"A War We Just Might Win"

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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.
[/QUOTE]

While you are right on the major issue, the Sunni/Shiite divide (although I’d add and agree with 'luc’s caveat), “genocide” in Iraq also involves the disappearance of other minorities that had lived there relatively unperturbed until the unprovoked American invasion.

Cites:
NO GREEN ZONE FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES IN IRAQ

Mounting Fears of Assyrian Genocide in Iraq

82

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
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.
[/QUOTE]

And I would agree that this is a distinct possibility (and one that personally makes my blood run cold). However, Red wasn’t talking about when the US pulls out…he was talking about NOW Tom. What we are doing in Iraq is a lot of things…and a lot of them are bad…but its not genocide.

-XT

83

[QUOTE=xtisme]
And I would agree that this is a distinct possibility (and one that personally makes my blood run cold). However, Red wasn’t talking about when the US pulls out…he was talking about NOW Tom. What we are doing in Iraq is a lot of things…and a lot of them are bad…but its not genocide.
[/QUOTE]
(my bolding)

An arguable opinion as I said before.

Cite: US genocide in Iraq

84

Perhaps you can offer a term that most precisely fits the circumstances, that we can all accept and adopt in all further conversations, and then we can put this crucially important issue of semantics to rest? Either or both of you, whatever.

Look if I have to stop the car, neither of you are getting a Happy Meal, and the Deadly Reptile Museum is right out!

85

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Perhaps you can offer a term that most precisely fits the circumstances, that we can all accept and adopt in all further conversations, and then we can put this crucially important issue of semantics to rest? Either or both of you, whatever.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not being flip here or disrespectful to the Iraqi’s and the suffering they are obviously enduring through all this but to me the term that best fits the situation in Iraq is: Clusterfuck.

-XT

86

Hard to define or agree on, 'luc. Guess it depends mostly on the perpetrators and those on the receiving end – doubt they’ll ever agree:

Analysis: Defining genocide

Happy Meal? Pretty please? I’m still missing one of the X-men from my collection.

87

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Namely that Bush wishes to pass HIS problem to the next President.
[/QUOTE]

This is nonsense. Whatever one might feel about getting into this war, getting out is another matter. And there is a good time to do it, a bad time to do it, and a whole bunch of tick marks in between. Bush and others use a different metric than you, which may be better or worse, but this statement as to him not wanting things to end sooner rather than later is just you pissing.

As far as your “genocide”, I see that xtisme has provided for your education.

But let me ask you this. I have no doubt that your position on the war is both heartfelt and sincere. If you think the sin of it is all the killing (“genocide”), shouldn’t when and how we exit take that into account? And shouldn’t we be reasonably sure that our leaving will not result in a greater number of deaths than our staying?

On preview I see that your education did not take. Maybe this will help, maybe not:

88

[QUOTE=magellan01]
This is nonsense. Whatever one might feel about getting into this war, getting out is another matter. And there is a good time to do it, a bad time to do it, and a whole bunch of tick marks in between. Bush and others use a different metric than you, which may be better or worse, but this statement as to him not wanting things to end sooner rather than later is just you pissing.
…
[/QUOTE]

Balderdash sir! Tommyrot!

A good time to do it? Pray, when might that be? When the Shia, Sunni and Kurds are all dancing around the maypole singing the praises of The Leader, taking time only to offer their daughters to our troops? There is no doubt that Bush is using a “different metric”, I think you are on very firm ground there. The question then becomes: what is that metric?

Since you are so well informed, lets pose the question to you: when? What is this “good time to do it”? This is the term that requires definition. And your dictionary will be scant help.

We wait with bated breath.

89

[QUOTE=elucidator]

Since you are so well informed, lets pose the question to you: when? What is this “good time to do it”? This is the term that requires definition. And your dictionary will be scant help.

We wait with bated breath.
[/QUOTE]

Pfft. When the Iraqi forces can stand up on their own, of course!

If that seems like it’s not happening, or getting less likely, then we obviously need to give it more time. How is this not obvious?

I can’t believe that people are actually giving Sam two pages on what is less than a wet dream. Sam, I see your two “liberal journalists” and raise you some Republican congressfolk. :rolleyes:

-Joe

90

Why are we supposed to have faith in Patraeus. ? What makes him better than Casey, Abizaid and Shinseki . ?They were all highly respected generals that had the nerve to disagree with the administration. They are gone. Did they suddenly get stupid and had to be retired. ?
Why does Patraeus suddenly become the man with the answers?
Iraq PM Maliki wants him gone. Does he have credibility in his own country?
I also will bet exactly as I would have last year that he will say stay the course.

91

Petraeus, The Rock, on whom faith is firmly grounded…

Funny you should mention Sam! Wherever did that little scamp disappear to?

92

[QUOTE=elucidator]
when? What is this “good time to do it”?
[/QUOTE]
How about doing it when a drop in the monthly American death toll shows that the insurgency is fading?
Like now: U.S. toll in Iraq lowest in 8 months
Obviously, the corner has been turned, and it’s just a matter of months until we win, and can leave with honor.

