Surge is a Success!!

[Uncle Timmy]

Scooterbug,

Well done. Great rebuttal. It has not gone unnoticed.

 

[6thGen]

More avoidance, on your part.

If you will notice, I have been very careful to ask you to explain your position so as not to be charged with the exact thing you are now claiming.

The following quote: ?Long term, if we achieve what we set out to accomplish, the US will benefit. We set out to depose Hussein and foster some sort of representative government that would be less likely to fund and harbor terrorists.? Is your language, not mine.


You have flatly stated a support for Bush?s policies based on a very narrow set of achievements, I am merely asking you if this is your position or are you prepared to consider the greater context.

Explain your position.

Deflecting isn't an argument, Timmy. If you are too lazy to look up the many times I have discussed this, I'm not going to do it for you. I never said that those are the only reasons I have supported his policies, I even gave you reasons why invading Iran might not be the best move right now. I gave you your hero, Al Gore, talking about the need to invade Iraq, long before W was on the radar and "played on our fears".

As for scooterbug's rebuttal. Show me where he intentionally decieved. You cannot, because he didn't. And if he did, then he had every other intelligence agency doing it as well, even the ones that wouldn't support the invasion because of conflicting interests.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Deflecting isn't an argument, Timmy. If you are too lazy to look up the many times I have discussed this, I'm not going to do it for you. I never said that those are the only reasons I have supported his policies, .

Given your tendency to ramble (the latest post being an example) I often have no idea what point you are trying to make and would much prefer that you explain yourself rather than me do it for you.

The question is relevant because I continue to be amazed that people like yourself continue to support Bush?s policies in the face of such massive failures. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you believe ?victory? has been achieved because of an oversimplified set of achievements in Iraq?

And why do you support ?The Surge?- because of an equally oversimplified series of goals?

The ?surge? is not achieving anything positive by my assessments, but my assessments are very broad. If you are inclined only to see the ?surge? as providing a simple series of goals (ie ?a temporary improvement in security in some areas) then I guess you may feel it is a success.

Stop fencing with me and answer the question.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Not my words but I agree with the message:
The pro-war zealots' new justification for prolonging our occupation of Iraq indefinitely goes like this:
Back in 2002, we mocked and ridiculed anti-war critics who warned that our invasion of Iraq would spawn chaos and anarchy in that country, would allow Al Qaeda to operate freely, would trigger dangerous regional instability among Iraq's neighbors, and would unleash vicious sectarian tensions and lead to endless, violent civil wars.
As it turns out, the war critics were right about this and we were wrong. Even though we were snidely dismissive of these concerns before the war, this is exactly what our invasion has spawned. Just as they predicted - and just as we vehemently denied would occur - Iraq is a mess, a dangerous and unpredictable disaster.
For these reasons, we cannot leave Iraq any time soon and, instead, have to re-double our occupation and resign ourselves to being in Iraq for a long, long time.
Although they ought to be deeply embarrassed by this rationale - as it literally amounts to a bizarre declaration that they were entirely wrong about what would happen in Iraq if we invaded, and therefore we must keep following their path and re-commit ourselves to a prolonged and intensified occupation - they are unabashedly trumpeting exactly this reasoning.

 

[scooterbug44]

I can't tell if the surge is working yet or not (I'm trying really hard to be glass half full). The numbers released by the Pentagon showed a significant increase in deaths and attacks and more widespread violence.

"WASHINGTON - Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday. The required quarterly report, which surveyed violence from Feb. 10 to May 7, found that the average number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded each day was more than 100, nearly double the daily toll from the same period one year ago. The number of daily U.S. casualties was about 25, slightly higher than a year ago.
The average weekly number of attacks across Iraq for the reporting period surpassed 1,000, compared to about 600 weekly attacks for the same period one year ago. More than 75 percent of the attacks were aimed at U.S. forces, according to the report, which also examined political and economic developments in Iraq."

I hope those numbers are wrong, because that is just ridonkulous!

I'm also hoping the bombing of the Shi ite shrine in Samarra is a sign that the surge was working so they deliberately blew it up as a way to get people fired up again and divide the country, but know it is probably just a sign of how impossible it will be to get them to stop killing each other and whomever we send over to keep the peace. (For some reason I'd like to think that blowing up churches and architectural treasures is a last resort).

 

[6thGen]

Given your tendency to ramble (the latest post being an example) I often have no idea what point you are trying to make and would much prefer that you explain yourself rather than me do it for you.

The question is relevant because I continue to be amazed that people like yourself continue to support Bush?s policies in the face of such massive failures. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you believe ?victory? has been achieved because of an oversimplified set of achievements in Iraq?

And why do you support ?The Surge?- because of an equally oversimplified series of goals?

The ?surge? is not achieving anything positive by my assessments, but my assessments are very broad. If you are inclined only to see the ?surge? as providing a simple series of goals (ie ?a temporary improvement in security in some areas) then I guess you may feel it is a success.

Stop fencing with me and answer the question.

