2008 Presidential Primaries

Who ya got?

  • Clinton

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • McCain

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Obama

    Votes: 25 65.8%

  • Total voters
    38

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Peregrine_Falcon said:
Because I'm sure that they are begging for the US to stay and now see us as some sort of beacon of human rights and freedom.

Is that attitude any more enlightened than that of the war mongers? Believe it or not, we do have allies in the country currently relying on our presence and commitment to them.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
You were defending his second opinion and implied that his first opinion would cause problems. I was saying that occupying this country is causing us problems. That was how I was responding to you.

That's basically restating the initial problem though, I thought this was a discussion based around the validity and viability of prospective solutions, in this case, Obama's. If your mind is made up about it, fine, but if we're going to simplify our positions to the lowest common denominator I should just say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Not that it would be, but could.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
To CnC and GNM:
Obviously the video was edited and did have an agenda but that doesn't change the fact that in one video he said they would all be out within a year and another said that they would be out by 2013.

Actually, he didn't even commit to 2013 in the video (which is obviously incomplete), since we're paying so much attention to what he's saying. Not to mention all that other stuff CnC and I pointed out about the "facts" of the video and context that you're running over. Don't say, "Well yes, it's obvious propaganda, but you can't question the truth of what I get out of it."

Peregrine_Falcon said:
What next, 2030? I had heard this from many other sources, but I chose to find and post the video since it contained his exact words. I can’t even be sure that politicians who say, ‘phased withdrawal, are not actually saying "It's politically inconvenient for me to say at no point in the near future."

Yeah, because they really can't say without being disingenuous or making a dangerous promise that could result in a reckless course of action. You shouldn't believe blanket promises anyway, and if you do believe someone is going to keep a blanket promise no matter what the circumstances, be afraid, because they're a zealot. Again, we've had that kind of strong, decisive leadership for 8 years now, and I've had enough, I say we elect a wuss, a woman, or cripple this time. =)

Peregrine_Falcon said:
To GNM:
I gave both financial and strategic reasons, not just moral ones. Boosting enemy recruitment and costing us three trillion dollars is bad for the state.

That would be meaningful if we weren't advocating for the same thing, but again, that's just restating why the war, or any war, is bad. I'm simply acknowledging the possibility and dangers of unintended consequences of simply leaving tomorrow, come hell or high water. Just because it was wrong to go, doesn't make it right to leave under any circumstances, what's done is done and then you deal with that. That's not about staying the course, but not making things worse in the process of leaving, and neglecting the problems we've already created. Again, just because we created more problems for ourselves in the region, doesn't mean we now don't have to deal with them, or can take it back. There's no rest button.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
A person who does the "right thing" would be someone who picks every violent conflict around the world and stretches our troops and sinks billions of dollars immediately and believes that we must use every ounce of energy to force the world into a peaceful utopia of industrialized, authentic democracies. I'm against bankrupting ourselves and creating more enemies than we can handle. Unprovoked, costly wars, and massive debts have killed civilizations.

Why the extremes, and the last line is hyperbole I'd even go so far as to call hysterical ("the sky is falling, it's the end of the World!")? Anyway, I never defined the "right thing" that way, there's a difference between crusading around the World and dealing responsibly with a mistake you've already made, it's not mutually exclusive or inconsistent. It's like if I said that by your reasoning, the only alternative to immediate exit was to conquer the entire region, vaporize all potential enemies, and then move in and take all their land and resources. Sounds profitable for the state, so that's what you think we should do if not get out, right!? Yeah, not exactly. I'm simply acknowledging that there's no easy solution to something we've already gotten ourselves in to, whether we like it or not, and I keep that in mind when I listen to the candidates. I'm less impressed or inclined to believe the one's declaring World Peace their first day in office, thus why I liked Obama's most recent take on it better.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
With this supposed ‘phased withdrawal’, the situation of soldiers in Iraq would be nothing like the situation of soldiers in Japan and Germany and keeping troops in hostile territory for decades is also an extreme.

The point was that it's unreasonable in any case to ask or think that every troop would be withdrawn in a few years, especially without knowing all the ins and outs, which neither of us can claim from our position (netxperts!). Tell us the future, Obama! What is reasonable to expect is that there'd be a real good faith effort to be getting them home ASAP, I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, or have a case where we have to do it even if circumstances make it so we'd actually be shooting ourselves in the foot again somehow (for instance, something new and totally unrelated to the previous war politics).

Anyway, I understand your position, but I'm not persuaded to take a hard stand on it because I acknowledge the possibility that legitimate reasons for taking our time exist, and we shouldn't ignore that in favor of some kind of zero tolerance withdrawal (especially if it's mostly for appearances sake). Tying it back to Obama and the origin of this discussion, let me put it this way, do you want the guy who voted against the war in charge of ending it, or the two who voted for it?
 
Griffith No More! said:
Is that attitude any more enlightened than that of the war mongers? Believe it or not, we do have allies in the country currently relying on our presence and commitment to them.

