Surge is a Success!!

[Uncle Timmy]

WTF are you talking about? I really don't know why I bother because you are not capable of some sort of intelligent discourse.

Right back ?atcha.

In this case, the ?arrogance? is well founded as your inability to conduct any argument without resorting to grandstanding and pointless conclusions have lead me, and I must believe others, to consider your opinions laughable.

The only reason I continue to engage you in is that your grandstanding serves a purpose:

- You continue to provide excellent examples of the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. The more people will recognize this kind of emotion driven decision making, and the inability to logically consider facts ?as inherently flawed ?the better we will be.

For anyone else reading this, let?s examine the debate, logically:

As the stated premise is that the surge doesn?t even begin to address the root causes of the instability, then it is illogical to assume that it will re-establish that stability ?a point that 6thGen has absolutely avoided.

It is illogical to argue that the installation of a Sunni dominated ?strongman? cannot stabilize Iraq, as that was the historical reality under Saddam. I am suggesting that the best way to stabilize Iraq is essentially to replace the old regime with a US funded puppet (ugly, as I have stated before ?but the current reality dictates this course, not my emotional preference.) You may argue that it isn?t pretty, but you can not dismiss it as impossible.

Iran or the presence of Iranian supported Shia in Iraq does not de-rail the possibility that a Sunni dominated gov?t can re-establish control of Iraq. The fact that these elements were in place, and (in the case of Iran) actively engaged in warfare with a Sunni governed Iraq in the 80?s proves that this premise is flawed. Difficult, clearly ?but not impossible.

It is illogical to argue about replacing ?one evil empire with another? when you can not 1) offer an alternative that addresses the flaws in the surge and; 2) resort to mischaracterizing Iraq as ?an empire?

Bottom line ? Nit-picking at my proposed course of action is no substitute to actually defending the position that the ?surge? will stabilize Iraq when it fails to address the underlying problems.



We all know, and laugh, at the way 6thGen comes roaring back after every smack-down and no doubt I?ve diced this post with enough personal jibes to warrant a truly passionate response. Let?s all watch how he (predictably) comes back with a post laced with a lot of references to his own brilliance and very little substance to back that claim up.

 

[6thGen]

Right back ‘atcha.

In this case, the ‘arrogance’ is well founded as your inability to conduct any argument without resorting to grandstanding and pointless conclusions have lead me, and I must believe others, to consider your opinions laughable.

The only reason I continue to engage you in is that your grandstanding serves a purpose:

- You continue to provide excellent examples of the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. The more people will recognize this kind of emotion driven decision making, and the inability to logically consider facts –as inherently flawed –the better we will be.

For anyone else reading this, let’s examine the debate, logically:

As the stated premise is that the surge doesn’t even begin to address the root causes of the instability, then it is illogical to assume that it will re-establish that stability –a point that 6thGen has absolutely avoided.

It is illogical to argue that the installation of a Sunni dominated ‘strongman’ cannot stabilize Iraq, as that was the historical reality under Saddam. I am suggesting that the best way to stabilize Iraq is essentially to replace the old regime with a US funded puppet (ugly, as I have stated before –but the current reality dictates this course, not my emotional preference.) You may argue that it isn’t pretty, but you can not dismiss it as impossible.

Iran or the presence of Iranian supported Shia in Iraq does not de-rail the possibility that a Sunni dominated gov’t can re-establish control of Iraq. The fact that these elements were in place, and (in the case of Iran) actively engaged in warfare with a Sunni governed Iraq in the 80’s proves that this premise is flawed. Difficult, clearly –but not impossible.

It is illogical to argue about replacing ‘one evil empire with another’ when you can not 1) offer an alternative that addresses the flaws in the surge and; 2) resort to mischaracterizing Iraq as ‘an empire’

Bottom line – Nit-picking at my proposed course of action is no substitute to actually defending the position that the ‘surge’ will stabilize Iraq when it fails to address the underlying problems.



We all know, and laugh, at the way 6thGen comes roaring back after every smack-down and no doubt I’ve diced this post with enough personal jibes to warrant a truly passionate response. Let’s all watch how he (predictably) comes back with a post laced with a lot of references to his own brilliance and very little substance to back that claim up.

Typing out a ham-fisted argument, ignoring my argument, telling others how I'm going to react and spiking the football is your style, I've come to accept that. You have yet to address how our world community reacts when we put a butcher in charge. You've yet to address how we get from where we are now to where you want us to be. Your argument completely dismisses the Shiite reality, and you somehow call the contrary illogical. I never said the surge was an end itself, which you characterize it as. It is a means to an end. We stabilize Iraq, we have a little more bargaining power. We negotiate a compromise from a position of strength. I, unlike you, know that I cannot craft said compromise seeing that I don't do that for a living. What I've offered is one that we are actually working on. It has holes in it, yes, but it's a hell of a lot better than putting a butcher in charge, really, really pissing off the moderate Arab governments, turning our head while he does his best to exterminate a group of people, backing and getting involved in increased violence and cutting a check once a month. To spell it out for you, because asking you to make logical jumps is asking too much, I believe we go with the surge to stabilize the region, and negotiate some semblance of a representative government. If you want turnout statistics to prove that the Iraqis would like that, I'll dig it up for you.

