PDA

View Full Version : Does McCain have any plans?


HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 10:28 AM
What's his vision? I'm asking this out of general curiosity. He's given two speeches in two days about the economy and foreign policy and has said absolutely nothing. Is he just trying to get some airtime amid the Obama/Clinton feud?

DaKCMan AP
03-26-2008, 10:29 AM
More. Of. The. Same.

pikesome
03-26-2008, 10:34 AM
More. Of. The. Same.

Only less competent.

Yea, I know, scary.

bkkcoh
03-26-2008, 10:35 AM
What's his vision? I'm asking this out of general curiosity. He's given two speeches in two days about the economy and foreign policy and has said absolutely nothing. Is he just trying to get some airtime amid the Obama/Clinton feud?


And the democratic competitors have had any real substance in their stump speeches? I have only really heard that this needs changed, that needs changed and companies need to be penalized for the massive amounts of profits they are making. The only thing they have really been consistent on is removing the troops from Iraq and that may be the worst thing they could ever do, even though that is quite debatable.

I have heard they have proposed many billions of dollars for healthcare and etc..... Forcing people to sign up for healthcare.

:banghead:

chiefforlife
03-26-2008, 10:36 AM
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 10:39 AM
And the democratic competitors have had any real substance in their stump speeches?

1) This is about McCain. Are you conceding he has no plans?

2) This isn't a stump speech. It was billed as a policy speech.

3) Both of the Democrats do include their substantive plans in their policy speeches. Whether or not you disagree with those plans is a different matter entirely.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 10:46 AM
He plans to close Guantanamo. He plans to secure the border before figuring out a final disposition for those illegals who are already in the country and he's assuring the voters that the border will be secure before other actions are taken by proposing a mechanism by which border governors will have to certify that the border is secure. He won't lose Iraq. Do you have any specific questions?

chiefforlife
03-26-2008, 10:55 AM
This isnt a plan but a plan not to do anything.

I really liked what he said yesterday about the government NOT helping bail out the Lenders or the mortgages. If you loaned or took a risky loan you will need to accept the consequences.
I think people need to stop counting on the government to bail them out of poor decisions. Especially the likes of Bear Stearns. They are supposed experts and should have known better.

SBK
03-26-2008, 10:56 AM
I think his plan is to stay behind the scenes until Hillary and Obama have officially killed each others campaigns.

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 11:15 AM
He plans to close Guantanamo.

So do his Democratic opponents. This won't be an issue of contention.

He plans to secure the border before figuring out a final disposition for those illegals who are already in the country and he's assuring the voters that the border will be secure before other actions are taken by proposing a mechanism by which border governors will have to certify that the border is secure.

Securing the borders is an idea, not a plan. There are many different methods you could go about using to secure the borders. The fact he's not willing to take a position on what to do with those already in the country re-enforces the idea he has no clue what direction he wants to take this country in and has no plans to fix the many problems that face our country.

He won't lose Iraq.

This is pretty much what I'm talking about. 'Not losing' in Iraq is not a plan, especially when the war's supporters can't define victory or the length of time we'll need for it to take place. McCain couldn't even give you an estimate on how long we'll be there. If there's too much violence it's evidence that we need to stay. If there's less violence it's also evidence we have to stay.

And this is supposed to be his strongest issue.

Do you have any specific questions?

Just about everything regarding the economy; the cost of the war, the housing crisis, oil prices, the declining dollar, health care, etc.. Then there's what he wants to do with Iraq; his definition of 'victory', his tolerance threshold when it comes to political progress being made, how long he's willing to fight over there, how many lives he doesn't mind losing, ect.. He's talked about being more active on climate change, but hasn't given any specific things he wants to do to combat it. I don't think I've ever heard him talk about education and he's done very little talking about domestic issues that plague most Americans.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 11:42 AM
So do his Democratic opponents. This won't be an issue of contention.

If he didn't articulate it, how would anyone know what his plan is?

Securing the borders is an idea, not a plan. There are many different methods you could go about using to secure the borders. The fact he's not willing to take a position on what to do with those already in the country re-enforces the idea he has no clue what direction he wants to take this country in and has no plans to fix the many problems that face our country.

The plan part is the mechanism by which he will measure when the border is secure. That's pretty specific and some would say the critical component of any plan to "secure" the border. You guys are always talking about how we measure when we've finished the job aren't you?

This is pretty much what I'm talking about. 'Not losing' in Iraq is not a plan, especially when the war's supporters can't define victory or the length of time we'll need for it to take place. McCain couldn't even give you an estimate on how long we'll be there. If there's too much violence it's evidence that we need to stay. If there's less violence it's also evidence we have to stay.

And this is supposed to be his strongest issue.

I think and have always thought that it's pretty silly to expect detailed military plans to be publicized by any CiC or candidate for obvious reasons. John McCain, perhaps more than any other member of our government outside the Bush administration has been pretty outspoken about how he agrees and how he disagrees with the current approach to the war. He would have increased troop strength earlier than Bush did, he supports the current activities of General Petraeus, and he won't initiate a withdrawal upon entering office. How much more do you want?

Just about everything regarding the economy; the cost of the war, the housing crisis, oil prices, the declining dollar, health care, etc.. Then there's what he wants to do with Iraq; his definition of 'victory', his tolerance threshold when it comes to political progress being made, how long he's willing to fight over there, how many lives he doesn't mind losing, ect.. He's talked about being more active on climate change, but hasn't given any specific things he wants to do to combat it. I don't think I've ever heard him talk about education and he's done very little talking about domestic issues that plague most Americans.

What don't you know about the definition of victory in Iraq after all this time? When Iraq is an ally and is capable of taking over it's own security, we'll have achieved victory. If we leave before this happens, we are accepting defeat. If Iraq turns into a beacon of freedom in the Arab world, if we end up with permanent basing rights there, and/or if we recoup some of the cost of the war in some way, that's gravy.

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 11:44 AM
What don't you know about the definition of victory in Iraq after all this time? When Iraq is an ally and is capable of taking over it's own security, we'll have achieved victory.

