A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
What do you mean be "lose" (or, alternatively, "win")?

I do not think thay we can bring a stable, secular democracy to Iraq. At this point, I believe that whenever we pull out we will leave behind chaos. Whether that is this year or two or three years from now seems to me to be the likely difference between "surging" and pulling out.

If, however, your definition of winning is to bring a slight reduction to the level of violence and keep in power the existing Iraqi regime for a few years, then yeah, maybe the surge will work.

OK. So you think our strategic goal of a stable unified democracy in Iraq is unatainable. But that is not want many Democrat members of the Senate and Congress are saying, and therefore, their positions are not helpful and are pure political B.S.

Originally posted by Adder
I'm sorry, but that is a cop out. There is no weaker defense, especially in polite conversation among individuals with no say in what will actually happen.

I couldn't disagree with you more. In my mind there is nothing more pathetic than someone who claims to know enough about a policy decision to criticize it, but at the same time can't come up with an alternative. If you can't come up with an alternative, you clearly don't know enough about the situation to criticize it. You can't have it both ways.

Sometimes you are faced with only bad options and have to mitigate your damages by choosing the option with the least damage. Also, sometimes a choice at a certain time with the information at hand was the best choice even if it didn’t turn out OK.

In the end, if you can't come up with a better alternative, in my mind, your criticism is really an endorsement. If you can't come up with something better than the surge, then you are endorsing the surge.

Anyone can find millions of problems with governmental systems that are democratic and respect human rights, but if you believe those problems lead to the conclusion that those systems should be abandoned, to make your argument valid, you had better come up with a better alternative. If you can't come up with an alternative that is better, then your criticism is really an endorsement. As Churchill said about representative democracy, it is the worst system, save the rest.

If you think Bush's policy decisions are bad, then you better had come up with some better ones, otherwise the problems you have pointed out do not lead to the conclusion that the current policy decisions should be abandoned.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sometimes you are faced with only bad options and have to mitigate your damages by choosing the option with the least damage.

Exactly.

[Tables R Us]

Test

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK. So you think our strategic goal of a stable unified democracy in Iraq is unatainable. But that is not want many Democrat members of the Senate and Congress are saying, and therefore, their positions are not helpful and are pure political B.S.






I couldn't disagree with you more. In my mind there is nothing more pathetic than someone who claims to know enough about a policy decision to criticize it, but at the same time can't come up with an alternative. If you can't come up with an alternative, you clearly don't know enough about the situation to criticize it. You can't have it both ways.

Sometimes you are faced with only bad options and have to mitigate your damages by choosing the option with the least damage. Also, sometimes a choice at a certain time with the information at hand was the best choice even if it didn’t turn out OK.

In the end, if you can't come up with a better alternative, in my mind, your criticism is really an endorsement. If you can't come up with something better than the surge, then you are endorsing the surge.

Anyone can find millions of problems with governmental systems that are democratic and respect human rights, but if you believe those problems lead to the conclusion that those systems should be abandoned, to make your argument valid, you had better come up with a better alternative. If you can't come up with an alternative that is better, then your criticism is really an endorsement. As Churchill said about representative democracy, it is the worst system, save the rest.

If you think Bush's policy decisions are bad, then you better had come up with some better ones, otherwise the problems you have pointed out do not lead to the conclusion that the current policy decisions should be abandoned.

You're not going to respond to me, right, because after your blah-blah-blah you'd actually have to keep it concise?

What, you want more people to come up with policy advice for Bush to ignore? Your man needs to listen to someone for once.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
What do you think [Bush] is doing that is not leading to a stable, unified, Democracy, and what does he need to do to reach that goal? If you think all are not achievable, which ones do you think are achievable and how do we get there?

There are three realistic options:

A. Pick a militia leader we find tolerable, and help him murder his way to a dictatorship.

B. Leave the militia leaders to fight it out on their own, until one murders his way to dictatorship.

C. Put in 500,000 troops to impose martial law for several years, so democracy can emerge.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're not going to respond to me, right, because after your blah-blah-blah you'd actually have to keep it concise?

What, you want more people to come up with policy advice for Bush to ignore? Your man needs to listen to someone for once.

No one on this board is ever going to get a hearing with the POTUS. He does listen to people, just not the people you want him to listen to (thank God).

But still, if you want to criticize his policy, unless you can come up with a better alternative, you criticism is unsubstantive and is really is an endorsement of what he is doing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Exactly.

Meaning you think that is the situation we are in? Do you think the strategic goal of a unified Democratic Iraq is unachievable?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're not going to respond to me, right, because after your blah-blah-blah you'd actually have to keep it concise?

The blah, blah, blah, was in reference to the fact that there was no substance to your words. Anyone can make broad general recommendations. "Bush should implement a policy that will engage all partiess involved, give the Iraqi's confidence in their government, make the neighbors feel included and engaged, will give the military certain and definite achievable goals, blah, blah, blah."

The only alternatives that count are ones that propose specific actions. The rest is just stupid blather.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
No one on this board is ever going to get a hearing with the POTUS. He does listen to people, just not the people you want him to listen to (thank God).

But still, if you want to criticize his policy, unless you can come up with a better alternative, you criticism is unsubstantive and is really is an endorsement of what he is doing.

Of course, a little thought while you listen isn't a bad idea either.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
There are three realistic options:

A. Pick a militia leader we find tolerable, and help him murder his way to a dictatorship.

B. Leave the militia leaders to fight it out on their own, until one murders his way to dictatorship.

C. Put in 500,000 troops to impose martial law for several years, so democracy can emerge.

Would you support the idea of sending 500,000 troops in?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
The blah, blah, blah, was in reference to the fact that there was no substance to your words. Anyone can make broad general recommendations. "Bush should implement a policy that will engage all partiess involved, give the Iraqi's confidence in their government, make the neighbors feel included and engaged, will give the military certain and definite achievable goals, blah, blah, blah."

The only alternatives that count are ones that propose specific actions. The rest is just stupid blather.

I'm still not clear on a) what the specific action of bringing in 30,000 more troops will bring, and b) what the ultimate goal is (and there's also the question of c) what we're willing to live with if b) cannot be met for political, strategic, or practical purposes.)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Would you support the idea of sending 500,000 troops in?

Yes.

ON a different subject:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein’s half brother and the former chief of Iraq’s Revolutionary Court were both hanged before dawn Monday, but the half-brother's head was severed by the noose — leading to outrage from Sunnis who claim the body was mutilated.

Anyone have a line on some video or at least a pic? I need a new screensaver, the Saddam one is starting to bore me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm still not clear on a) what the specific action of bringing in 30,000 more troops will bring, and b) what the ultimate goal is (and there's also the question of c) what we're willing to live with if b) cannot be met for political, strategic, or practical purposes.)

This could be your problem, once the troop phalanx has breached the perimeter and actually gone in country, you need to let them stay the course, until their mission comes to fruition. No pulling out prematurely.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This could be your problem, once the troop phalanx has breached the perimeter and actually gone in country, you need to let them stay the course, until their mission comes to fruition. No pulling out prematurely.

Perhaps, but if the mission is not properly identified and targetted and the objectives are not achievable before the manpower is deployed, you can end up with a real mess on your hands.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
Would you support the idea of sending 500,000 troops in?

Yes, but Bush has made so many mistakes in Iraq, he can't sell that. The next president might be able to. But Bush cannot. He is the worst President since Jimmy Carter.