But as a whole we have been hurting the Iraqis and they do not want us occupying their land. I don’t see why I should be lumped in with people who just want to nuke Iraq into a radioactive crater.

Griffith No More! said:
That's basically restating the initial problem though, I thought this was a discussion based around the validity and viability of prospective solutions, in this case, Obama's. If your mind is made up about it, fine, but if we're going to simplify our positions to the lowest common denominator I should just say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Not that it would be, but could.

The war is the source of financial burden, deaths, and enemies. The longer we stay there, the bigger these problems get. So we should stop doing what’s causing this. You answer as if all I’m doing is talking about the fraudulent charges that motivated this war.

Griffith No More! said:
Actually, he didn't even commit to 2013 in the video (which is obviously incomplete), since we're paying so much attention to what he's saying. Not to mention all that other stuff CnC and I pointed out about the "facts" of the video and context that you're running over. Don't say, "Well yes, it's obvious propaganda, but you can't question the truth of what I get out of it."

Fair enough, he said that he wouldn’t know if even 2013 was a possibility. However, you simply cannot deny that Obama was inconsistent about his decision of when to withdraw the troops just because someone timed the clips in a biased way; the words in the video are clearly his words.

Griffith No More! said:
Yeah, because they really can't say without being disingenuous or making a dangerous promise that could result in a reckless course of action. You shouldn't believe blanket promises anyway, and if you do believe someone is going to keep a blanket promise no matter what the circumstances, be afraid, because they're a zealot. Again, we've had that kind of strong, decisive leadership for 8 years now, and I've had enough, I say we elect a wuss, a woman, or cripple this time. =)

Not everyone who proposes a radical solution is a zealot. Many are simply ahead of their time. As for Bush: I think zealot is too nice of a word for him.

Griffith No More! said:
That would be meaningful if we weren't advocating for the same thing, but again, that's just restating why the war, or any war, is bad. I'm simply acknowledging the possibility and dangers of unintended consequences of simply leaving tomorrow come hell or high water. Just because it was a wrong to go, doesn't make it right to leave under any circumstances, what's done is done and the situation has changed. That's not about staying the course, but not making things worse in the process of leaving, and neglecting the problems we've already created. Again, just because we've only created more problems for ourselves in the region, doesn't mean we now don't have to deal with them. There's no rest button.

But how is a phased withdrawal with no end in sight any different from staying the course with no end in sight? Though it would be wonderful if Iraq had a secure democracy, we also have to wonder if we are even capable of handling this war. Do we actually have the capacity? The situation certainly has changed; it’s gotten worse and with our occupation it will drag on for a long time.

Griffith No More! said:
Why the extremes, and the last line is hyperbole I'd even go so far as to call hysterical ("the sky is falling, it's the end of the World!")? Anyway, I never defined the "right thing" that way, there's a difference between crusading around the World and dealing responsibly with a mistake you've already made, it's not mutually exclusive or inconsistent. It's like if I said that by your reasoning, the only alternative to immediate exit was to conquer the entire region, vaporize all potential enemies, and then move in and take all their land and resources. Sounds profitable for the state, so that's what you think we should do if not get out, right!? Yeah, not exactly. I'm simply acknowledging that there's no easy solution to something we've already gotten ourselves in to, whether we like it or not, and I keep that in mind when I listen to the candidates. I'm less impressed or inclined to believe the one's declaring World Peace their first day in office, thus why I liked Obama's most recent take on it better.

We’re not dealing responsibly with the mistake we made. We’re getting them killed, we’re getting ourselves killed, we’re strengthening our enemies, we’re running ourselves further into massive debt, and have no idea when we will ever stop. That’s hardly responsible. There certainly is no easy solution, not when we set our goals so unrealistically high. We could have tried to ensure that South Vietnam would be a secure, capitalist nation, for example, but then we realized that that was too much for us to handle and accepted that withdrawing was a realistic solution. Had we stayed there, who knows how many more people would have died and how much money would have been spent and where we’d be right now.

I’m not sure I follow your logic on tracing my statements to hypothetically proposing vaporization

Griffith No More! said:
The point was that it's unreasonable in any case to ask or think that every troop would be withdrawn in a few years, especially without knowing all the ins and outs, which neither of us can claim from our position (netxperts!). Tell us the future, Obama! What is reasonable to expect is that there'd be a real good faith effort to be getting them home ASAP, I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, or have a case where we have to do it even if circumstances make it so we'd actually be shooting ourselves in the foot again somehow (for instance, something totally unrelated to the previous war politics).

Just because we’re not Fareed Zakaria doesn’t mean we can’t discuss foreign policy. There should always be dialogue among citizens about what its government is doing be it on the BBC or on an internet forum dedicated to a Japanese Comic.

Griffith No More! said:
Tying it back to Obama and the origin of this debate, let me put it this way, do you want the guy who voted against the war in charge of getting us out, or the two who voted for it?