Ok. Ballpark it.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 11:48 AM
Ok. Ballpark it.

I just did. What are you looking for?

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 11:49 AM
No, I'm asking when that will be.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 11:50 AM
He will FIGHT FOR AMERICA, my friends.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 11:54 AM
No, I'm asking when that will be.

How is someone supposed to know that?

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 11:56 AM
How is someone supposed to know that?If you're going to commit the lives of American soldiers to such a lofty goal, shouldn't you have SOME sort of idea of when it's actually going to be attainable?

patteeu
03-26-2008, 11:59 AM
If you're going to commit the lives of American soldiers to such a lofty goal, shouldn't you have SOME sort of idea of when it's actually going to be attainable?

Refresh my memory, what did FDR say about a withdrawal date in his Day of Infamy speech? At what point did he start estimating how long our involvement in WWII would be? You'll have to excuse me, my public school history education was primarily focused on pre-WWI history.

Oh, and did he level with the people about his plans to sacrifice over 400,000 American lives in the process of defeating the Germans and the Japanese?

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 01:19 PM
What's his vision? I'm asking this out of general curiosity.

Mr Straight Talk envisions winning "this war" ( undefined as to if he means Iraq or WoT). But events may play his hand...he will either pull out of Iraq calling it a type of victory or face bankrupting the United States of America.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 01:20 PM
Refresh my memory, what did FDR say about a withdrawal date in his Day of Infamy speech? At what point did he start estimating how long our involvement in WWII would be? You'll have to excuse me, my public school history education was primarily focused on pre-WWI history.

Oh, and did he level with the people about his plans to sacrifice over 400,000 American lives in the process of defeating the Germans and the Japanese?


Doesn't apply as they did attack us. This is not the same category of thing making it illogical.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 01:44 PM
Doesn't apply as they did attack us. This is not the same category of thing making it illogical.

We were attacked in the GWoT, too. Oh, how soon we forget. Not that being attacked really has anything to do with this though. :rolleyes:

Messier
03-26-2008, 01:48 PM
We were attacked in the GWoT, too. Oh, how soon we forget. Not that being attacked really has anything to do with this though. :rolleyes:

We were attacked by Iraq, or even Iraqis?

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 01:50 PM
How is someone supposed to know that?

If you're going to wage a war, you have to have an idea how it will effect you in terms of your military and in terms of financial cost. That's kinda the least the American soldiers and citizens should expect of their government.

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 01:55 PM
We were attacked in the GWoT, too. Oh, how soon we forget. Not that being attacked really has anything to do with this though. :rolleyes:

If this was about the people who actually attacked us, we'd be more focused on Afghanistan than Iraq.

There is no 'Global War on Terror'. It was just a means of justifying going into Iraq.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 01:56 PM
We were attacked by Iraq, or even Iraqis?

Not that I know of, but we are fighting against al Qaeda, their allies, and those with some objectives in common with al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq itself is on our side.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 01:58 PM
If this was about the people who actually attacked us, we'd be more focused on Afghanistan than Iraq.

There is no 'Global War on Terror'. It was just a means of justifying going into Iraq.

Afghanistan didn't attack us.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 01:59 PM
If you're going to wage a war, you have to have an idea how it will effect you in terms of your military and in terms of financial cost. That's kinda the least the American soldiers and citizens should expect of their government.

OK, so...

Refresh my memory, what did FDR say about a withdrawal date in his Day of Infamy speech? At what point did he start estimating how long our involvement in WWII would be? You'll have to excuse me, my public school history education was primarily focused on pre-WWI history.

Oh, and did he level with the people about his plans to sacrifice over 400,000 American lives in the process of defeating the Germans and the Japanese?

And if you want to talk about finances too, when did FDR inform the people that WWII was going to cost 129% of 1945's annual GDP?

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 02:00 PM
No, but we are fighting against al Qaeda

Al Qaeda-in-Iraq isn't the Al Qaeda that attacked us. They also weren't there until we went invaded.

their allies

Who.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:03 PM
We were attacked in the GWoT, too. Oh, how soon we forget. Not that being attacked really has anything to do with this though. :rolleyes:

Not by Iraqóa nation state.
By AlQaeda who was located in Afghanistan and sponsored the Taliban govt.
Generalities and imprecise language won't do.

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 02:06 PM
OK, so...

Your comparison is downright retarded. This isn't the start of the war. It's 5 years in with no end in sight.

Your comparison also ignores the fact that we aren't warring with the people who attacked us and that this conflict won't be solved militarily, but politically.

This isn't WWII.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:10 PM
Al Qaeda-in-Iraq isn't the Al Qaeda that attacked us. They also weren't there until we went invaded.

Your definition of who our GWoT enemy is far too narrow. If we just wanted retribution against the people who actively participated in the attack itself we didn't have to respond because they all died in fireballs. The GWoT is not about retribution as much as it is about eliminating an ongoing threat from radical islamists.

Who.

Sunni extremists who are not AQI. Many of AQI's allies have turned against them and now fight alongside the US and the Iraqi government, but I doubt that all of them have switched sides. I can't give you specific names or organizations without going to the trouble of googling, but I'm willing to assume that Sunnis who remain a part of the insurgency are all AQI if you'd prefer.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:12 PM
Not by Iraqóa nation state.
By AlQaeda who was located in Afghanistan and sponsored the Taliban govt.
Generalities and imprecise language won't do.

Like I said to Messier, we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. The nation state of Iraq is on our side. We are talking about McCain plans here. When McCain takes office, he will be presented with the situation I describe and he won't have any ability to go back and undo the original invasion of Saddam's Iraq so why do you insist on trying to drag the debate back there?

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:15 PM
Your definition of who our GWoT enemy is far too narrow. If we just wanted retribution against the people who actively participated in the attack itself we didn't have to respond because they all died in fireballs. The GWoT is not about retribution as much as it is about eliminating an ongoing threat from radical islamists.
Threat to who?

Israel?

