And I said that I can understand your concerns…and I’ll go further to say that I don’t think that those concerns are unreasonable. Though I respect the man, as I said, I have to admit that I have some concerns similar to your own on this score. Unfortunately its VERY difficult to get any kind of professional assessment as to just what the fuck IS going on in Iraq. Certainly we get the news of violence, death, destruction, etc…but what does it MEAN? I don’t know to be honest. Its hard to get an unbiased view of whats going on, or more importantly to get a professional assessment of what it means. I HOPE that Petraeus will give at least the later as I think that the decision to go or stay will be THE most important decision the US in this decade…maybe the most important one it makes this century or in its history. The situation is that volatile IMHO.
Yes, I read that (article from Reuters with a few quotes by Petraeus) yesterday. What, er, point are you trying to make here? That this is an exhaustive representation of events in Iraq? What in that article are you wanting me to look at exactly…and again, what point are you trying to make with it? What does it mean to you Red…or did you just do a quick google search and post a drive by link hoping it made some point?
Well, I think the whole ‘genocide’ is complete hyperbole (and a load of horse shit), but I don’t really get why, when we have tried something different, no one wants to wait and see an assessment of how effective (or ineffective) it is. After all, its as likely that Petraeus will come back with a negative assessment as a positive one if the conventional pundit wisdom is correct and the war is lost with no hope of even a stable situation. Unless you are convinced the man is in Bush’s pocket of course…in which case we are back to listening to the pundits I guess (and filtering them out based on whether or not they are saying what you want to hear).
I’m less interested in the opinions of these two punditti than in the attention being paid to them. There bona fides are a shit sandwhich, which anyone with half a Google can find out, so I’m with XT on that, they don’t matter. Except that they do matter…they are getting far more attention than they deserve, with especial hypnotoad action on they’re being converts to The Surge (new! improved!). Somebody really likes that theme, of war critics smitten on the road to Baghdad by a vision of The Leader. They should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque…
Why? Who is pushing this turd sundae? I have my suspicions…
I’ll help you though Red…here are all the quotes by the general from the article you cited…just pick the ones out that you think are important to whatever point you were attempting to make there:
Which quote were you trying to draw my attention to here Red…and what does it mean to you exactly?
Well, despite my presence somehow derailing the thread (which I thought was about the rosy estimations of some of Bush’s harshest former critics), since you are speaking for xtisme, (and making claims about what the scope of his observations were), let me just ask again for clarification on this:
Which people here, tomndebb, do you believe form their absolute certainty on op ed pieces, the say so of journalists and fringe generals?
Do you agree with this statement (i.e. that a meaningful number of people here do so)?
Do you see how this might be offensive to people who form an opinion about how the war is progressing on other sources than those disparaged by xtisme?
The idea that xtisme would argue for waiting for more information while disparaging those who already have formed an opinion is nothing new. That is his m.o. on every single issue.
I can see where it might be beneficial to never allow prior learning to influence your opinion about a new assertion, but I see him as more like someone who looks in his inbox and says, “Well, this one may in fact be from the widow of the former Nigerian Secretary of Commerce. You just never know!”
Well consider this report from earlier this month. When the surge was started benchmarks were established to judge how it was progressing. We are failing to meet most of those benchmarks. And, most troubling, some of the ones we are failing to meet are directly related to ending the bloodshed: the supression of the militias and the ability of the Iraqi government forces to take over security.
Our progress on meeting those benchmarks is actually a pretty good metric on how things are going. They were agreed upon in advance, not cherry-picked on the spur of the moment.
I don’t care about where we are. I care about where we are compared to where we said we would be six months ago. That’s how you measure progress.
Not hardly. For the more adroit reader Petraeus’ comments simply confirm (Sept report notwithstanding) what many have been saying here for quite sometime – in this thread even.
Namely that Bush wishes to pass HIS problem to the next President. IOW, leaving is not an option under his reign.
