Thread: What I don't like about Bush.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

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

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)?

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.

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.

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.

The MSM has not done a good job in covering Iraq in a comprehensive fashion. Having served in Iraq, the image portrayed in the MSM was very different than the one I had while my boots were on the ground, and I'm talking specifically only about my little view of my turf in Iraq. This may or may not be due to a liberal bias, but it is what it is, for whatever reason. Based on their inability to report accurately in my little area of Iraq and based off the exact same conversation with many of my peers, I don't place much faith in the MSM to report Iraq.

Now, if you source enough papers, milblogs, pieces from the more knowledgeable columnists, and have access to information coming from the military/intel that's on the ground, you're able to pull together a much more complete picture that provides a comprehensive look across the spectrum of fronts to make an evaluation of the situation. Bottomline, your lack of sources contributes to an incomplete picture, and while it is not your fault, you are left holding the bag.

Originally Posted by parihaka

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?

I daresay we have more than the single plank you point out. Everyone knows that we are going to be here for a very, very long time, and head of the pack for all of that time. People will still use dollars. What are they going to switch to, the Euro? Ask Italy how that's worked out for them.

-dale

Originally Posted by parihaka

I see that picture you posted on your 1st day of a young lady, dressed in leather, weilding a whip was no mere whimsy.

"Herb, I looked up 'executrix'. It has nothing to do with high heels and leather."

-dale

To both Bluesman and Dale, I am currently reviewing my positions on Iraq. I apologize if my replies come slowly. This is because I am trying to gather as much information as possible, so I am no longer at an informational disadvantage.

Originally Posted by dalem

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.

I will not call the American performance exemplary. I will say that our troops have been brave. Also, in a straight firefight, American forces will win. Unfortunately, American troops are under attack from a foe they cannot competently deal with.

You will want more evidence to support my claim. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on one area that needs improvement.

"10/27 - Sectarian tensions flared Thursday as Shiite militiamen and the police clashed with Sunni Arab kidnappers southeast of Baghdad, leaving at least 21 dead and 17 wounded, said a Shiite leader and an Interior Ministry official. The fighting began when members of the Mahdi Army, a militia led by Moktada al-Sadr, the rebellious Shiite cleric, raided a village called Nehrawan to free a hostage taken by insurgents, said Sheik Abdul-Zahra al-Suweidi, a senior Sadr official. Policemen joined the militia in the attack, he added."

This was reported in the New York Times. I know you dislike that source, but I think that this report is very lean and factual. There is no analysis, only facts.

This militia attack does not exist in a vacuum. In fact, the private militias of Iraq have been out of control for some time. The United States has been unable to curtail their presence, much less keep the Iraqi police from joining in the action.

Also, the presence of roadside bombs. I will agree that guerilla warfare does create a slight drain on troop levels. However, the nature of the attacks illustrate a problem. A prevalence of roadside bombs insicates that the U.S. does not have control over much of Iraq's road system. This is not a good indicator of success.

Originally Posted by dalem

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.

To be honest, I'll have to read more about Zarqawi. I'm going to get back to you on this one. It is true that he was unable to influence the election very much. However, at this point, I will still maintain that he has been responsible for a majority of the devastating attacks recently.

Originally Posted by dalem

3) The country's government is as strong as can be expected for the circumstances, and getting stronger with each action it takes.

The Iraqi government faces considerable strain and pressure and I disagree with your basic assertion that it gets stronger with each action it takes. Ali al-Sistani is not supporting the government in the next round of Parliamentary decisions. Many Shiite leaders are frustrated by what they see as a lack of progress. Reconstruction has been relatively slow, and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq has yet to offer a solution to the insurgency.

Originally Posted by dalem

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.

I will amend my earlier statements. Geographically, most of Iraq is not a war zone. However, I will still say that some of the most important parts of Iraq in turmoil. This is a situation that must be corrected.