Sorry, but that's a battle RR said we didn't belong in ( conflicts of the ME quote from his biography), is not ours and will drag us down endlessly until bankruptcy. That's too grandoise a goal, requires extensive nation-building, interventions and on and onóis not achievable.




* now looking for her beating a dead horse pic*

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:17 PM
Like I said to Messier, we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. The nation state of Iraq is on our side. We are talking about McCain plans here. When McCain takes office, he will be presented with the situation I describe and he won't have any ability to go back and undo the original invasion of Saddam's Iraq so why do you insist on trying to drag the debate back there?

They were not in there before we went. Is not the same AQ that attacked us but homegrown and pledged to AQ later. The nation state that existed prior to our invasion wasn't against us either because they were too weak to fight us.

StcChief
03-26-2008, 02:18 PM
Just pull out and wait for 'em to show up here, We would rather fight on our beaches and towns where we know the lay off the land.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:18 PM
Your comparison is downright retarded. This isn't the start of the war. It's 5 years in with no end in sight.

Your comparison also ignores the fact that we aren't warring with the people who attacked us and that this conflict won't be solved militarily, but politically.

This isn't WWII.

This isn't WWII. On that we can agree. :toast:

But while this isn't WWII, both this and WWII were wars. And according to you:

If you're going to wage a war, you have to have an idea how it will effect you in terms of your military and in terms of financial cost. That's kinda the least the American soldiers and citizens should expect of their government.

FDR not only didn't disclose his "plan" for taking almost 4 years, spending 129% of 1945 GDP, and sacrificing over 400,000 men at the outset of the war, he didn't announce to the people these costs at any point during the war AFAIK. Why are you holding McCain to a standard that not even the great wartime president, FDR, lived up to? For that matter, can you tell me any president from any war who publicly predicted these things with any degree of accuracy either before the war started or at some midpoint along the way?

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:19 PM
Ah hem! You do know this is not WWII and the elements and make-up of the people are not similar—at all!
These guys in Iraq threw out the Great British Empire before.

This is a guerrilla war with a non-nation state enemy.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:21 PM
Threat to who?

Israel?

Sorry, but that's a battle RR said we didn't belong in ( conflicts of the ME quote from his biography), is not ours and will drag us down endlessly until bankruptcy. That's too grandoise a goal, requires extensive nation-building, interventions and on and onóis not achievable.




* now looking for her beating a dead horse pic*

Threat to the US. Are you aware that RR is dead and had no meaningful comment about the situation regarding al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks?

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:24 PM
They were not in there before we went. Is not the same AQ that attacked us but homegrown and pledged to AQ later. The nation state that existed prior to our invasion wasn't against us either because they were too weak to fight us.

John McCain wasn't in office before we went in either. On the day that McCain is sworn in, barring unforeseen circumstances which would make this debate moot, AQ will still be in Iraq. That's our starting point. Keep your eye on the ball.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:25 PM
Threat to the US. Are you aware that RR is dead and had no meaningful comment about the situation regarding al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks?

RR had a very meaningul quote about getting more deeply involved in the hatreds and conflicts of the middle-east and felt that a policy of neutrality would serve our interests better. We are in the middle-east are we not? When we should be in central Asia. He had the foresight that is lacking in our leaders today because he dealt with terrorists ( Hezbollah?) who killed our Marines in Beirut and he pulled out of that. Would you like me to get the quote again? Because I know where that was is.

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 02:25 PM
FDR not only didn't disclose his "plan" for taking almost 4 years, spending 129% of 1945 GDP, and sacrificing over 400,000 men at the outset of the war, he didn't announce to the people these costs at any point during the war AFAIK. Why are you holding McCain to a standard that not even the great wartime president, FDR, lived up to? For that matter, can you tell me any president from any war who publicly predicted these things with any degree of accuracy either before the war started or at some midpoint along the way?

Nobody announces that stuff at the very beginning of a war and that's not what I was talking about. The difference here is that we're 5 years into the war and you still can't even estimate how much more we'll need to sacrifice.

WWII was also an accepted cause worth fighting for. Most don't think Iraq was worth fighting.

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 02:27 PM
They were not in there before we went. Is not the same AQ that attacked us but homegrown and pledged to AQ later. The nation state that existed prior to our invasion wasn't against us either because they were too weak to fight us.

Perhaps they weren't "in" Iraq (that depends upon what the meaning of "in" is, if I may borrow a thought), but they were in Boston, NYC and DC. The GWOT in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else it may take us still looks like a less expensive bargain to me.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:28 PM
John McCain wasn't in office before we went in either. On the day that McCain is sworn in, barring unforeseen circumstances which would make this debate moot, AQ will still be in Iraq. That's our starting point. Keep your eye on the ball.

Most likely the Sunni will turn on them and perhaps even the Shi'a in a civil war that will be like gangland. Let 'em all kill each other and keep our hands clean.

Like I said, Mr Straightalk may have no choice and may have to pull out, call it a victory or put America into bankruptcy....the way the British Empire did, whereby we had to take over their imperial role in the ME.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:30 PM
Perhaps they weren't "in" Iraq (that depends upon what the meaning of "in" is, if I may borrow a thought), but they were in Boston, NYC and DC. The GWOT in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else it may take us still looks like a less expensive bargain to me.

"They" who committed the crime operated and were located and in central Asiaónot Iraq.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:31 PM
Ah hem! You do know this is not WWII and the elements and make-up of the people are not similaróat all!
These guys in Iraq threw out the Great British Empire before.

This is a guerrilla war with a non-nation state enemy.

Yes I know they are different. Here are a couple of differences:

1)
In WWII, we lost over 400,000 Americans.
In Iraq we've lost about 4,000.

2)
In WWII, we spent 129% of one year's GDP.
In Iraq, even according to critical projections that have us spending over, what, $3 trillion(?), that amounts to less than 25% of a single year's GDP.

Yes, they are different wars indeed. How does this relate to how much or how little information ought to be included in a President's public "plan" for prosecuting a war?