I knew our moral compasses were quite different. Yet I didn’t realize exactly how vast the chasm was.
The death of 100,000 <—> 600,000 + innocent people, plus literally countless horribly injured and displaced is not genocide, exactly how? Is there a magic number in your head that has to be reached before it can be called as such?
Red, companero, let it go. You’re wasting your ammo on XT, he isn’t the enemy. What’s the difference whether its “genocide”, “Social Darwinism” or an extraordinarily vigourous form of urban renewal, it is what it is!
Sheeesh, lefites! First we wipe our our allies, then attack the neutrals, and then its the enemys turn!
Well, your link is to an article ABOUT the report, but I skimmed the report when it first came out (it was linked in one of the thread I was reading through). Yes, its troubling that some of the early benchmarks (from your article 10 of 18) are not being met satisfactorily (or at all in some cases). However, the reason you HAVE benchmarks is to assess your progress and to make corrections. Is Bush et al doing this? Gods know…I don’t. However, to point to a failure to meet early benchmarks as an indication that the entire program is flawed or failed is silly. It may very well be that it is (and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the ultimate assessment)…but its not iron clad proof that it will.
I agree…it is a pretty good metric to assess the early stages, especially on the political side. And I factored that into my own assessment when I read it…now I’m looking for a further report to see if any corrections have been made or if the same problems are still cropping up…which will tell me whether this is the same ole shit from Bush et al or if there is something new going on here. I further agree, it was not cherry-picked.
Not that I want to get into this hijack, but perhaps you just don’t know what the definition of ‘genocide’ is. So as a public service I thought I’d go ahead and give you it…perhaps you will understand the point (I’m not holding out a lot of hope on this of course):
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Deliberate. Systematic. You could always go look in a history text on the Spanish Conquest of the New World if you need some illustrations on what ‘deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group’ (put in religion too) REALLY means…and then attempt to wrap your mind around the obvious difference between that and the US occupation of Iraq.
What we are doing is bad enough over there without attempting to label it with this kind of horseshit. Not that I’m sure this is going to have much of an effect on your viewpoint of course…or that you will understand my own for that matter.
You know what this reminds me of? In every debate on religion, someone invariably shows up saying, “I used to be an atheist”, and in every smoking debate, someone says, “I’m not a smoker, but…”
Right you are. A waste it is as Hentor’s analogy about XT is right on point. Keep looking in that Nigerian inbox.
Besides, all he has are totally irrelevant retorts against his much-hated Spain, which, I might add, he carries in his own blood. Definition of self-hatred? In any event they really do deserve a few of his own patented rolleyes smilies. But I’ll refrain from those as well.
Um, do you realize that I was agreeing with you? The “trick” was the article painting those two as “liberals”. To offer an opinion while feigning that it is against one’s own interest to do so is a cheap way to try to lend more credence to the claim being made. I am also an atheist; what’s that got to do with it? I was referring to religious folks who claim they “used to be an atheist”, as if that is supposed to give more weight to their argument.
I believe you were saying the two men in question are not liberals. That’s my point.
While there are people making confusing claims, in general when the topic of genocide is raised in terms of a U.S. pullout, the point is the presumed extinction of Sunni Iraqis once we are no longer separating and restraining the factions.
Or, worse still, the perception of a genocide against the Sunni, whether real or not, on the part of the Sunni in the rest of the Islamic world (who comprise a majority, overall). That could make this bloody fiasco look like a day at the beach.
Overall, its seems to this unexpert eye that the whole Sunni-Shia thing had become somewhat muted as the Islamist became more sophisticated and secular generally, like Iraq was before us, wherein Sunnis and Shia could intermingle and intermarry without any particular concern. This could set that all back. Hell, it already has, just a matter of how bad it gets.
Not to mention the terrible threat of AlQ taking over Shia Iraq, about as likely as the Baptists taking over Mexico…