I hate this two-party system.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Peregrine_Falcon said:
We could have tried to ensure that South Vietnam would be a secure, capitalist nation, for example, but then we realized that that was too much for us to handle and accepted that withdrawing was a realistic solution. Had we stayed there, who knows how many more people would have died and how much money would have been spent and where we’d be right now.

Iraq is NOT Vietnam. There is no equivalent of the Vietcong and there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese Army in Iraq. What Iraq does have is suicide bombers and a lot of gangs. Oh and Al Sadr, who is only alive because the US Military wants to bring an end to that with out having to kill anymore of his people. So please do not comparing apples to oranges.
 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Iraq is NOT Vietnam. There is no equivalent of the Vietcong and there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese Army in Iraq. What Iraq does have is suicide bombers and a lot of gangs. Oh and Al Sadr, who is only alive because the US Military wants to bring an end to that with out having to kill anymore of his people. So please do not comparing apples to oranges.

Some people believe that if you made a poor decision before that you should just stick to it to the very end. I'm not saying Iraq and Vietnam are the exact same thing; I'm saying that withdrawal is available and has been used before.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Peregrine_Falcon said:
But as a whole we have been hurting the Iraqis and they do not want us occupying their land. I don’t see why I should be lumped in with people who just want to nuke Iraq into a radioactive crater.

Because it's taking a complex situation and looking at it one-dimensionally, and it just comes off too much like picking sides to me (if that makes sense). Can't you just see one of the nukers making a similar remark advocating killing the "ungrateful bastards"? Anyway, whether one happens to be right or wrong, I don't think that attitude helps, but perhaps I'm not the best messenger for this as Mr. Tude himself.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
The war is the source of financial burden, deaths, and enemies. The longer we stay there, the bigger these problems get. So we should stop doing what’s causing this. You answer as if all I’m doing is talking about the fraudulent charges that motivated this war.

No, it's just that I'm not hearing much attempt to just recognize what I'm saying here as a plausibility to consider. Like I said, if there's no discussion to be had, just say so. We both agree about ending the war, but I feel you're being willfully unreasonable about how quickly it should, or even potentially could, be done, especially considering the level of urgency at this point (certainly doesn't compare to Vietnam). It feels like we basically agree, except I want the war to end ASAP in the best way possible, don't fuck things up even worse, but you want out with the same fervor the administration wanted in (though, unlike them, for the right reasons). Still, you literally haven't even acknowledged that there could be, not is, just could be legitimate cause beyond what we know not to leave in a hasty manner. If you don't think there could be ANY reason to cross the T's or dot the I's, then just tell me, and maybe you feel you already did, but I'd love an official, "No, I don't believe there's possibly anything to prepare, or time consuming arrangements to be made before we leave, or even extenuating circumstances to give pause to a withdrawal effort. Nothing we can lose by leaving now is greater than what we lose staying, even in the long term." I'd respect that.

Especially since I wrote it. :ganishka:

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Fair enough, he said that he wouldn’t know if even 2013 was a possibility. However, you simply cannot deny that Obama was inconsistent about his decision of when to withdraw the troops just because someone timed the clips in a biased way; the words in the video are clearly his words.

Okay, but that's because you're comparing a bill he proposed and was discussing a year ago, to his answer to a longterm question that came about months later, after which the deadline to start the withdrawal via his bill had already passed, and instead there was a surge, to which he obviously couldn't give the same answer a new set of circumstances that was basically the opposite of his plan. This wasn't like he answered the exact same question totally differently a couple of days apart, and as I've been saying, his hesitation to say, "Read my lips, no new troops!" isn't so unreasonable.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Not everyone who proposes a radical solution is a zealot. Many are simply ahead of their time. As for Bush: I think he deserves his own special category.

Sorry, you have to take the good with the bad, and accept Bush right along with everyone else who was unwilling to listen or compromise their principles, for better or worse. That's the problem, in most cases like that, you don't know if it's for good or bad until it's too late because everybody thought they had it figured out already ("This is what we need to do, no matter what, no justification for deviating from the plan"). It doesn't really matter if the solution is radical or not, it's how it's applied that's important to me. I'm not even taking a hard stance here, I basically just want our leaders to think not just before they act, but as they act too. No use solving one problem if it leads to another, or ends up canceling out the progress of the solution, and that should weighed every time, up to the minute. Can you agree on that much?

Peregrine_Falcon said:
But how is a phased withdrawal with no end in sight any different from staying the course with no end in sight? Though it would be wonderful if Iraq had a secure democracy, we also have to wonder if we are even capable of handling this war. Do we actually have the capacity? The situation certainly has changed; it’s gotten worse and with our occupation it will drag on for a long time.

No argument there, it's not even a matter of better or worse, but since we already broke the full condom, I want to spill as little as possible pulling out. I think the rip is near the side, and most of it is still hanging in a flap on the bottom of... never mind. =)

Peregrine_Falcon said:
We’re not dealing responsibly with the mistake we made. We’re getting them killed, we’re getting ourselves killed, we’re strengthening our enemies, we’re running ourselves further into massive debt, and have no idea when we will ever stop. That’s hardly responsible. There certainly is no easy solution, not when we set our goals so unrealistically high.