King_Chief_Fan
03-26-2008, 02:31 PM
What's his vision? I'm asking this out of general curiosity. He's given two speeches in two days about the economy and foreign policy and has said absolutely nothing. Is he just trying to get some airtime amid the Obama/Clinton feud?

if you don't promise, you don't under deliver.

Now, what has Hussein Obama and Chelsea's momma promised?

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 02:33 PM
if you don't promise, you don't under deliver.


So why were you all bitching about Obama not having enough substance in his stump speeches?

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 02:33 PM
"They" who committed the crime operated and were located and in central Asiaónot Iraq.

"They" were here. You probably saw the pictures.

Radar Chief
03-26-2008, 02:34 PM
http://75.125.205.90/BB/showthread.php?t=181951

But, but, it didnít come from Scott Ritter so it canít be true, right? Right?

ROFL

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:35 PM
Nobody announces that stuff at the very beginning of a war and that's not what I was talking about. The difference here is that we're 5 years into the war and you still can't even estimate how much more we'll need to sacrifice.

WWII was also an accepted cause worth fighting for. Most don't think Iraq was worth fighting.

Is 5 years the magic point at which Presidents/CiC's start announcing stuff like this? Did Johnson make an announcement when we were 5 years into Vietnam? Did Washington make an announcement when we were 5 years into the Revolution? Come on, man, no one EVER makes this kind of announcement. I'm sure that the Pentagon is projecting costs all the time, but those projections are always subject to change and politics being what they are, those projections are never announced publicly.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:36 PM
How does this relate to how much or how little information ought to be included in a President's public "plan" for prosecuting a war?

The question by the thread starter regarding the Mad Bomber: What's his vision?
I posted earlier that events may force McCain's hand instead.

Later you and HolmeZz got into the other issues that touch up this general subject morphing it and I responded to those. What's wrong with that? I mean afterall, it's not exactly a hijack eventhough you hijack often enough yourself. Not only that but you felt a need to respond back.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 02:37 PM
"They" were here. You probably saw the pictures.

Who's they?

Imprecise language will not do. The way to win is to have a clearly defined enemy or you get mission creep.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:38 PM
So why were you all bitching about Obama not having enough substance in his stump speeches?

I'm still waiting to hear what he's going to do about the surprisingly deep racial divisions that have been uncovered now that a spotlight has been turned on the TUCC.

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 02:41 PM
Who's they?

Imprecise language will not do. The way to win is to have a clearly defined enemy or you get mission creep.

I have no problem whatsoever with expanding the definition of who "they" are as the mission evolves. Is that what you mean by "mission creep?"

patteeu
03-26-2008, 02:44 PM
http://75.125.205.90/BB/showthread.php?t=181951

But, but, it didnít come from Scott Ritter so it canít be true, right? Right?

ROFL

The holdouts on this remind me of those old Japanese soldiers who were found living on isolated south pacific islands late in the 20th century assuming that the war was still going on. I mean, how resistant to the facts do you have to be to keep clinging to the "no ties" line?

HolmeZz
03-26-2008, 02:47 PM
Is 5 years the magic point at which Presidents/CiC's start announcing stuff like this?

When it comes 5 years into a war that is 70% unpopular, amid a struggling economy, with no real objective or end to the war in sight, yes, the American people deserve to be told how much more they have to sacrifice. They're not being told anything as far as progress goes. They're being told the same thing regardless of the situation on the ground.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 02:48 PM
Just pull out and wait for 'em to show up here, We would rather fight on our beaches and towns where we know the lay off the land.If they had the desire or capability to be over here, they'd be over here.

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 02:53 PM
I think they have the desire, but they've lost the capability.

More to the point: We've damaged their capability.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 03:10 PM
When it comes 5 years into a war that is 70% unpopular, amid a struggling economy, with no real objective or end to the war in sight, yes, the American people deserve to be told how much more they have to sacrifice. They're not being told anything as far as progress goes. They're being told the same thing regardless of the situation on the ground.

I don't see it that way. I think we have a pretty stark choice to make this year between a candidate who says he/she will bring the troops home despite the consequences and a candidate who says he will stay and win the war as long as the costs are bearable. Now we get to vote on it. That's the way our system is set up to work. Of course, no one really believes that the dem candidate will actually withdraw according to their "best case" plans so the starkness of the choice is probably a bit illusory.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 03:12 PM
I have no problem whatsoever with expanding the definition of who "they" are as the mission evolves. Is that what you mean by "mission creep?"

No. Now, who is "they?"

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2008, 03:30 PM
If you're going to commit the lives of American soldiers to such a lofty goal, shouldn't you have SOME sort of idea of when it's actually going to be attainable?

"They volunteered"--Dick Cheney.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 03:33 PM
I think two things that are vital to winning any war, is starting with a clear start: who the enemy is and a declaration of war. We won the wars we declared because they were not open-ended and we had a clear idea who the enemy was. It's the non-declared wars that are not well defined that end in stalemates or a loss.

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 03:37 PM
No. Now, who is "they?"

Well, looking back at the thread, you were the first to call them "they"...

They were not in there before we went. Is not the same AQ that attacked us but homegrown and pledged to AQ later. The nation state that existed prior to our invasion wasn't against us either because they were too weak to fight us.

You then pointed out quite correctly that your "they" weren't "in" Iraq on 9/11.

I countered that "they" were here, however, committing mayhem.

We've had some discussion since about "they," and you just acknowledged that you have no problem with expanding who "they" are as the mission evolves. I'd like to expand the definition of "they" beyond your initial "they." I'd like to include AQI, but perhaps you have a different view.

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other. Is "they" just a bunch of dead guys on airplanes? Can "they" include the Taliban? Am I going too far in expanding "they" when I include AQI as part of "they?"

It's your call. It was initially your word.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 04:03 PM
Well, looking back at the thread, you were the first to call them "they"...
If you look again you'll find that was in response to HolmeZz and pat discussing when to leave Iraq. Beginning in HolmeZz post #12 the matter of which extends up to #18 and #20 or so, maybe more where we discuss that Iraq didn't attack us nor was AQ in there before; nor is the same as the one in Pakistan who were in Afghanistan when AQ attacked us here on 9/11. I was asking who "they" was to you.

