Thread: What I don't like about Bush.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I work with such evidence each and every working day of my life, and have for the last five years.

Please post that evidence.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

That's the way it is, and besting a teenie on a message board 'debate' is not worth proving it to you.

I dislike your condescension and disdain for my age group. My age does not matter, more important is my I.Q. and powers of reasoning. Why do you turn this into a personal argument? Your objection to my age holds no weight.

You would find it disrespectful if I insulted you or refused to answer you because of your age, so please don't do the same to me. Let's not let our age difference be an issue in our debates.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Your 'evidence' is what I called into question, not your patriotism.

I take most of my evidence from news articles, often featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. These are all reputable and trustworthy news sources, therefore I don't think my facts are in error.

Also, like Monk, you like to complain about my points, without actually citing any specific problems with my assertions.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

But you are forced to rely on sources that are not interested in American success. See what I meant now?

No, I don't see what you mean. I have not been using unusually biased or twisted news sources.

Your objection is also illogical. Before I disclosed my sources above, you could not have known them. How can you claim that my previously anonymous sources were not interested in American success? This seems like a jump to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I shall state several statistics to support my claim that China is outproducing the United States of America. That is, China is producing more raw materials and finished goods than the U.S. can at this time.

Oh, then I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I shall state several statistics to support my claim that China is outproducing the United States of America. That is, China is producing more raw materials and finished goods than the U.S. can at this time.

i agree too. under the bush administration we got so much debts.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Please post that evidence.

No. To do so would be a criminal offense.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I dislike your condescension and disdain for my age group. My age does not matter, more important is my I.Q. and powers of reasoning. Why do you turn this into a personal argument? Your objection to my age holds no weight.

Actually, it does, son. See, I was also a really smart kid. As I matured, I came to the conclusion that I had over-rated myself, as you over-rate yourself. Your IQ cuts no ice with me, because though we BOTH think you're intelligent, I think you're also grossly ignorant of the world, and your faith in REASON (as you conceive it) is very naive. Cute, really. I was a MENSAn at 14, and hadabsolutely NO CLUE about those things I was so dam' ****-sure about. A lot like YOU, actually.

I'll finish in a minnit, Hoss. My son needs the computer. Eighteen, really smart...we all know the rest.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

You would find it disrespectful if I insulted you or refused to answer you because of your age, so please don't do the same to me. Let's not let our age difference be an issue in our debates.

Back.

Well, I find myself in the enviable position of being superior to you in the age department, and that's WHY I feel less compunction about calling that factor into question. You may not feel that it IS a superiority, but of course you'd be WRONG, for reasons that you cannot fathom yet.

Because of your age.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I take most of my evidence from news articles, often featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. These are all reputable and trustworthy news sources, therefore I don't think my facts are in error.

And that's what I meant when I said that your sources are HIGHLY suspect. Incredible, in fact. Most of those sources have no interest whatever in seeing the Iraq mission come out right, and they work as hard as appearances allow every dam' day to see that it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Also, like Monk, you like to complain about my points, without actually citing any specific problems with my assertions.

No, actually, that's not accurate, but you're not going to accept what I tell you. You're biased, as you consider yourself well-read on the topic. You're not.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

No, I don't see what you mean. I have not been using unusually biased or twisted news sources.

This was our exchange:

Originally Posted by Bluesman
But they don't square with what you've been told. sO...WHAT DO YOU THINK THE DISCONNECT IS? What I know, or what you've been told by people that have no interest in our success?

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I have an intense interest in our success. Do not interpret my concerns as a lack of 'patriotism.' I strongly support a U.S. dominion in Iraq.

You believed I was saying that YOU had no interest in our success in Iraq. I was ACTUALLY saying that YOUR SOURCES - press and electronic media - have no etc. NOW do you see what I meant?

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Your objection is also illogical. Before I disclosed my sources above, you could not have known them. How can you claim that my previously anonymous sources were not interested in American success? This seems like a jump to conclusions.

Well, I assumed you were not privy to the same classified and vetted sources I am, and that is still my assumption. You are forced to rely on a largely hostile media that reports selectivelya dn frequently erroneously about a subject it has a massive dispassion and antipathy for.

But I do not rely on those sources. Mine is more...authentic.

Now, then, back to your points, such as they are:

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Right now, the American perfomance in Iraq is poor. We cannot control Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and his insurgency. The country's government is not strong, and much of Iraq is a war zone.

For these reasons and others I think that America's transformative power is easily overstated.