Well, I happen to think that immediate departure is an unrealistically high goal as well, at least clean (obviously that's relative, there's no way to look good, but we could actually do much worse). Here's one that's going to get us off on a tangent, and it's a catch 22, but don't you think all those new enemies we've created is a legitimate reason not to leave too soon? In no way do I mean stay and fight, but if it can be helped, leave the in-country opposition to that a fighting chance. Hell, getting out nothing, I'm already worried about us going back, aren't you? =)

Peregrine_Falcon said:
We could have tried to ensure that South Vietnam would be a secure, capitalist nation, for example, but then we realized that that was too much for us to handle and accepted that withdrawing was a realistic solution. Had we stayed there, who knows how many more people would have died and how much money would have been spent and where we’d be right now.

Bobby got this one, it's certainly not so volatile in Iraq or at home as in the time of Vietnam, and hey, if it was, we'd leave as we did then, before our civilization crumbled. Anyway, I'll add that, like I say above, we left a lot of friends in SV behind to twist in the wind and get wasted. If we'd accepted withdrawal before it had gotten to that point, we could've left under better circumstances, more prepared, with less death, and sooner. Again, we're basically advocating the same thing, we just have differing standards of how to best accomplish it.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
I’m not sure I follow your logic on tracing my statements to hypothetically proposing vaporization

Just as I wasn't sure how I intimated that doing the right thing to clean up one's own mess also meant crusading over the world.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Just because we’re not Fareed Zakaria doesn’t mean we can’t discuss foreign policy. There should always be dialogue among citizens about what its government is doing be it on the BBC or on an internet forum dedicated to a Japanese Comic.

Oh, I obviously couldn't disagree more, I shouldn't even be typing this. Everyone reading this will be banned as a matter of fact. But I will say, let us always account for what we don't know or expect in our dialogues as well as discussing what we do.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
I hate this two-party system.

Well, Hillary tells me that the votes don't even have to count, the pledged delegates can vote for whoever they want, so can the electoral college really, so we really don't even have a two party system per se, or a system. You or I may be elected if we make enough phone calls. Yeah, getting goofy here. =)

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Some people believe that if you made a poor decision before that you should just stick to it to the very end.

That's exactly what I don't want to happen during the withdrawal process. I don't want a legitimate concern or doubt to be ignored and we say fuck it and move forward anyway because we're too cynical and set on leaving to deal with it, just like how we got into this. I don't want us to do the wrong thing for the right reasons, so however quickly, let's just hope we do it right (the first time... BUM BUM BUM!).
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Peregrine_Falcon said:
Because I'm sure that they are begging for the US to stay and now see us as some sort of beacon of human rights and freedom.

They're not begging for the US to stay, but that doesn't mean that leaving just like that without looking back wouldn't still be completely irresponsible. And let me tell you as a non-American that most of all it would worsen the USA's image worldwide, more than it has been so far. Including in Iraq. Your hasty generalization of the whole country's opinion is cute, by the way, but not as strong of an argument as you seem to think it is. Like you've been told already, there's unfortunately no way the US can realistically stop spending money in Iraq right now. It will have to be gradual. Your problem here Peregrine_Falcon as far as I can tell is that you are still as ignorant, scared and misled by the media than you were when the war started (paraphrasing your own words). The sort of simplistic reasoning you have exhibited so far is not aligned with the realities of the world at all. If it's just too difficult for you to understand any kind of nuancing or subtlety, then let's just say that the USA made a mess and that now it's up to them to clean it up before leaving. Otherwise your country is setting itself up for an error as big as going to war was, and you'll regret it in 10 years just like you regret the decision to go to war now.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
With this supposed ‘phased withdrawal’, the situation of soldiers in Iraq would be nothing like the situation of soldiers in Japan and Germany and keeping troops in hostile territory for decades is also an extreme.

I like the hypocrisy of what you say. Basically, while you're feigning to care about the occupied population's feelings, your real point is that Iraq costs American money and American lives. Let me tell you that people in South Korea or Japan would be quite happy to see US troops leave their country. But hey, it's not to your advantage, so why do it?
 
Griffith No More! said:
No argument there, it's not even a matter of better or worse, but since we already broke the full condom, I want to spill as little as possible pulling out. I think the rip is near the side, and most of it is still hanging in a flap on the bottom of... never mind. =)
[…]
No, it's just that I'm not hearing much attempt to just recognize what I'm saying here as a plausibility to consider. Like I said, if there's no discussion to be had, just say so. We both agree about ending the war, but I feel you're being willfully unreasonable about how quickly it should, or even potentially could, be done, especially considering the level of urgency at this point (certainly doesn't compare to Vietnam). It feels like we basically agree, except I want the war to end ASAP in the best way possible, don't fuck things up even worse, but you want out with the same fervor the administration wanted in (though, unlike them, for the right reasons). Still, you literally haven't even acknowledged that there could be, not is, just could be legitimate cause beyond what we know not to leave in a hasty manner. If you don't think there could be ANY reason to cross the T's or dot the I's, then just tell me, and maybe you feel you already did, but I'd love an official, "No, I don't believe there's possibly anything to prepare, or time consuming arrangements to be made before we leave, or even extenuating circumstances to give pause to a withdrawal effort. Nothing we can lose by leaving now is greater than what we lose staying, even in the long term." I'd respect that.