We've had some discussion since about "they," and you just acknowledged that you have no problem with expanding who "they" are as the mission evolves. I'd like to expand the definition of "they" beyond your initial "they."
No I didn't. I said "no" to that idea being mission creep. It's wrong target.

I'd like to include AQI, but perhaps you have a different view.
We were talking about how they weren't in there before we invaded. How they were not the same AQ who did 9/11. That AQI pledged after we invaded.

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other. Is "they" just a bunch of dead guys on airplanes? Can "they" include the Taliban? Am I going too far in expanding "they" when I include AQI as part of "they?"

It's your call. It was initially your word.

My call is answered in the first part of this post. I want to know who you mean by the word "they."

I consider the original AQ now in Pakistan to be our enemy.

Oh I didn't get this from Ritter. That was on the WMDs because he was there during the inspection process.

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 04:06 PM
In that case it's impossible for us to agree. "They" absolutely includes AQI now, mission creep be damned.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 04:08 PM
In that case it's impossible for us to agree. "They" absolutely includes AQI now, mission creep be damned.

But they're hated by the Sunni's now who allied with them earlier. Shi'ias aren't crazy about 'em either. I think these guys will kill them off and they'll be too busy killing one another. Why not let them do it?

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 04:18 PM
But they're hated by the Sunni's now who allied with them earlier. Shi'ias aren't crazy about 'em either. I think these guys will kill them off and they'll be too busy killing one another. Why not let them do it?

I'm all for it.

irishjayhawk
03-26-2008, 04:35 PM
In that case it's impossible for us to agree. "They" absolutely includes AQI now, mission creep be damned.

When did they become added?

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 04:43 PM
When did they become added?

The moment they challenged us.

irishjayhawk
03-26-2008, 05:47 PM
The moment they challenged us.

Then what was the point of Afghanistan? Why fight over there if Iraq was the true cover for AQ.

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 05:54 PM
Then what was the point of Afghanistan? Why fight over there if Iraq was the true cover for AQ.

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?

http://www.marx-brothers.org/listening/covers/1025_1356.jpg

The point of Afghanistan was to kill members of AQ. Part of the bonus of being in Iraq is that we get to kill AQI.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 11:33 PM
If you look again you'll find that was in response to HolmeZz and pat discussing when to leave Iraq. Beginning in HolmeZz post #12 the matter of which extends up to #18 and #20 or so, maybe more where we discuss that Iraq didn't attack us nor was AQ in there before; nor is the same as the one in Pakistan who were in Afghanistan when AQ attacked us here on 9/11. I was asking who "they" was to you.


No I didn't. I said "no" to that idea being mission creep. It's wrong target.


We were talking about how they weren't in there before we invaded. How they were not the same AQ who did 9/11. That AQI pledged after we invaded.



My call is answered in the first part of this post. I want to know who you mean by the word "they."

I consider the original AQ now in Pakistan to be our enemy.

Oh I didn't get this from Ritter. That was on the WMDs because he was there during the inspection process.

Let's accept for the moment that AQI isn't the same AQ who attacked us on 9/11. Is it your position now that we have no beef whatsoever with islamists who have joined al Qaeda and sworn allegiance to OBL since 9/11 and that our only legitimate targets are those members of AQ who predate that event? If so, that's a really strange position to take. That's like saying we're only going to fight the Japanese who wore the uniform on Dec. 7, 1941. New recruits are not our enemy.

patteeu
03-26-2008, 11:35 PM
Then what was the point of Afghanistan? Why fight over there if Iraq was the true cover for AQ.

People will perform the most strange contortions to oppose the war.

Radar Chief
03-27-2008, 06:47 AM
People will perform the most strange contortions to oppose the war.

ROFL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NRriHlLUk

Iowanian
03-27-2008, 06:57 AM
If he's smart, his plan is exactly what he's doing.....sitting back, keeping out of controversial statements, and letting the dems do his work for him and eat each other alive.

For now...smile alot, go visit soldiers, hug hands and shake babies.

Radar Chief
03-27-2008, 07:20 AM
If he's smart, his plan is exactly what he's doing.....sitting back, keeping out of controversial statements, and letting the dems do his work for him and eat each other alive.

For now...smile alot, go visit soldiers, hug hands and shake babies.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

irishjayhawk
03-27-2008, 10:25 AM
People will perform the most strange contortions to oppose the war.

People will perform the most strange back-bending to support the war. It goes both ways.

patteeu
03-27-2008, 10:42 AM
People will perform the most strange back-bending to support the war. It goes both ways.

Not really. I don't make strange arguments like the one suggesting that AQ can only be in one place at once. That's not just a difference of opinion about what the best policy would be, that's nonsensical.

I'd actually be interested to hear an example of something I've said that you consider to be "strange back-bending".

BucEyedPea
03-27-2008, 11:06 AM
invasion=vacuum=fills with chaos=porous borders=enter AQI

irishjayhawk
03-27-2008, 03:21 PM
Not really. I don't make strange arguments like the one suggesting that AQ can only be in one place at once. That's not just a difference of opinion about what the best policy would be, that's nonsensical.

But you are staking victory on the AQ part when AQ wasn't the real reason we went into Iraq.

I never suggested that AQ can only be in one place at once. That's what you and Cleveland Bronco wanted me to say or thought I said.


I'd actually be interested to hear an example of something I've said that you consider to be "strange back-bending".

Hmmm, well, I guess I should have not been as specific - like "for the war" and instead said "for the administration". You've back bended - strangely - many times in defense of Dick Cheney. I imagine I can find some - if I really wanted to - examples of you doing it for the war.

Radar Chief
03-27-2008, 03:27 PM
But you are staking victory on the AQ part when AQ wasn't the real reason we went into Iraq.