All of your conclusions are false. To whit:

1) The American performance is exemplary. Kill ratios are up, mission success is up, collateral damage is low, and public Iraqi support (and intel) is growing daily.
2) The Zarkman, while not "controlled", has certainly been shown to be severely hampered by the evidence of his poor performance over the last election day in Iraq.
3) The country's government is as strong as can be expected for the circumstances, and getting stronger with each action it takes.
4) The oft-quoted but equally oft-ignored fact is that out of 18 Iraqi provinces, 15 are secure and peaceful and 3 are in relative turmoil. But the progress curve is always to the positive - witness the poor security of Fallujah for Election 1 vs. the good security in Election 2.

-dale

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I take most of my evidence from news articles, often featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. These are all reputable and trustworthy news sources, therefore I don't think my facts are in error.

Actually, especially with regards to the War on Terror, the three you mention are relatively DISreputable and have proven to be contrafactual on many occasions. The WSJ op ed page is slightly more realistic.

So your facts are indeed in error.

-dale

You said, "...much of Iraq is a war zone", and I answered that much of Iraq is NOT a war zone; three provinces out of eighteen are. You then said that more than three provinces are 'affected'. I didn't say they were not affected, I said they're not a war zone, as you claimed. SO, it is your position that more than three provinces are a war zone, or merely 'affected'?

This is not a semantic difference. It matters a great deal whether the insurgency can offer more than token resistance in any but three provinces. Your characterization is FALSE, as I said it was, but that you no doubt have maintained that impression from your sources that strive to foster that image.

Carrying on...

Originally Posted by dalem

And yet we're in the most powerful position we've ever been in, internationally. Think there's a reason?

People don't like the Top Dog. I've written about this before.

-dale

The top dog scenario is part of it but this administrations disdain for foreign opinion has also lead to a lack of goodwill. There is one thing and one thing only that supports the American economy and therefore American might, the goodwill of the international community in using the dollar as the default medium of international exchange. If your ratios of debt to productivity were pasted onto another country, that country would tank. Only the use of the dollar as the medium of exchange keeps America afloat. America is and should be very strong, but it's daft to have only one plank holding her up.

As for the rest of the debate going on, haven't we got forums elsewhere for this rehashed shyt?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

The dead speak. I can't hear or read 'em, but I feel their presence.

Like wet underwear. Unpleasant and irritating.

"I see dumb people. Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dumb."

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Zarqawi has not been captured, and this is certainly a criteria for 'controlling the HELL out of AMZ.'

No. It's not. If we can get AMZ to do less of what HE wants, and more of what WE want, we're controlling the HELL out of him. I never said we'd captured him, nor even defeated him. But he dances to our tune, not the other way around. NOT ONCE has he ever defeated an American unit of any echelon, NOT ONCE has an American unit ever been prevented from accomplishing its mission. But he can't say the same. Our troops sleep through the night safely; his are hunted constantly. Our unit commanders do not suffer casualties; his are snuffed three-a-week. On and on and on...

So, YES, we're controlling the HELL out of AMZ.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

The American list of dead continues to grow. There are sometimes as many as seventy attacks on American or Iraqi civilians every day. This is not the sign of a peaceful country.

Well, welcome to guerilla warfare. OF COURSE our casualties continue. But what do we get in return? A dying terrorist insurgency, and according to the enemy, it's do-or-die in Iraq. We are WAY farther down the road to victory if we beat the very best punch they can throw, and we're doing that RIGHT NOW. Those up-to-seventy attacks on infrequent days? HIGHLY ineffective. It's not the sign of a peaceful country, and that part is true, but is it your position that until it IS a peaceful country, we should not commit troops, or pull those that are committed out?

My point is, even with all those nasty ole attacks, the country is improving every dam' day. It's a process.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

As to your point about only three provinces being affected. Well, there are more than three affected. All of the provinces are important :Baghdad, Al-Anbar, and Babil, to name a few. These provinces contain the majority of the insurgent population and the capital, Baghdad. I contest your claim that this is insignificant.

I did not say it was insignificant. I said the country isn't a war zone, as YOU claimed; those three provinces are. See above.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

The Sunni minority, the main source of the insurgency, has rejected the validity of the government. This seriously impairs the government's ability to curtail the violence. Additionally, the American/Shiite government has been forced to carry out its rulings deep behind the Green Zone, an island of barbed wire and roadblocks in the midst of embattled Baghdad.

INCORRECT. SOME of the Sunnis have rejected etc. Which means THEY are fractured, NOT Iraq as a whole. See, what you fail to acknowledge is that a HUGE majority of IRAQ - all segments combined - are on-board with the democratic process. You know, the process AMZ said he'd kill 'em for participating in. But they did, and he can't.

Furthermore, the government is able to go into any part of the country it wants to now, not just the Green Zone. Can AMZ say as much? NO. No, he CANNOT.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Our performance has been only moderate. As a yardstick I use the absence of terrorists and insurgencies within Iraq. Right now, its essentially a training ground for terrorists.