Especially since I wrote it.
You claim to be against the ‘stay the course’ approach yet when I point out that stay the course with no end in sight is the same thing as withdraw with no end in sight you agree with me but you still advocate phased withdrawal with no end in sight. And you accuse me of being set in my ways. I don’t demand that the withdrawal happens exactly within a year, but if he simply has no idea when it will end then it’s not much of a phased withdrawal.

Griffith No More! said:
Can't you just see one of the nukers making a similar remark advocating killing the "ungrateful bastards"? Anyway, whether one happens to be right or wrong, I don't think that attitude helps, but perhaps I'm not the best messenger for this as Mr. Tude himself.

I do not view the Iraqis as ungrateful bastards at all. If China started occupying us, destabilizing our leadership (even if its Dubya), and caused a possibly genocidal number of deaths, we would want them out too. It’s very human of them.

Griffith No More! said:
Sorry, you have to take the good with the bad, and accept Bush right along with everyone else who was unwilling to listen or compromise their principles, for better or worse. That's the problem, in most cases like that, you don't know if it's for good or bad until it's too late because everybody thought they had it figured out already ("This is what we need to do, no matter what, no justification for deviating from the plan"). It doesn't really matter if the solution is radical or not, it's how it's applied that's important to me. I'm not even taking a hard stance here, I basically just want our leaders to think not just before they act, but as they act too. No use solving one problem if it leads to another, or ends up canceling out the progress of the solution, and that should weighed every time, up to the minute. Can you agree on that much?

Of course the leader should assess the current situation but he should also have a visible end to his plan or else it’s no different from staying the course. If his plan drags everyone into a thirty year ‘phased withdrawal’ and continues to pile on the current problems then it’s not much of an exit strategy. If, however, the situation does have an enormous shift such that not being there could prove more damaging than being there, in other words, more damaging than thousands of American deaths, possibly millions of Iraqi deaths, and trillions of dollars lost, then yes. The consequences are already enormous and it would be quite extraordinary to find something to beat them.

Aazealh said:
They're not begging for the US to stay, but that doesn't mean that leaving just like that without looking back wouldn't still be completely irresponsible. And let me tell you as a non-American that most of all it would worsen the USA's image worldwide, more than it has been so far. Including in Iraq. Your hasty generalization of the whole country's opinion is cute, by the way, but not as strong of an argument as you seem to think it is. Like you've been told already, there's unfortunately no way the US can realistically stop spending money in Iraq right now. It will have to be gradual. Your problem here Peregrine_Falcon as far as I can tell is that you are still as ignorant, scared and misled by the media than you were when the war started (paraphrasing your own words). The sort of simplistic reasoning you have exhibited so far is not aligned with the realities of the world at all. If it's just too difficult for you to understand any kind of nuancing or subtlety, then let's just say that the USA made a mess and that now it's up to them to clean it up before leaving. Otherwise your country is setting itself up for an error as big as going to war was, and you'll regret it in 10 years just like you regret the decision to go to war now.

I know that our image is tarnished. We are viewed as selfish, ruthless, warmongers. It is our violent, offensive (not defensive) intervention that destroyed our image. Either way, we are not going to come out of this as heroes; we will be hated either way. I frankly don’t see how any of your reasoning is complex. You speak in general terms as well without any ‘nuancing or subtlety’. Though you may not like my opinion, you haven’t provided convincing evidence that the consequences of leaving could be any worse than the consequences of staying (which are enormous and continue to pile up). You are not aligned with the realities of the world if you can’t see the enormous repercussions that have taken a huge toll on both Iraq and the United States and that we can’t go on this way for an unspecified number of decades.

Aazealh said:
I like the hypocrisy of what you say. Basically, while you're feigning to care about the occupied population's feelings, your real point is that Iraq costs American money and American lives. Let me tell you that people in South Korea or Japan would be quite happy to see US troops leave their country. But hey, it's not to your advantage, so why do it?

GNM had accused me of being motivated by values, not pragmatism, while ignoring the strategic and financial reasons I gave. So I explained to him why it was strategically and financially unsound as well as morally unsound. Then you accuse me of only caring about America’s interest while ignoring the moral reasons I gave. As a Southwest Asian American citizen, myself, I happen to care very much about the lives lost when our government tries to police Southwest Asia, and the rest of the world, into being their colonies. I see that our intervention has crushed democracy, empowered crazy dictators, killed an enormous number of people, and drove others of us into poverty. I want centuries of peace between the United States and Southwest Asia and that starts by not trying to bomb them into submission. I also want us to realize that we cannot police the rest of the world for the purpose of being some sort of unstoppable empire.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Peregrine_Falcon said:
I know that our image is tarnished. We are viewed as selfish, ruthless, warmongers. It is our violent, offensive (not defensive) intervention that destroyed our image.

