don't want to acknowlege what's going on or have the failure come on their watch. (Bush, in particular, has long stopped pretending that he's going to find the pony under that pile of manure, and is just trying to string the situation out long enough that it will be someone else's problem.)