Pay no attention to the irritating fact that this was the deadliest July ever for our soldiers over there. If AP doesn’t cover that, it can’t really matter.

93

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Perhaps you can offer a term that most precisely fits the circumstances, that we can all accept and adopt in all further conversations, and then we can put this crucially important issue of semantics to rest? Either or both of you, whatever.

Look if I have to stop the car, neither of you are getting a Happy Meal, and the Deadly Reptile Museum is right out!
[/QUOTE]
How about “bloodbath”? Not encompassing enough? Add the adjective “wholesale” – would that do it?

94

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Look if I have to stop the car, neither of you are getting a Happy Meal, and the Deadly Reptile Museum is right out!
[/QUOTE]
Aw, c’mon, pleeze? We want a better live venom show.

95

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Why are we supposed to have faith in Patraeus. ?
[/QUOTE]

Why not? What are your specific objections?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
What makes him better than Casey, Abizaid and Shinseki . ?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure exactly how to answer this to be honest. Define ‘better’. Why do you THINK that Casey, say, is or was ‘better’ than Petraeus. Just because (you think) he disagreed with Bush et al? Serious question…do you actually know anything about either Casey OR Petraeus ?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
They were all highly respected generals that had the nerve to disagree with the administration.
[/QUOTE]

Is this the criteria that made them ‘highly respected generals’? Do you know WHY they disagreed with the administration? What their specific problems were? Did any of them disagree with the surge concept (here is a hint…the answer is yes, but not for all of them)?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Did they suddenly get stupid and had to be retired. ?
[/QUOTE]

You tell me…why were they retired (or did they retire)? Do you know anything about their abilities except they disagreed with Bush?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Why does Patraeus suddenly become the man with the answers?
[/QUOTE]

He didn’t ‘suddenly’ become the man with all the answers. Again, do you know anything about him and why he was selected for his current position?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Iraq PM Maliki wants him gone. Does he have credibility in his own country?
[/QUOTE]

In what context does he want Petraeus ‘gone’? Do you have a link?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I also will bet exactly as I would have last year that he will say stay the course.
[/QUOTE]

You would lose through ignorance then. He’s ALREADY said that ‘the course’ is not working. Which is kind of why he’s advocating changing tactics. What did we bet? How about this for your forfeit…from now on when you post in a thread you have to make at least one of your posts more than 2 paragraphs?

-XT

96

[QUOTE=Squink]
Pay no attention to the irritating fact that this was the deadliest July ever for our soldiers over there. If AP doesn’t cover that, it can’t really matter.
[/QUOTE]

Well, leaving the sarcasm aside for a moment, what do you think it MEANS? Could it be that the insurgency is getting hotter? Could it mean that the US troops, taking the offensive, are more vulnerable? A combination of factors? A statistical anomaly? Something else entirely? Whats your analysis of this data point?

-XT

97

Dead enders, thrashing in futile disarray. Due to collapse at any moment.

XT, you are presenting a vacuum as an argument, because no one can offer you proof positive that we should do a certain thing does not mean we should continue to do what we are doing. It only means that any outcome is uncertain, and fraught with danger.

The only difference that matters is our people will not be over there, dying, but over here, and presumably not dying. This is what it boils down to. I am very sorry we have done what we have done, but I am not about to offer penance in other people’s blood.

Out now.

98

[QUOTE=elucidator]
XT, you are presenting a vacuum as an argument, because no one can offer you proof positive that we should do a certain thing does not mean we should continue to do what we are doing. It only means that any outcome is uncertain, and fraught with danger.
[/QUOTE]

You lost me. What argument am I making that I’m requiring proof positive of…well, anything? I asked gonzo if he even knew anything about the subject he was expounding on and I asked Squink what the stat he tossed out means…or what s/he THINKS it means. Other than that, I’ve asserted (in other threads) that I think the US pulling out would cause an all out civil war. But this is merely speculation on my part, and I’ve said over and over that I don’t KNOW what would be the best course for the US. In fact, I’ve said and say again that I don’t think ANY of our current choices are good ones…only bad and worse options.

So, I suppose I agree with you that ‘any outcome is uncertain, and fraught with danger’, and I’m curious where you think I’ve said otherwise…and where I’ve required others to PROVE something that I agree with.

-XT

99

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, leaving the sarcasm aside for a moment, what do you think it MEANS? … Whats your analysis of this data point?-XT
[/QUOTE]
I think it means that it’s too hot in Iraq during July for anyone to feel much like fighting.
There’s usually a lull during the summer, and an uptick come fall. Touting the lull as significant, as AP does, is bullshit.

100

General Casey suggested a 30,000 troop drawdown. He stressed the larger role of Iraqi troops.
Abizaid had the nerve to disagree with the troop surge,
Shinseki said in the beginning we needed many more troops than Bush and Rummy wanted.
Franks disagreed with Rummy on the amount of troops too.
Common thread ,they disagreed with Bush and/or Rummy and were retired. Anither ,they proved to be much closer to the truth than the politicians.
So now this guy is right?