What have we learned from Iraq?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What exactly was I wrong about again?

Pretty much everything, so far.

[Patroklos]

Afghanistan's

Nice redirect again. If you haven't noticed we have been talking about Iraq for the last 20 posts.

Gepap, I conceed I am wrong about the tanks.

[Patroklos]

Pretty much everything, so far.

Name something, because this is about rebutting you

And like I admitted, Gepap is right about the tanks.

[KrazyHorse]

Goodnight, sweetheart.

I love losing the last shreds of respect for a poster. It frees me to ignore them completely until they earn it back.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Nice redirect again. If you haven't noticed we have been talking about Iraq for the last 20 posts.

How is it a redirect to point out you're utterly full of **** to claim liberals don't care about mass murder and torture by pointing out an instance wherein that was their chief concern, whereas conservatives turned a blind eye? I don't think you quite have a grasp on this whole "argument" thing yet.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Name something, because this is about rebutting you

We can go to your assinine comment about the Iraqi resistance's ability to adapt to changing situations and the link I showed in response.

And then there's your ludicrous claims about the potential military contributions that could be offered by France and Germany.

Plenty more after that, including the tanks. You'd think you'd learn to stop talking after being wrong so much.

[Patroklos]

mass murder and torture

That of course would be the suffering of Americans, not foriegn nationals. To you apparently a very differnt thing.

Iraqi resistance's ability to adapt to changing situations

Not my fault that you post links that have nothing relevent to add to the debate. The fact is there is no significant difference between the resistance of 2003 to 2004 to 2005 except they are now killing more Iraqis. Horray for them !!! What adaptivness!!!!

And then there's your ludicrous claims about the potential military contributions that could be offered by France and Germany

If your concept of those countries is that they are militarily inept and backwards thats your bag. I happen to think, and know by the way , that they have quite a bit to offer.

think you'd learn to stop talking after being wrong so much.

I have long felt being called wrong by you simply validates ANY position I might take.

I love losing the last shreds of respect for a poster. It frees me to ignore them completely until they earn it back.

Thank god, respect from you much mean I burned a baby at the stake or something.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That of course would be the suffering of Americans, not foriegn nationals. To you apparently a very differnt thing.

Huh? The murder and torture in Afghanistan was about suffering Americans? What the hell are you talking about? Or do you even know anymore?

Not my fault that you post links that have nothing relevent to add to the debate. The fact is there is no significant difference between the resistance of 2003 to 2004 to 2005 except they are now killing more Iraqis. Horray for them !!! What adaptivness!!!!

Lord, you are stupid. As the article I linked shows, the Iraqi resistance has been very capable of adapting to changing situations. Just as fast as the coalition forces catch on, they change tactics. Maybe you're dumb enough to think that stopped when the article was written, but anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize it's still happening. Otherwise, gee, the Iraqi resistance wouldn't be much of a problem today, would it?

If your concept of those countries is that they are militarily inept and backwards thats your bag. I happen to think, and know by the way , that they have quite a bit to offer.

Yet you've made no effort to provide any numbers of their available military resources. Be my guest to do so, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That France and Germany don't have the resources to contribute 100,000+ troops to Iraq isn't calling their military inept, dumbass. It's just a statement as to their current ability to deploy troops.

Hey, if we suddenly had to deploy 100,000 troops to, say, Taiwan, we wouldn't be able to do it. Does that mean we're inept and backwards?

I have long felt being called wrong by you simply validates ANY position I might take.

That's a nice, insular world you've built, but it certainly has no bearing on reality. See, I think your positions are invalidated by your flagrantly stupid reasoning, not just because it's you. Which is the wiser course, I wonder?

[Patroklos]

Huh? The murder and torture in Afghanistan was about suffering Americans?

You think we went to Afghanistan because of the suffering of them. Rich, now I know the calibre of the intellect, or lack there of, I am talking too. Perhaps you haven't been listening byt libs like you don't go to war for such altruistic things

As the article I linked shows....

The article you linked was an amatureish peice of pop fiction written for people, well for people like you. No pertenent information for acutal military people. I supose changing the color of their bandanas rates "adaptability" to you. Meanwhile the resistanc continues as before, then dieing in larger numbers than us, but not their fellow citizens that the murder.

That France and Germany don't have the resources to contribute 100,000+ troops to Iraq isn't calling their military inept

Reading comprehension, its good for you, trust me. I did not say Germany and France, I said them AND whoever was not recruited do to their smear campaign. Lost you yet? Good. And by the way, France and Germany are capable of such troop depolyment, x4 that acutally, but obviously not for this.

Hey, if we suddenly had to deploy 100,000 troops to, say, Taiwan, we wouldn't be able to do it. Does that mean we're inept and backwards?