Now, accuse me of grandstanding, ignore the gaping holes that I've placed in your plan, accuse me of not having a plan, tell me how your brilliant plan works better than the plan I don't have, picture yourself wearing a three piece suit, drinking tea and eating strumpets with Ba'ath officials in Paris, and start doing the Dirty Bird.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Now, accuse me of grandstanding, ignore the gaping holes that I've placed in your plan, accuse me of not having a plan, tell me how your brilliant plan works better than the plan I don't have, picture yourself wearing a three piece suit, drinking tea and eating strumpets with Ba'ath officials in Paris, and start doing the Dirty Bird.

Nah,

I think I?ll just sit here and laugh a little to myself as you continue to play your role, brilliantly.

I love the idea of ?[going] with the surge to stabilize the region, and negotiate some semblance of a representative government.? without anyone articulating how the surge is actually going to accomplish this, what sort of pitiful representative government you hope to get, or best of all ?how quickly is it all going to unravel after we bolt home decaring victory, victory!

Sounds more like a short term political solution for Bush and 6thGen thinking. Bad for US interests long term.

I?ll meet you back here after a few months and we can all watch you squirm and dodge the reality of what Bush's policies have actually accomplished.

 

[6thGen]

Nah,

I think I?ll just sit here and laugh a little to myself as you continue to play your role, brilliantly.

I love the idea of ?[going] with the surge to stabilize the region, and negotiate some semblance of a representative government.? without anyone articulating how the surge is actually going to accomplish this, what sort of pitiful representative government you hope to get, or best of all ?how quickly is it all going to unravel after we bolt home decaring victory, victory!

Sounds more like a short term political solution for Bush and 6thGen thinking. Bad for US interests long term.

I?ll meet you back here after a few months and we can all watch you squirm and dodge the reality of what Bush's policies have actually accomplished.

You sure you don't want to address that sound of air rapidly dispersing from your plan? You sure enjoy addressing mine, but you didn't really hit your's out of the park. Tell you what. I'll address the optimism of mine if you address the bailing basket you call a plan.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Tell you what. I'll address the optimism of mine if you address the bailing basket you call a plan.

Tell you what, when you can post a question that actually makes sense, I'll address it.

6thGen, get control of your emotions, you are starting to ramble again.

 

[Bob]

What 6thgen is trying to say is that the new boogieman is Iran. We must fight them too! Iraq isn't working because Iran is in the way. Let's take that one to the U.N. Let's show some Iranian fertilizer trucks, and declare them mobile weapons labs. We will choose between Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Powell to do the presentation based upon their impeccable reputations for telling the truth when it matters most.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

What 6thgen is trying to say is that the new boogieman is Iran. We must fight them too! Iraq isn't working because Iran is in the way. Let's take that one to the U.N. Let's show some Iranian fertilizer trucks, and declare them mobile weapons labs. We will choose between Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Powell to do the presentation based upon their impeccable reputations for telling the truth when it matters most.

Careful,

Your sarcasm will only get you labeled a 'defeatist'. Then you will have to explain why your policy has caused us to lose the war in Iraq.

 

[Bob]

Every American deserves "victory". Then we can move on to the next "fight". Freedom ain't free you know......let me see, where is that chart of weapons of mass destruction countries????

 

[6thGen]

What 6thgen is trying to say is that the new boogieman is Iran. We must fight them too! Iraq isn't working because Iran is in the way. Let's take that one to the U.N. Let's show some Iranian fertilizer trucks, and declare them mobile weapons labs. We will choose between Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Powell to do the presentation based upon their impeccable reputations for telling the truth when it matters most.

Just a yes or no question, do you deny that Iran is funneling weapons and fighters into Iraq?

As I've said before, and I think that most of you have the attention span of a six year old after about 4 Cokes and a few bowls of Frosted Flakes, I don't believe we need to invade Iran. I think their populace is not far from overthrowing the mullahs. We need to show a little support to those opposing the leaders of their death cult, but we don't need to put boots on the ground, at least not any time soon. I know that won't stop you, Bob, from thowing up an invasion of Iran as an easy straw man, and I know that not only is Uncle Timmy completely unable to defend his brilliant plan, which is too stupid for words, he'll continue to ask why we don't invade Iran because he wants to box in those that aren't playing Monday Morning Quarterback, but maybe someone else will remember I said that when you two, in a Pavlovian retort, throw up Iran again.

 

[John R]

As I've said before, and I think that most of you have the attention span of a six year old after about 4 Cokes and a few bowls of Frosted Flakes...

or like the spoiled child who thinks they'll get the answer they're looking for if they just repeat the question/statement a few hundred times.