# Who will vote for Bush who didn't before? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2004, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524 "2004-07-30T00:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/121 "2004-08-03T02:59:06Z")
> [@](#): > > If you are going to try to take petty shots in GD, at least try to be funny. You certainly aren’t being relevant. **"relevant"(adj.)**: [ol] [li]to ignore the meat of a post if it points out inconsistencies or contradictions in one’s arguments[/li][li]to focus upon a humorous epilogue in the hope that observers are distracted from the rhetorical weaknesses illuminated in a text[/li][li]to assert boldly then try to shift the argument if anyone dares question the assertion.[/ol][/li] Nah . . the **Brutus** dictionary just isn’t to my liking. Not enough pretty pictures. I’ll stick to answering direct comments and expressing my humor in whatever manner pleases me. Your amussement is not required. > [@](#): > > Now you answer these: Right . . . and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. > [@](#): > > A) I realize that the current talking point on your side is ‘we need more troops in Afghanistan’. Why not demonstrate the need for more troops in Afghanistan? What would they be doing? Doing a massive line-search across the whole of Afghanistan? How many more would you be sending? You realize that, do you? No doubt in the same manner that you realized I had no understanding of geography and gained all of my military education from CNN. How very interesting. Perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate where on this board I have ever espoused the position that we need to send more troops into Afghanistan. I realize that it makes your world so much simpler if you can pretend that anybody who disagrees with you on any point fits nicely into a box labeled “the other side”, but frankly I fear that your world has become a bit too simple already. I made the simple observation that I find the **“we can’t possibly support more troops in Afghanistan”** position to be both defeatist and unconvincing. I am quite willing to discuss that, or any other position that I have actually taken. If you want to talk with the imaginary **Spiritus** who fits in your box, well, that is entirely between you and you. > [@](#): > > B) Show me that the current regional infrastructure would indeed allow for more US troops to be deployed and supplied there . . . [more very interesting questions for someone desiring to argue the need for more troops in Afghanistan] See above. But I do note, at least, that you have found the roads again. Thank goodness. I do so hate when roads go wandering off like that without telling anyone. > [@](#): > > **Brutus:** So far, all I have seen from you people is hand-waving, vague mutterings, and borderline ad hominem attacks. > > **Brutus:** Ground transport into Afghanistan? Tell me, Oh! Vizier of Logistics, how? > > **Brutus:** Not that I really expect you to realize that; When CNN is your source of information on warfare, it is no suprise that a warped view will result. Et tu, brute? Hypocrisy is not an attractive quality, and repeat exposure rarely improves upon the initial impression. In the interest of fairness, I will note that I had some concern that my initial impression had been too harsh. The tendency to contradict oneself in an effort to score a “palpable hit” is not necessarily an indicator of hypocrisy. As it turns out, we now have a second indicator, couched in a lovely bit of self-righteous indignation, too. Extra points for presentation. No points for self-awareness. I do hope these mutterings were not too vague for you. Please pardon the waving hands. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/122 "2004-08-03T03:02:49Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > **Jshore** , explain your logic to me: > > A) I realize that the current talking point on your side is ‘we need more troops in Afghanistan’. Why not demonstrate the need for more troops in Afghanistan? What would they be doing? Doing a massive line-search across the whole of Afghanistan? How many more would you be sending? Actually, **Brutus** , I never discussed necessary troop strength in Afghanistan and only wandered into that area of discussion because you made a claim in response to another poster that sounded so preposterous that I wanted to see if you could really back it up. (And, my conclusion is that you can’t…Or at least haven’t.) I really am not much of an armchair general and will leave that for the professionals. But, I can’t imagine it has been a great blessing to our work in Afghanistan, both in tracking down Osama and Co. and in helping the current government there stabilize the country and prevent it from deteriorating in fifedoms of warlords again, to have our resources and attention distracted to the $200 billion Al Qaeda Recruitment Campaign…I mean, War in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/123 "2004-08-03T03:05:08Z")
Right. As I suspected. Ignore provided cites, wave hands, mutter. Gotcha. Well, I will monitor this thread in case someone makes an actual case for sending more troops to afghanistan and just how we would accomplish that. Until then, you two can have fun not actually addressing the issue. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/124 "2004-08-03T03:13:03Z")
**Brutus** : Your cites were very nice and we enjoyed them greatly. Now, when you could provide a cite that actually supports your original claim that " I don’t suppose it occured to you that we can’t really sustain many more troops in Afghanistan? It’s landlocked," we might enjoy them even more. Look, it is not up to us to prove that one can put more troops in Afghanistan. I didn’t even make any claims to that effect. Besides, I am not the one who are making the curious claim that the greatest military that the world has ever known is maxed out in it capabilities to put troops into one country but still has the capability to go off and fight an unnecessary and counterproductive war in another country with many more troops. Hey, **Spiritus** , we think much alike! Welcome back! We’ve missed you around these parts! ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/125 "2004-08-03T03:24:41Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > **Brutus** : Your cites were very nice and we enjoyed them greatly. Now, when you could provide a cite that actually supports your original claim that " I don’t suppose it occured to you that we can’t really sustain many more troops in Afghanistan? It’s landlocked," we might enjoy them even more. You know, when in bold lettering at the top of one of my cites it says: > [@](#): > > **Demand for airlift far exceeds supply, and senior USAF officers say it is time to expand the fleet.** I would think that you would be cajoled into actually reading the article. Guess not. Have fun ‘debating’ yourself! ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/126 "2004-08-03T03:26:30Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Ignore provided cites You have provideed exactly **ZERO** cites in posts directed at me. I actually went back to one of your earlier cites and refreshed your memory of a passage that you yourself had quoted earlier. (You do seem to suffer frequent lapses in short-term memory.) So, do you have any particular non-existent cite that you would like me to non-ignore? Or is this just another example of your impressive dedication to an honest exchange of ideas? > [@](#): > > wave hands Check. But I did ask for your pardon. > [@](#): > > mutter. Nonsense. I spoke quite clearly and distinctly. Are you a child that you stick your fingers in your ear to avoid hearing uncomfortable truths? > [@](#): > > Well, I will monitor this thread in case someone makes an actual case for sending more troops to afghanistan and just how we would accomplish that. Until then, you two can have fun not actually addressing the issue. Yes, the classic “bluster my way out the door and pretend I won” defense. How very much in character. Are you this impressive in all of your threads? In case you have conveniently forgotten, these words are yours: **"I am claiming that the U.S. military cannot indefinitely sustain more than the current troop levels in Afghanistan without serious problems."** In case you have conveniently forgotten, **that was exactly the issue that I chose to address.** [ul][li]That you have lost your taste for defending that statement is clear. [/li][\*]That you choose to pretend your statement was not a, in fact “the”, relevant point of contention between us is simply pathetic.[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/127 "2004-08-03T03:31:32Z")
> [@Spiritus Mundi](#): > > In case you have conveniently forgotten, **that was exactly the issue that I chose to address.** Nope, you are lying. You babbled on about Macdill and Ted Turner, but at no time did you address my claim. Where are _your_ cites? Hell, make some shit up, but make it up regarding the topic being discussed. You just prattle on about everything _but_ what my claim was: > [@](#): > > “I am claiming that the U.S. military cannot indefinitely sustain more than the current troop levels in Afghanistan without serious problems.” And I stand by that, and obviously the lot of you do as well, since nary a counter-cite has been posted. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/128 "2004-08-03T03:34:13Z")
**jshore** You flatter me. I have missed these boards, too, though perhaps not for exchanges quite like the current one. I am not certain whether to be reassured or depressed that some posters remain so fervently attached to that particular style of “debate”. Is human nature a comfort or a curse? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/129 "2004-08-03T03:37:42Z")
> [@](#): > > **Brutus** Nope, you are lying. You babbled on about Macdill and Ted Turner, but at no time did you address my claim. > [@](#): > > the idea that it is not possible to sustain many more than 20,000 troops in a landlocked country over which we exercise absolute air supremacy seems to fly in the face of history. While the logistical challenges are different, we managed way back in 1948 to sustain an airlift for more than a year that ferried more than 2,000,000 tons of supplies to West Berlin. > > Are folks seriously prepared to argue that our current army and air force are not capable of sustaining an airlift (that can, in fact, be supplemented by ground transport as Berlin could not) sufficient to support more than 20,000 men for any significant length of time? That, truly, is a defeatist attitude and an insult to the ingenuity and perseverance of our armed forces. How utterly pathetic. No doubt you will next harrangue me again for “ad hominem attacks” in the hallowed halls of GD. If only your hypocrisy were as bounded as your memory. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/130 "2004-08-03T03:38:02Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > You know, when in bold lettering at the top of one of my cites it says: > > > [@](#): > > > > **Demand for airlift far exceeds supply, and senior USAF officers say it is time to expand the fleet.** > > I would think that you would be cajoled into actually reading the article. Guess not. Have fun ‘debating’ yourself! Well, **Brutus** , actually I was cajoled into reading the article, or at least enough of it to go beyond the headline and find out that they were talking about it being maxed out by the combined operations of Afghanistan and the much larger war in Iraq. And, since in fact some of us are arguing precisely that it was a bad idea to refocus lots of resources to fight an unnecessary war that is serving mainly as the world’s most expensive terrorist recruitment campaign ever, this article can hardly be seen as evidence for your point of view that we were already maxxed out in Afghanistan but somehow we can still do the whole Iraq thing for “free”. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/131 "2004-08-03T03:40:51Z")
> [@Spiritus Mundi](#): > > **jshore** You flatter me. I have missed these boards, too, though perhaps not for exchanges quite like the current one. I am not certain whether to be reassured or depressed that some posters remain so fervently attached to that particular style of “debate”. Is human nature a comfort or a curse? Well, you have to have a certain amount of pity on them. To borrow terms from **elucidator** , the shear cognitive dissonance that goes along with having to defend what they have to defend would be pretty trying on anybody! ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/132 "2004-08-03T03:45:07Z")
Perhaps. I have no idea what **Brutus** has been trying to defend beyond the present thread. I do note, however, that having been caught in sufficient contradictions he has now determined to call me a liar. Who could ever have seen that one coming. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/133 "2004-08-03T04:51:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Is the Afghan government asking for more soldiers? why, yes, they are. [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) - Karzai: Send NATO troops now - Jun 29, 2004 … disappointed he was with NATO’s limited expansion, Karzai said the … The plan for extra troops was one of three … only role we ever sought for NATO, of training … [www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/29/turkey.bush/](http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/29/turkey.bush/) - 49k - Aug 1, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages More troops to Afghanistan … Karzai´s request NATO’s decision to deploy extra troops came in response to President Karzai’s urgent request at the summit meeting of NATO leaders in Istanbul … www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/afg040701.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Taipei Times - archives etc. side note: Can we have a Banishment of Ignorance Rule–no moronic rhetorical quiestions that ignore material ever appearing on the front page of the times? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524/134 "2004-08-03T14:17:57Z")
Brutus, I suspect you’ve read enough of my posts to know my general political inclinations. If you have, I hope it will mean something when I say you need to dispense with all this claptrap about “your side.” People are individuals, and trying to assign a person to one “team” or another and then ascribing to them all the opinions of that “team” is just shoddy thinking. If the debates become wearying, take a break from the boards. I often do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-will-vote-for-bush-who-didnt-before/257524.md?page=6)