I?ve made my case as to why we should invade. I?ve made my case as to what I see as a victory. Hell, if I go on about it you accuse me of rambling. Because some faceless internet person wants to boil it down to one statement and corner me on that to be an end all be all is not my fault, but his. I kept it simple because I know that you lack the willingness and capacity to consider the details. Look back and see where I posted the compromise we look to be reaching with Iran. I?d consider that worth our time and worth the lives of 3,500 men who volunteered to risk them.

As for your assessment of the surge, it is as limited and you were as open minded about it as Reid, Pelosi and Company. These things take time, Timmy. War isn?t as easy as one of your computer games. September is rather early to assess the results of the strategy, but that?s the timetable they agreed upon, so we?ll look at it then.

 

[6thGen]

Here is one reason I don't think we have to put a lot of boots on the ground in Iran. They will need a little encouragement, but I don't believe we need to invade.

Iranian Solidarity
Pro-Democracy Iranians gather in Paris to overthrow the Islamic regime.

By Pooya Dayanim


This week Paris will host the largest gathering of Iran?s pro-democracy forces ever assembled to overthrow the Islamic Regime through a nonviolent civil disobedience movement.

The Iran Solidarity Assembly (Hambastegi Melli in Persian) of Paris has been an enormous undertaking that has been three years in the making. Over 200 political luminaries will attend the invitation-only event. Millions of Iranians, however, will be following the proceedings with the help of Voice of America, Radio Farda, Radio Israel, BBC, and independent Iranian broadcasters such as Channel One, Pars TV, and Radio Sedaye Iran.

The Iran Solidarity Assembly includes representatives of virtually all of Iran?s various political, ethnic, social, and economic groups who have assembled together for the first time ever to ask the free world to stand in solidarity with them as they begin to coordinate the efforts of pro-democracy forces inside Iran to over throw the Islamic regime.

The attendees include representatives of many political stripes: socialists, liberal democrats, republicans, federalists, as well as those who support a parliamentary monarchy similar to those of Spain, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. All in all, over 35 political parties will attend from all of Iran?s ethnic groups, including the Kurds. Many of the group?s supporters were behind the Iran referendum movement that encouraged (unsuccessfully) the ostensible reformer Mohammad Khatami to hold a plebiscite on the continuing existence of the Islamic Republic.

Many social and economic groups from Iran have struggled in isolation to protect the very limited rights and freedoms that they have left. The Iran Solidarity Assembly hopes to unify and coordinate women, students, ethnic and religious minorities, former political prisoners, teachers, journalists and bloggers, dissident clerics, civil-rights attorneys, unionists, and doctors and nurses.

Together, they can organize an independent, homegrown, grassroots civil-disobedience movement and reach a critical mass to force change in Iran.

Iran Solidarity will seek to address the desire of the overwhelming number of Iranians for freedom by unveiling a credible, all-inclusive leadership that will, for the first time, provide the people of Iran with an alternative that they can believe in and fight for. Iranians do not want Ahmadinejad and theocratic rule. But they have never been presented with an alternative that they can support and fight for. Iran Solidarity will change that.

The free world has been faced with two undesirable options: war, or appeasing a nuclear-armed terrorist state that wishes to destroy the world. The people of Iran are presenting the world with a third choice: a secular democratic Iran living in peace with its neighbors and the world.

? Pooya Dayanim is the president of the U.S.-based Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee (IJPAC).

 

[rancid]

lie
Pronunciation: (lī), [key]
?n., v., lied, ly?ing.
?n.
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."
"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.
"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.
But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.
"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.
"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."-Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."-Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."-State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Funny how there is no concession from 6th Gen on this after he challenged you to produce this info.

 

[6thGen]

Funny how there is no concession from 6th Gen on this after he challenged you to produce this info.

Why should I concede anything? The key to a lie is intent. Considering, from various intelligence, Hussein believed he had the WMDs himself, and considering we have pretty good intelligence that much of them were moved to Syria by the Russians, how in the hell do you believe Bush, who you believe is barely intelligent enough to obtain a high school diploma, knew better than everyone else, including the man who believed that he had them, fooled the rest of the world or got them all to play along with the fact that they had them but not the invasion, but he didn't have the foresight or ability to plant some there when there were boots on the ground? The "lie" argument makes zero sense.

 

[scooterbug44]

Why should I concede anything? The key to a lie is intent. Considering, from various intelligence, Hussein believed he had the WMDs himself, and considering we have pretty good intelligence that much of them were moved to Syria by the Russians, how in the hell do you believe Bush, who you believe is barely intelligent enough to obtain a high school diploma, knew better than everyone else, including the man who believed that he had them, fooled the rest of the world or got them all to play along with the fact that they had them but not the invasion, but he didn't have the foresight or ability to plant some there when there were boots on the ground? The "lie" argument makes zero sense.

The key to a lie is its overall veracity. Partial or selective truths and deliberately misleading statements rooted in technically factual statistics are still lies. I understand what you are trying to say with your argument that if he believed the statement to be true it wasn't a lie (isn't this a common sitcom plot for how to beat a lie detector).

Are you drunk? Your argument is now that there must have been WMDs because if there weren't really any Bush would have planted some and that they were there, but RUSSIA moved them to Syria?

Your turn to produce evidence! You keep citing "intelligence sources" and making some pretty ludicrous claims.