Originally Posted by shek

The MSM has not done a good job in covering Iraq in a comprehensive fashion. Having served in Iraq, the image portrayed in the MSM was very different than the one I had while my boots were on the ground, and I'm talking specifically only about my little view of my turf in Iraq. This may or may not be due to a liberal bias, but it is what it is, for whatever reason. Based on their inability to report accurately in my little area of Iraq and based off the exact same conversation with many of my peers, I don't place much faith in the MSM to report Iraq.

Now, if you source enough papers, milblogs, pieces from the more knowledgeable columnists, and have access to information coming from the military/intel that's on the ground, you're able to pull together a much more complete picture that provides a comprehensive look across the spectrum of fronts to make an evaluation of the situation. Bottomline, your lack of sources contributes to an incomplete picture, and while it is not your fault, you are left holding the bag.

I am currently reviewing my positions on Iraq. I will honestly attempt to find as much information as I can (short of going there for now).

Originally Posted by dalem

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

A debate will obviously ensue over what sources are legitimate. I stand by my three main sources, but as I said, I am reviewing my sources and facts. I want to be as correct as possible, so this project may take a while.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

To both Bluesman and Dale, I am currently reviewing my positions on Iraq. I apologize if my replies come slowly. This is because I am trying to gather as much information as possible, so I am no longer at an informational disadvantage.

No problem. I value reasoned positions over invective, even when I'm the one slinging the invective.

I will not call the American performance exemplary. I will say that our troops have been brave. Also, in a straight firefight, American forces will win. Unfortunately, American troops are under attack from a foe they cannot competently deal with.

Here I will address your use of the word "competently". In what ways are U.S. forces lacking competence in dealing with the insurgents and terrorists? It's not our mission strength, no; but an accusation of incompetence is a severe accusation. And the words we use when shaping our positions and arguments are important

You will want more evidence to support my claim. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on one area that needs improvement.

"10/27 - Sectarian tensions flared Thursday as Shiite militiamen and the police clashed with Sunni Arab kidnappers southeast of Baghdad, leaving at least 21 dead and 17 wounded, said a Shiite leader and an Interior Ministry official. The fighting began when members of the Mahdi Army, a militia led by Moktada al-Sadr, the rebellious Shiite cleric, raided a village called Nehrawan to free a hostage taken by insurgents, said Sheik Abdul-Zahra al-Suweidi, a senior Sadr official. Policemen joined the militia in the attack, he added."

This was reported in the New York Times. I know you dislike that source, but I think that this report is very lean and factual. There is no analysis, only facts.

This militia attack does not exist in a vacuum. In fact, the private militias of Iraq have been out of control for some time. The United States has been unable to curtail their presence, much less keep the Iraqi police from joining in the action.

Sure, we'd like to see less factionalism, but the reality is that we can only hope to lessen the need for such things. Which we have been doing.

Also, the presence of roadside bombs. I will agree that guerilla warfare does create a slight drain on troop levels. However, the nature of the attacks illustrate a problem. A prevalence of roadside bombs insicates that the U.S. does not have control over much of Iraq's road system. This is not a good indicator of success.

By those standards the U.S. does not have control over much of Minnesota's road or rail system. I could fly M21Sniper or ray or Officer of Engineers out here and have them help me blow up local traffic or derail a bunch of trains operating out of the local switching yard a couple of miles from my house for the next 3 months and we'd never get caught.

So what?

Operationally you restrict the movement and reach of insurgents, and get the local population to switch from supporting the local Bad Guys to ratting on the local Bad Guys - you don't (you CAN'T) police every inch of road and track. We are succeeding in these areas.

To be honest, I'll have to read more about Zarqawi. I'm going to get back to you on this one. It is true that he was unable to influence the election very much. However, at this point, I will still maintain that he has been responsible for a majority of the devastating attacks recently.

Of course he has - he's the boss. But his failure to affect the last 2 elections is incredibly important. Prior to January 30th he said he'd kill everyone who dared to vote.

He didn't even come remotely close to scratching that surface.