If you think your country's image was only tarnished by the war in Iraq then you are sorely mistaken. You think minding your own business wouldn't bring you criticism? Think again. As the last superpower of the world, people expect the USA to take stances and defend the weak against the wicked.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Either way, we are not going to come out of this as heroes; we will be hated either way.

It depends on your future actions. Do you want to be hated by a minority of people, or a majority? Do you want to be disliked for 15 years or hated for 150? Once again, you try to simplify everything and fail to see the intricacies of the problem. This fatalism of yours is artificial and counterproductive. You cannot use it as a justification for bailing out of the crisis.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
I frankly don’t see how any of your reasoning is complex. You speak in general terms as well without any ‘nuancing or subtlety’.

You misunderstood what I said. It's the situation that is complex, and it's the situation that you don't get. I, like everyone else, am just trying to explain simple things to you (in simple terms) that for some reason seem beyond your grasp. Like on other topics, at times it actually feels like you're being obtuse on purpose.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
You are not aligned with the realities of the world if you can’t see the enormous repercussions that have taken a huge toll on both Iraq and the United States and that we can’t go on this way for an unspecified number of decades.

I think I understand the repercussions of this whole affair far better than you did 5 years ago, than you do now, and that you will do in another 5 years. Which is also why I don't really bother myself to address everything you say, because I know that no matter what people tell you, you'll be as ignorant and misguided in the end than you were in the beginning.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
GNM had accused me of being motivated by values, not pragmatism

No, that's not what he did, and your response didn't address the points he made either. And I didn't accuse you of anything, I'm just commenting on what you say.
 
Aazealh said:
If you think your country's image was only tarnished by the war in Iraq then you are sorely mistaken. You think minding your own business wouldn't bring you criticism? Think again. As the last superpower of the world, people expect the USA to take stances and defend the weak against the wicked.

I know that our image has been tarnished for decades, not just after the Iraq war and I said nothing to state or imply otherwise. Our violence has in many cases protected the wicked and hurt weak, which is what I want to stop.

Aazealh said:
It depends on your future actions. Do you want to be hated by a minority of people, or a majority? Do you want to be disliked for 15 years or hated for 150? Once again, you try to simplify everything and fail to see the intricacies of the problem. This fatalism of yours is artificial and counterproductive. You cannot use it as a justification for bailing out of the crisis.

I’m speaking about how we come out of the Iraq situation. Our tarnished image is not our primary justification. Lives and cost are my primary justification. I am not opposed to humanitarian aid to other countries, jump-starting struggling economies, and other far less damaging actions and I would not be opposed to helping the world without killing millions in the process.

Aazealh said:
You misunderstood what I said. It's the situation that is complex, and it's the situation that you don't get. I, like everyone else, am just trying to explain simple things to you (in simple terms) that for some reason seem beyond your grasp. Like on other topics, at times it actually feels like you're being obtuse on purpose.
[…]
I think I understand the repercussions of this whole affair far better than you did 5 years ago, than you do now, and that you will do in another 5 years. Which is also why I don't really bother myself to address everything you say, because I know that no matter what people tell you, you'll be as ignorant and misguided in the end than you were in the beginning.

So far your responses have not demonstrated any of this supposed, vastly superior knowledge that you claim to have. I admit, if phrased cleverly, calling someone obtuse/selfish is a good counter that makes people forget that you didn’t cite facts or use practicality. I’m also showing you some simple facts but your response is essentially ‘you’re stupid’, ‘I know a lot’, and ‘it’s your moral duty’. Sometimes it feels like you just want to convince anyone who has an opinion different from yours and does not immediately submit to your opinion that they must clearly be some sort of moron.

Aazealh said:
No, that's not what he did, and your response didn't address the points he made either. And I didn't accuse you of anything, I'm just commenting on what you say.

You suggested that I don’t care about the lives of people in other countries, which is a pretty big and personally offensive statement.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Peregrine_Falcon said:
You claim to be against the ‘stay the course’ approach yet when I point out that stay the course with no end in sight is the same thing as withdraw with no end in sight you agree with me but you still advocate phased withdrawal with no end in sight. And you accuse me of being set in my ways. I don’t demand that the withdrawal happens exactly within a year, but if he simply has no idea when it will end then it’s not much of a phased withdrawal.

I don't see it as no end in sight, quite the contrary, just because we don't have a date (which can always be changed as we've seen) doesn't mean the current isn't flowing in that direction. Consider that withdrawal has already been a major issue in the country politically and in general, that it's been a major Congressional campaign issue, and is now a major Presidential campaign issue, one that will also be driven even more by the other major campaign issue, the economy, and remember that nothing can really happen until we change administrations anyway, and even then it's going to take time for the new administration to get their shit together. I don't see this as no end in sight, but as getting the ball rolling, and I certainly don't see 30 years. No end in sight or 30 years would be if we were content and supportive of the war, there'd have be a major pro-war shift in the country, which could still happen again, but isn't the case as things are proceeding now. The way things are currently going, withdrawal seems more inevitable than never ending, to the point it raises the opposite concern, that we'll get out recklessly for political reasons rather than the financial and strategic reasons you've given.