Why do you keep repeating stuff like this when itís already been pointed out to you several times that not only was AQ already in Iraq but that Bush talked about that as part of the justification for war?

irishjayhawk
03-27-2008, 03:39 PM
Why do you keep repeating stuff like this when itís already been pointed out to you several times that not only was AQ already in Iraq but that Bush talked about that as part of the justification for war?

Maybe because AQ is so broad now that it really refers to any terror we we encounter. AQ has really, to me, lost it's meaning. We attribute many things to AQ - probably falsely.

I repeat it because it was not the main sell of the war. Moreover, if you want to call all the 6 or 7 justifications that Bush kept harping on when the public fell out of the last one he used as true "justifications" from the start, I guess that's you're call.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 06:14 AM
But you are staking victory on the AQ part when AQ wasn't the real reason we went into Iraq.

I never suggested that AQ can only be in one place at once. That's what you and Cleveland Bronco wanted me to say or thought I said.

Apparently I don't understand what you said in post #70 then. While we don't have proof that Saddam was involved in the specific 9/11 plot, there are well established ties between Saddam and AQ/AQ affiliates/AQ precursers going back over a decade including operational ties (we now know) with groups such as Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad (which, on 9/11 was as much AQ as bin Laden's historical associates).

Frankly, I don't think you're in much of a position to determine what our "real reason" for going into Iraq was since you're still stuck on the notion that we're at war with all of islam and not just the radical, militant islamist subset of it.

Hmmm, well, I guess I should have not been as specific - like "for the war" and instead said "for the administration". You've back bended - strangely - many times in defense of Dick Cheney. I imagine I can find some - if I really wanted to - examples of you doing it for the war.

I doubt that. But since you seem to be saying that I misinterpreted your post #70, I guess we'd have to sort that out before we could determine how strange your contortions are and whether or not I've back bended to the same extent in defense of Dick Cheney.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2008, 06:42 AM
Apparently I don't understand what you said in post #70 then. While we don't have proof that Saddam was involved in the specific 9/11 plot, there are well established ties between Saddam and AQ/AQ affiliates/AQ precursers going back over a decade including operational ties (we now know) with groups such as Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad (which, on 9/11 was as much AQ as bin Laden's historical associates).

I skim read that thread you put up making those claims, with an excerpt from the pdf that had to be downloaded. If my class in how to evaluate information is a workable guide it was pretty low on specifics, had mostly generalities and assertions. For instance, it was always known that SH had ties to those terrorists who did their dirty work in Israel or related to. That's NOTHING really new. And even though parts of it seem on the surface to make a bit more of a case for invading Iraq, it still was not enough reason to invade per just war theory as the degree of killing the large amount of innocent Iraqi's is still not proportional to our losses on 9/11.

If anything it shows that SH became more of our enemy due to Bush Sr's actions earlier...the war that ignited the movement to come to America. We won that war but we did not win the peace. The more involved we get the more RR's words about further enmeshment in the ME became true.

Also, Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad was another group that did their dirty work on targets over there as well. And Ayman left that group. I wouldn't be surprised if others defected from other groups too. Still, the purpose of AQ was for attacks on America.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 07:15 AM
Maybe because AQ is so broad now that it really refers to any terror we we encounter. AQ has really, to me, lost it's meaning. We attribute many things to AQ - probably falsely.

Got any proof of that or is this something your making up as you go along?

I repeat it because it was not the main sell of the war. Moreover, if you want to call all the 6 or 7 justifications that Bush kept harping on when the public fell out of the last one he used as true "justifications" from the start, I guess that's you're call.

Seeing as how Bush laid all this out for everyone to reference before the invasion of Iraq and the only thing Iíve seen shifting since is what people want to bitch about, thatís a pretty safe call.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 08:57 AM
Also, Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad was another group that did their dirty work on targets over there as well. And Ayman left that group. I wouldn't be surprised if others defected from other groups too. Still, the purpose of AQ was for attacks on America.

He didn't leave the group, he merged it with bin Laden's people, after a decade of working closely together, to form today's al Qaeda. Kind of like the way Michael Capellas "left" Compaq (i.e. he didn't) when his company merged with Hewlett-Packard.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 08:59 AM
Got any proof of that or is this something your making up as you go along?

He can speak for himself, of course, but my understanding is that a while back, he read something that suggested that al Qaeda was a boogieman concept created by the US or some such nonsense. Since it fits in with his negative view of everything we do in the GWoT (which he doesn't believe in either), he uncritically accepted it.

irishjayhawk
03-28-2008, 09:57 AM
Got any proof of that or is this something your making up as you go along?

Other than the fact that we declared AQ responsible for 9/11 and haven't concentrated more on them than Iraq and the fact that there's numerous evidence AQ may be just a label for the war's meaning, I don't have any off hand.


Seeing as how Bush laid all this out for everyone to reference before the invasion of Iraq and the only thing Iíve seen shifting since is what people want to bitch about, thatís a pretty safe call.

As much as I hate it, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't recall 6 reasons being included in his plan. That and I can't really take any of him or his staff seriously given all the retarded talk coming out:

1) Mission Accomplished
2) "cakewalk"
3) Rumsfeld's 6 days/months quote.
4) Any time Cheney opens his mouth.

He can speak for himself, of course, but my understanding is that a while back, he read something that suggested that al Qaeda was a boogieman concept created by the US or some such nonsense. Since it fits in with his negative view of everything we do in the GWoT (which he doesn't believe in either), he uncritically accepted it.

I did read that and it does make a lot of sense. But I don't disagree with everything in the GWoT. I think the GWoT is so broad it's ridiculous. Shouldn't murders be under the name terror. Aren't they terrorizing cities? Why aren't we cracking down in things like that? AQ? Is that the main objective? No one knows because they're just a terror group. What about Hezboullah (pardon if I butcher the spelling)? We haven't really gone after them. Then there's North Korea who actually HAVE WMD. We aren't going after them.