He said the same thing prior to the Constitutional referendum and -pfffft!- nothing!

This is HUGELY detrimental to his cause.

The Iraqi government faces considerable strain and pressure and I disagree with your basic assertion that it gets stronger with each action it takes. Ali al-Sistani is not supporting the government in the next round of Parliamentary decisions. Many Shiite leaders are frustrated by what they see as a lack of progress. Reconstruction has been relatively slow, and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq has yet to offer a solution to the insurgency.

"relatively slow" as compared to what? What possible yardstick could you be using against which to measure reconstruction progress? There IS NONE TO USE.

All good governments operate on compromise. Who am I to tell IRAQIS AND ARABS HOW TO HORSE-TRADE????? They are doing just fine.

I will amend my earlier statements. Geographically, most of Iraq is not a war zone. However, I will still say that some of the most important parts of Iraq in turmoil. This is a situation that must be corrected.

Of course.

-dale

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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...

As I have said in my recent posts, I have started an extensive fact finding operation. I will learn all I can about Iraq. Many of my positions are under review. At the end of the process, my arguments will be more correct and more valid.

From what I know now:
It is true that Zarqawi cannot defeat a U.S. battle squadron in a straight fight. However, that is not the criterion for his success. In order for al-Zarqawi to succeed, he needs to make transporation difficult, keep up the suicide bombings, and continue to hit American soldiers with the various explosives that have been observed in Iraq. A terrorist leader does not need to beat the U.S. in a pitched battle. A terrorist leader simply needs to kill enough U.S. soldiers that the populace at home gets sick of the war and withdraws.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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

No, at the very best it is not control, but a case of effective defense.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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.

The continued U.S. casualties are not crippling militarily. But the deaths do indicate that the insurgency is not dying and can still hit American troops effectively.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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.

I don't know if the current state of resistance is the 'very best punch' the terrorists can throw. Only the terrorists know the plans of attack.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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 position is not to pull out of Iraq. If I was in charge, I would have at least 700,000 U.S. soldiers there, complete military lockdown. The insurgent attacks have not been highly ineffective. They have resulted in the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi civilians, and this has a large effect of public opinion there.

In an unrelated point, I have been entertaining a wild idea for a few days. I think it might be beneficial if the President went to Iraq, and ruled from Baghdad for several months. It would be like the Roman Emperor coming to the battle front. Imagine the boost of morale. The American soldiers patrolling Iraq would know that their leader was with them, observing the battlefield. What we need is a warrior president.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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.

A large amount of Iraqis are participating, somewhat awkwardly I might add. The Shiites make about 60% of the population, and the Kurds constitute another large group. However, the power of the Sunnis to cause problems should not be underestimated.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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.

Neither the government or al-Zarqawi can control all of Iraq at this time,

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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.

Again, I do not believe the destruction of the insurgency is imminent. It may take place eventually, but I see no lessening in attacks that suggests such a collapse.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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.

Your point here rests on the fact that many terrorists are maimed and therefore provide little inspiration for future generations of terrorists. The Muslim world has an interesting psychological tendency to transform death and defeat into further cause for resistance. I also don't know if this situation is actually occuring. That is, its very hard to know any kind of injury statistic on the insurgency. I think it is wishful thinking to say that none of the jihadis will leave with their feet.

Plenty of U.S. troops have been grievously injured (missing legs, arms, etc.). I wonder if that is one of the reasons that the U.S. military has missed its recruiting goals?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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

Really? I would never have guessed.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Sorry; can't help it.

I don't mind arguing, as long as it doesn't lapse into a personality column again.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

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

No...Nooo...Nnnnnooooo!
You philosophy spreading little fool! You can't bring it to every thread.

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

No...Nooo...Nnnnnooooo!
You philosophy spreading little fool! You can't bring it to every thread.

Don't worry, I wasn't planning on bringing it here. I remember that Dale has little respect for philosophy.

But if it does come up, I'll not shy away.