Maybe because I was raised by a Government man, I'm more understanding of how slow time moves for them, and it only gets worse the higher up you go. Trust me, this is fast. =)

Peregrine_Falcon said:
I do not view the Iraqis as ungrateful bastards at all. If China started occupying us, destabilizing our leadership (even if its Dubya), and caused a possibly genocidal number of deaths, we would want them out too. It’s very human of them.

You misunderstood, I was comparing opposite stances, but with similar righteous or snarky 'tude. Not a big deal.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Of course the leader should assess the current situation but he should also have a visible end to his plan or else it’s no different from staying the course. If his plan drags everyone into a thirty year ‘phased withdrawal’ and continues to pile on the current problems then it’s not much of an exit strategy. If, however, the situation does have an enormous shift such that not being there could prove more damaging than being there, in other words, more damaging than thousands of American deaths, possibly millions of Iraqi deaths, and trillions of dollars lost, then yes. The consequences are already enormous and it would quite extraordinary to find something to beat them.

Thank you.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Peregrine_Falcon said:
I’m speaking about how we come out of the Iraq situation. Our tarnished image is not our primary justification. Lives and cost are my primary justification. I am not opposed to humanitarian aid to other countries, jump-starting struggling economies, and other far less damaging actions and I would not be opposed to helping the world without killing millions in the process.

I'm also talking about the US coming out of the Iraq situation. Only I'm not using arguments when I think they work and then retracting them when I see that they don't work, unlike you. But anyway, the aid you speak of will cost money too, and considering the state Iraq is in right now, it'll cost a lot. Not to mention that to make sure things go well, a strong presence will be needed. Which kind of contradicts the "pull out completely and immediately" idea. And do you really think that if the USA pull out of Iraq tomorrow the deaths will stop in the country? Think again.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
So far your responses have not demonstrated any of this supposed, vastly superior knowledge that you claim to have. I admit, if phrased cleverly, calling someone obtuse/selfish is a good counter that makes people forget that you didn’t cite facts or use practicality. I’m also showing you some simple facts but your response is essentially ‘you’re stupid’, ‘I know a lot’, and ‘it’s your moral duty’. Sometimes it feels like you just want to convince anyone who has an opinion different from yours and does not immediately submit to your opinion that they must clearly be some sort of moron.

Hahaha, you're funny. Why should I go through the trouble of making extra-lengthy, well thought out points when you've been brushing aside any of those made by others in the thread so far? It isn't like you've demonstrated anything yourself anyway, you know. And sorry if my posts make you feel like a moron, but I don't think it comes from me. I'm just honest with you, that's all.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
You suggested that I don’t care about the lives of people in other countries, which is a pretty big and personally offensive statement.

I only pointed out what your own argumentation sounded like. Blame yourself.
 
Aazealh said:
I'm also talking about the US coming out of the Iraq situation. Only I'm not using arguments when I think they work and then retracting them when I see that they don't work, unlike you. But anyway, the aid you speak of will cost money too, and considering the state Iraq is in right now, it'll cost a lot. Not to mention that to make sure things go well, a strong presence will be needed. Which kind of contradicts the "pull out completely and immediately" idea. And do you really think that if the USA pull out of Iraq tomorrow the deaths will stop in the country? Think again.

I do support aid to other countries but not for massive, unfathomable projects; I did not even say Iraq for the reasons you mentioned. I agree that Iraq will certainly not be a peaceful utopia, but our presence is fueling the violence, not quelling it.

Aazealh said:
Hahaha, you're funny. Why should I go through the trouble of making extra-lengthy, well thought out points when you've been brushing aside any of those made by others in the thread so far? It isn't like you've demonstrated anything yourself anyway, you know. And sorry if my posts make you feel like a moron, but I don't think it comes from me. I'm just honest with you, that's all.

No, you misunderstand. You chose to call me ‘obtuse’ and I recognized it as nothing more than a cheap tactic. I have not retracted my points in this argument Then you say you won’t even bother with these hypothetical, ‘well thought out’ points. Much of what you have come at me with was not well thought out, it was ‘you should have thought of that in the first place’ type statements, which I have refuted. And I have directly addressed other people's points (more than you have addressed my points).
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Peregrine_Falcon said:
I do support aid to other countries but not for massive, unfathomable projects; I did not even say Iraq for the reasons you mentioned. I agree that Iraq will certainly not be a peaceful utopia, but our presence is fueling the violence, not quelling it.