Once again, this is BS. I know WHY you believe it, but what you believe is WRONG. Our performance has been truly spectacular. An insurgency on its native ground is being destroyed. This is the most difficult operation in modern warfare. The Russians, despite destroying Groznyy, couldn't do it. We, on the other hand, are doing it while succeeding in leaving most windows intact at the point of contact with terrorists.

As far as a training ground for terrorists, you have a small point. But this is significant: almost NONE of the foreign fighters that arrive in Iraq will leave on their feet. Most are maimed, if they survived at all. When they leave, certainly they pass on what they've learned, but you can bet on this: every hopeful young jihadi that comes into contact with 'em sees the reality: defeat and a crippling injury, NOT the glorious martyrdom in battle that they aspire to. Watching your war hero crap into a bag will bring home the reality of fighting the infidel Americans REAL QUICK, even if they ARE learning how to build a car bomb, or evade Spooky's IR sensors in a crowd of innocent civilians.

Let 'em train to their hearts content, if Professor Terror is writing on the blackboard with his ass-wiping hand, because it's the only one he's got left. His acolytes will notice it, I guarantee it.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Like always, speculations about my psychology are irrelevant. Such attempts at distraction will not succeed.

Just trying to get across to you that I don't have nearly the regard for your opinions that YOU do. More along the lines of derision.

Sorry; can't help it.

I may just make this 1st one an Avatar...

First of all, goddamn this thread for turning personal. This is a perversion of the purpose of the thread. Nonetheless, I will respond to the accusations against me.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

No. To do so would be a criminal offense.

If true, that complicates things. If you are privy to some kind of inside information, than maybe you do have an informational advantage. However, can you at least post some common information then? I need evidence to counter my claims.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Actually, it does, son.

Please avoid epithets.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

See, I was also a really smart kid. As I matured, I came to the conclusion that I had over-rated myself, as you over-rate yourself.

I rarely over estimate my ability, such a thing would be a serious error. In fact, I am always critical of my behavior. My former comment about I.Q. was meant to demonstrate the criteria upon which I judge myself. I do have many flaws of intelligence, things that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Your IQ cuts no ice with me,

I did not want it to. My intent was not to flaunt my own intelligence, only to disqualify your age criterion.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

because though we BOTH think you're intelligent, I think you're also grossly ignorant of the world, and your faith in REASON (as you conceive it) is very naive.

I don't care about your estimation of my intelligence, that's your business. I don't understand your objection to reason? Do imply that I lack experience, that my 'theoretical' understanding of the world is deranged?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Cute, really.

I do not appreciate your mockery.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I was a MENSAn at 14, and hadabsolutely NO CLUE about those things I was so dam' ****-sure about.

That must have been difficult for you.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

A lot like YOU, actually.

We don't know each other, there is no basis for comparison.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Eighteen, really smart...we all know the rest.

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Back.

Well, I find myself in the enviable position of being superior to you in the age department, and that's WHY I feel less compunction about calling that factor into question. You may not feel that it IS a superiority, but of course you'd be WRONG, for reasons that you cannot fathom yet.

Ahh, unfathomable reasons? Enlighten me to the wisdom of age.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

And that's what I meant when I said that your sources are HIGHLY suspect. Incredible, in fact. Most of those sources have no interest whatever in seeing the Iraq mission come out right, and they work as hard as appearances allow every dam' day to see that it doesn't.

I predicted this grievance against the 'liberal media.' Before we continue, what are some of your sources (excluding the CIA or any other secret sources)?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

No, actually, that's not accurate, but you're not going to accept what I tell you. You're biased, as you consider yourself well-read on the topic. You're not.

We are both biased on political issues, just like everyone else. That's why I prefer science and philosophy. Your lack of evidence seems to have been corrected in your most recent extensive posts, which I will read. Thank you for offering a more comprehensive reply.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

You believed I was saying that YOU had no interest in our success in Iraq. I was ACTUALLY saying that YOUR SOURCES - press and electronic media - have no etc. NOW do you see what I meant?

I see what you meant, whatever misunderstanding their was seems to have been corrected. However, I will continue to contest your statement that my sources have no interest in American victory. Furthermore, the perfect news agency should not have any interests, either for victory or defeats. It should be an agency devoted to the conveyance of facts.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Well, I assumed you were not privy to the same classified and vetted sources I am, and that is still my assumption. You are forced to rely on a largely hostile media that reports selectivelya dn frequently erroneously about a subject it has a massive dispassion and antipathy for.

The issue of the bias of my sources is something we will probably argue about in the future. I was not aware that you have access to some kind of advanced intelligence. I cannot respond constructively to this fact, I still don't have enough information.