So while it's so broad we're really only going after a select few. And there seems to be common threads. You happen to dismiss all of them because it doesn't fit your positive outlook on the GWoT. Further, you won't accept the idea of blowback when it makes PERFECT sense. I think the difference between you and I is that on a global scale, I have too much empathy and you have little, if any.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2008, 09:58 AM
He didn't leave the group, he merged it with bin Laden's people, after a decade of working closely together, to form today's al Qaeda. Kind of like the way Michael Capellas "left" Compaq (i.e. he didn't) when his company merged with Hewlett-Packard.

Islamic Jihad's objective was overthrow of the Egyptian govt. Later broadened aims to US/Israel interests over there. Did not merge with AQ until June 2001.
The missing information is at what points was SH giving them funds with knowledge it was to attack America? It's details like this that matter, and not just a meeting....because by this stand Rumsfeld would be a "terrorist" too.

Oh, and the Pentagon, is the heart of the neocon network. Their data has been in conflict with other intel agencies. How do we know what is fabricated in that report knowing they are followers of Leo Strauss' "Noble Lie?" Hmmmmm?

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 11:01 AM
Other than the fact that we declared AQ responsible for 9/11 and haven't concentrated more on them than Iraq and the fact that there's numerous evidence AQ may be just a label for the war's meaning, I don't have any off hand.

Ah, so no evidence lead you to this conclusions its just what you want to believe. Got’cha.

As much as I hate it, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't recall 6 reasons being included in his plan.

You've got to be shitting me. I’ve posted the link to Bush’s speech outlining the reasons for you at least twice that I can think of.
Here it is again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 11:03 AM
Islamic Jihad's objective was overthrow of the Egyptian govt. Later broadened aims to US/Israel interests over there. Did not merge with AQ until June 2001.
The missing information is at what points was SH giving them funds with knowledge it was to attack America? It's details like this that matter, and not just a meeting....because by this stand Rumsfeld would be a "terrorist" too.

Oh, and the Pentagon, is the heart of the neocon network. Their data has been in conflict with other intel agencies. How do we know what is fabricated in that report knowing they are followers of Leo Strauss' "Noble Lie?" Hmmmmm?

Over 80 posts before you attempt to demagogue the source? Youíre slipping.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 12:06 PM
Other than the fact that we declared AQ responsible for 9/11 and haven't concentrated more on them than Iraq and the fact that there's numerous evidence AQ may be just a label for the war's meaning, I don't have any off hand.



As much as I hate it, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't recall 6 reasons being included in his plan. That and I can't really take any of him or his staff seriously given all the retarded talk coming out:

1) Mission Accomplished
2) "cakewalk"
3) Rumsfeld's 6 days/months quote.
4) Any time Cheney opens his mouth.

Maybe if you read through the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html) against Iraq, you'll be able to find 6 or more reasons for military action there. And as an added bonus, you don't have to hear it from anyone in the Bush administration. Here are a few highlights that you might find interesting:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235)

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Counci

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary

There are others, but that's a good sampling in case you don't feel like reading the whole resolution.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 12:22 PM
I did read that and it does make a lot of sense. But I don't disagree with everything in the GWoT. I think the GWoT is so broad it's ridiculous. Shouldn't murders be under the name terror. Aren't they terrorizing cities? Why aren't we cracking down in things like that? AQ? Is that the main objective? No one knows because they're just a terror group. What about Hezboullah (pardon if I butcher the spelling)? We haven't really gone after them. Then there's North Korea who actually HAVE WMD. We aren't going after them.

So while it's so broad we're really only going after a select few. And there seems to be common threads. You happen to dismiss all of them because it doesn't fit your positive outlook on the GWoT. Further, you won't accept the idea of blowback when it makes PERFECT sense. I think the difference between you and I is that on a global scale, I have too much empathy and you have little, if any.

I know you're young and I try to be patient with you, but it's hard sometimes. We are "taking on" Korea and Hezbollah as a part of the GWoT. It's just that we aren't using military force on them at the moment. We are using other tools in our toolbox, like diplomacy and sanctions for example. (And Israel took on Hezbollah with our blessing just a couple of years ago.) That doesn't mean that those strategies will be successful and we may need to try something different at some point, but there's no reason that we need to use military force on every aspect of the GWoT enemy simultaneously just because we use military force on one aspect of that enemy.

As for a definition of our enemy, it's been offered many times, you just refuse to accept it. Yes our enemy is more broad than Osama bin Laden's personal circle of friends, but it's not broad enough to include all muslims nor is it broad enough to include all murderers.

I completely accept the concept of blowback, but I recognize that there are unintended consequences of all policy choices (including inaction) not just past actions. While we should act in ways that minimize the likelihood of negative consequences as we pursue our goals and while we should analyze the results of our past actions to apply some of the lessons to future actions, we shouldn't sacrifice our goals just because some unintended consequences are inevitable. The problem I have with the RonPauls of the world is that they don't want to admit that there would inevitably be unintended consequences of his brand of isolationism and that there are benefits that have been generated by the same forces that have created blowback. A meaningful cost/benefit analysis would take into account all of these things not just the parts that support your preferred policy option. Unfortunately, it's really hard to identify the true costs and benefits when results of unchosen actions in the past and of any future actions are inherently speculative.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 12:40 PM
Islamic Jihad's objective was overthrow of the Egyptian govt. Later broadened aims to US/Israel interests over there. Did not merge with AQ until June 2001.
The missing information is at what points was SH giving them funds with knowledge it was to attack America? It's details like this that matter, and not just a meeting....because by this stand Rumsfeld would be a "terrorist" too.

Oh, and the Pentagon, is the heart of the neocon network. Their data has been in conflict with other intel agencies. How do we know what is fabricated in that report knowing they are followers of Leo Strauss' "Noble Lie?" Hmmmmm?

Osama bin Laden's objective was to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan initially. Later, it evolved into reforming the Saudi government. Eventually, long after he became a close ally with Zawahiri, he turned his attention to the US.

It doesn't matter that the merger took place in June 2001 (which is subject to some debate btw). EIJ and bin Laden's outfit were working "hand in glove" long before that.