What are you talking about? We could do this in a few weeks. Of course we would have to actually go to war, which we haven't as of yet. Something libs forget when talking about troop deployments. I bet you really suffering because of the gas ration right?

See, I think your positions are invalidated by your flagrantly stupid reasoning

Which apparently trumps your flagreantly stupid responces en masse. Its like watching lemmings, sad really.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I agree. Antebellum, Laz was the only pro-war poster I can remember making a strong case for war based on facts I did not dispute.

Getting rid of Saddam ranked in my top five reasons to approve of the Yanks going in.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You think we went to Afghanistan because of the suffering of them. Rich, now I know the calibre of the intellect, or lack there of, I am talking too.

What? Wow, you're reading comprehension is preschool level. Where did I ever suggest such a thing. Since you're too clueless to grasp it, I'll repeat: I supported going into Afghanistan because of the suffering there, as did oodles of liberal groups for years prior to the war. It was conservatives who didn't care. In no way was I talking about what our actual reasons were. How could you not get that?

Perhaps you haven't been listening byt libs like you don't go to war for such altruistic things

Perhaps you haven't been thinking (well, obviously), but that's precisely what I was refuting, dumbass.

The article you linked was an amatureish peice of pop fiction written for people, well for people like you. No pertenent information for acutal military people.

I suppose you have something to back that up besides your hand-waving dismissal. Let's see what I'll believe--your bald ass assertions, or an article from an intelligence-oriented journal written by military experts. Hmmm, let me guess...

Of course, that's beside the fact that you've utterly failed to challenge or even discuss a single point raised in the article. I suspect you didn't even bother to read it.

I supose changing the color of their bandanas rates "adaptability" to you. Meanwhile the resistanc continues as before, then dieing in larger numbers than us, but not their fellow citizens that the murder.

I wonder if it's people who think like you who run our military. If so, it's no wonder the resistance is still a major problem for us.

Reading comprehension, its good for you, trust me. I did not say Germany and France, I said them AND whoever was not recruited do to their smear campaign.

So tell me, good sir--outside of the U.S. and Britain, how many troops were committed by other nations to the coalition? And then we can extrapolate from there how many additional might have been put forth by other nations.

Lost you yet? Good. And by the way, France and Germany are capable of such troop depolyment, x4 that acutally, but obviously not for this.

Again, I suspect you'll attempt to back this up. I'd love to see some evidence that Germany could easily deploy 80,000 troops.

What are you talking about? We could do this in a few weeks.

Yeah, right. We're overstretched as it is, and don't have enough troops on the ground in Iraq to do the job. There's a big infantry shortage. And you think we could get 100,000 troops to Taiwan in a few weeks? Man, did Rumsfeld ask you for advice before the war, because if so, it would explain the ineptitude so far.

Of course we would have to actually go to war, which we haven't as of yet. Something libs forget when talking about troop deployments. I bet you really suffering because of the gas ration right?

It was a hypothetical. I'd guess, based on your responses, that cons have no ability for conceptial thinking, eh?

Which apparently trumps your flagreantly stupid responces en masse. Its like watching lemmings, sad really.

I wish you actually had coherent responses to things, it would be even funnier.

[Dis]

What have I learned from the war?

As many of you know, I have flip-flopped on this issue as John Kerry has.

I really don't know what to think anymore. I've become desensitized and I feel apathetic about the whole situation now. It just disgusts me.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I agree. Antebellum, Laz was the only pro-war poster I can remember making a strong case for war based on facts I did not dispute.

I third that .

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Its like watching lemmings, sad really.

You have a 3 way mirror?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Pekka, all you have to do is read Spiffor's and Agathon's posts to know that the presence or absence of WMDs in Iraq was secondary to most Europeans.

Indeed, since most Euros would have preferred a diplomatic resolution of the WMD problem, even at the time that it was believed Saddam had WMDs, only very well hidden.
By contrast, the Yanks wanted to rush a war for a reason that had apparently nothing to do with WMDs: why was it such an emergency to attack before the summer of 2003. The fact that Powell presented weak evidence at the UN only confirmed their suspicions. Why it is such an emergency to attack? Why is there no time to try diplomacy, now that Saddam shakes in his boots? The "evidence" presented by Powell didn't reply to these questions. That's why most people here didn't buy the line that war was the only option.

The primary problem to them was Yankee imperialism that had to be stopped. (This gets back to the leftist theories about the "real" reason for the war. It's the OIL, stupid.)

The real reason for the European's public opinion's position is the European strong disgust for war. Europeans in general would be supportive of a war only if all other possible solutions have been exhausted, which was not the case in Iraq. Remember that, to Europeans, wars are not seen as a positive force that achieves something, but as mindless destruction during which everybody loses. That may have to do with Europe being a theatre of WW2.