Actually it's debatable whether the US presence is quelling violence or not. It's just not the same kind of conflict that would take place if various armies weren't there at the moment. For one thing you could probably expect a bloody civil war. But anyway, this just comes back all around to the fact that while right now American people want the US out as soon as possible, it's not feasible without losing all credibility and worsening things even more. That's why the pull out can only be gradual. The Iraqi military and police needs to be trained and to become efficient enough to stand by itself. Vital infrastructures need to be rebuilt and that needs outside help. Medical equipment needs to be massively supplied, and again, we're not talking about aspirin but about costly equipment. This is all stuff that was already stated or hinted at in the thread. And it's not incompatible with a will to leave the country. It's just a matter of doing things well. I haven't had the opportunity to state my actual opinion so far, but personally I think there needs to be a drastic change of focus in what the US are doing in Iraq.

The country needs to be put back on its legs, the government needs to be strengthened but without trying to make it pro-USA at all costs (selfless involvement would be more rewarding in the end). But in any case, these things just don't happen instantly. 5 years is actually a relatively short time for such a transition if you want the country stable. Keep in mind it'll leave a huge gap when the occupying forces leave. If the next US president can achieve that by the time the next elections occur, he'll have done a good job. At this point I'm not trying to argue with you, just telling you what I think needs to be done. It's unfortunate for the USA that the situation is such that instant disengagement isn't possible, but at the same time, you can hope that it will serve as a lesson next time your government thinks invading a country is a good idea (Iran?).

Peregrine_Falcon said:
No, you misunderstand. You chose to call me ‘obtuse’ and I recognized it as nothing more than a cheap tactic.

No, I said it often seemed like you were being obtuse on purpose, which is true and not limited to this thread. It's not a tactic but an observation.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
I have not retracted my points in this argument

Yes you have.

Peregrine_Falcon said:
Then you say you won’t even bother with these hypothetical, ‘well thought out’ points. Much of what you have come at me with was not well thought out, it was ‘you should have thought of that in the first place’ type statements, which I have refuted. And I have directly addressed other people's points (more than you have addressed my points).

You haven't refuted anything here, and you haven't addressed much either. All you've done in this thread is closing your eyes and simplifying complex problems as if that made them easier to solve. Making vague and erroneous statements and acting as if they were hard facts. You can call what I told you anything you want (even though the little I've said is more sensible than anything you've posted so far), but in the end no serious politician even considers the line of action you're aspiring to, so I guess that speaks for itself. You're free to think you know better, but unfortunately that doesn't make it true. Keep deluding yourself, and maybe in 5 years you'll be saying what people are telling you now.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Hey I did mention the future president in my post. :badbone: But yeah, I guess this should really be more about the presidentials. You guys can go back to talking about the candidates.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Hillary Clinton is wrong again about one of her stories.

The story about a uninsured pregnant woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5BwOujrNQ&feature=related

The real story about how she died.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080407/ts_nm/usa_politics_dc

We already were on topic, in the FUTURE! :badbone:
 
Aazealh said:
It's unfortunate for the USA that the situation is such that instant disengagement isn't possible, but at the same time, you can hope that it will serve as a lesson next time your government thinks invading a country is a good idea (Iran?).

And all you can do is hope. The government here doesn't seem to learn its lessons very well.

Just personally, I'd rather be heartless and withdraw, lose-face to a propaganda victory. And work on this country's defense.

Doesn't really matter, though. Its not like anybody running can or will do that. For some good reasons too, I'm sure. Hard enough to really understand the present situation, much less predict the future.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
_Noone_ said:
And work on this country's defense.

Like what? There hasn't been an attack from foreign terrorists since 911 and there hasn't been an attack from a foreign military since ww2. I think we are doing pretty good on the defending the mainland part.

I'm not exactly sure what a lot of you people are expecting from the US withdrawing aside from abandoning any success we had in iraq. It's a very winnable fight that just needs time.
 

Escalus

Kiss My Cons
I wish people in middle America were as energetic about this topic as you guys are. Presidential primaries, that is. :carcus: Seriously, an educated and thoughtful populace would be fucking ape shit at our current and projected political leadership...as long as we're off topic.

When told that the State Department received a missive from Al-Maliki stating that neither past nor current prime ministers (himself included) could be the subject of corruption investigations Condoleeza Rice replied to Congress: "I'm not aware of what you're citing, I need to get back and take a look first." The State Dept. received that shit 6 mos. ago.

Has the populace ever been this ignorant or uncaring? When the fuck did personal accountability go on vacation? I just happened to cite a Republican, but this shit is rampant in both parties...the Dems are just as fucked up. Why doesn't anyone give a shit? All I hear about is "gawd-dang gas prices" and "gawd-dang foreclosures" and I want to smack the shit out of people. Our entire nation needs to be bitch smacked.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Escalus said:
Has the populace ever been this ignorant or uncaring? When the fuck did personal accountability go on vacation? I just happened to cite a Republican, but this shit is rampant in both parties...the Dems are just as fucked up. Why doesn't anyone give a shit? All I hear about is "gawd-dang gas prices" and "gawd-dang foreclosures" and I want to smack the shit out of people. Our entire nation needs to be bitch smacked.

It's probably not going to comfort you, but you should know that it's the same everywhere in the world.
 
Top Bottom