It also doesn't matter that Saddam was giving funds to EIJ and cooperating with them before the actual merger date. The merged organization could have easily been called EIJ instead of al Qaeda. No one would question Saddam's links to al Qaeda if his funding and cooperation involved Osama's half of the merged organization pre-merge. There's no logical reason to see his assistance for Zawahiri's half of the merged organization as any less relevant to the post-merge concern.

The fact that Saddam was cooperating with EIJ primarily on its anti-Egyptian activities rather than it's later anti-American activities *is* a little more relevant. Afterall, we supported islamic extremists when their activities were focused on expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan. But Saddam was known to hate the US and he was known to work with terrorists so, for anyone interested in "connecting dots", the combination of a prior collaborative relationship with Ayman al Zawahiri's EIJ, an ongoing propensity of Saddam to work with terrorist groups as a matter of policy, and a shared interest in doing damage to the US is the kind of basis for serious concern that critics use to level charges of negligence if nothing is done and an attack does materialize.

irishjayhawk
03-28-2008, 02:02 PM
I know you're young and I try to be patient with you, but it's hard sometimes. We are "taking on" Korea and Hezbollah as a part of the GWoT. It's just that we aren't using military force on them at the moment. We are using other tools in our toolbox, like diplomacy and sanctions for example.

You mean the kind of tools we ignored with respect to Iraq? The same sort of tools the UN didn't seem had worn off and therefore didn't accept our view on taking SH out. The point is we use whatever tools we want simply so people like you can say we're using different tools when the point of Iraq was military use. If you see what I'm getting at.

By the way, you're ad hominems about being young are getting old.


(And Israel took on Hezbollah with our blessing just a couple of years ago.)

Another place where you and I disagree; Israel. Israel, to me, is the source of ALL or almost all, the turmoil against America. We chose a side and have been suffering the effects since then. You see it differently, I know.


That doesn't mean that those strategies will be successful and we may need to try something different at some point, but there's no reason that we need to use military force on every aspect of the GWoT enemy simultaneously just because we use military force on one aspect of that enemy.

My point is that we never try diplomacy. If I recall correctly, the administration has stood by the stance that you cannot talk to dictators via diplomacy. I also believe that's why Obama has said the recent quote he said.

As for a definition of our enemy, it's been offered many times, you just refuse to accept it. Yes our enemy is more broad than Osama bin Laden's personal circle of friends, but it's not broad enough to include all muslims nor is it broad enough to include all murderers.

Yes I disagree with the definition of our enemy precisely because it's so broad. So broad that we've incorporated parts of the religion the ME practicies. islamofascist. You don't have the problem with the broadness. In fact, you thrive on it. It makes it so easy to weasel in this enemy and that enemy under the GWoT. And that's precisely what makes you, Bush and his supporters so dangerous, in my book.


I completely accept the concept of blowback, but I recognize that there are unintended consequences of all policy choices (including inaction) not just past actions. While we should act in ways that minimize the likelihood of negative consequences as we pursue our goals and while we should analyze the results of our past actions to apply some of the lessons to future actions, we shouldn't sacrifice our goals just because some unintended consequences are inevitable. The problem I have with the RonPauls of the world is that they don't want to admit that there would inevitably be unintended consequences of his brand of isolationism and that there are benefits that have been generated by the same forces that have created blowback. A meaningful cost/benefit analysis would take into account all of these things not just the parts that support your preferred policy option. Unfortunately, it's really hard to identify the true costs and benefits when results of unchosen actions in the past and of any future actions are inherently speculative.

So rather than try something new, we should just keep doing what hasn't worked. Got it.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 02:39 PM
By the way, you're ad hominems about being young are getting old.

Thatís okay sonny, itís getting pretty old having to reargue stuff weíve covered here several times long ago just to catch you up.

patteeu
03-29-2008, 08:14 AM
You mean the kind of tools we ignored with respect to Iraq? The same sort of tools the UN didn't seem had worn off and therefore didn't accept our view on taking SH out. The point is we use whatever tools we want simply so people like you can say we're using different tools when the point of Iraq was military use. If you see what I'm getting at.

By the way, you're ad hominems about being young are getting old.

I was trying to be nice by assuming an excuse for your tenacious illogic and your persistent failure to understand that which has been repeatedly explained.

And no, I don't mean the kind of tools we ignored with respect to Iraq. We used diplomacy and sanctions for 12 years before we resorted to military force against Saddam. But you were probably in elementary school and high school at the time so... oops! ;)


My point is that we never try diplomacy. If I recall correctly, the administration has stood by the stance that you cannot talk to dictators via diplomacy. I also believe that's why Obama has said the recent quote he said.

Wrong. We use diplomacy all the time. Even our refusal to talk to some regimes is a form of diplomacy. The view is that sitting down with someone to talk confers some amount of prestige upon them (whether you agree with that or not). Nonetheless, we talk to dictators all the time. We've been talking to North Korea for example. We talk with dictators all over Africa. We talk with the Chinese. You can argue with the details of Bush administration diplomacy, but it is simplistic to the point of absurdity to say that we never try diplomacy or that we cannot talk to dictators.

Yes I disagree with the definition of our enemy precisely because it's so broad. So broad that we've incorporated parts of the religion the ME practicies. islamofascist. You don't have the problem with the broadness. In fact, you thrive on it. It makes it so easy to weasel in this enemy and that enemy under the GWoT. And that's precisely what makes you, Bush and his supporters so dangerous, in my book.

As with diplomacy, you can argue with the specifics of who we've decided to target in this war, but you can't, as you often do, say that we haven't defined the target or pretend that all murderers or everyone who could possibly be defined as a terrorist would fit into the definition. To the extent that you don't understand the target, it's got more to do with how receptive you are to information that's been presented than it has to do with a lack of information or a lack of the clarity of that information.

So rather than try something new, we should just keep doing what hasn't worked. Got it.

The Bush administration is trying something very new. You want to short-circuit that effort because it hasn't been an immediate silver bullet. I guess that's an example of the impatience of ... nevermind. :p