Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "surge" is a success?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 28
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 23 28 template Next
  • #181
    Originally posted by Ramo


    Why should I automatically accept everything the "General on the ground" says?
    I assume that you mean this question?


    Okay, here is why. In the absence of facts to the contrary, the "General on the Ground" is by design the most informed party to the conflict. He receives all information, both public and classified, directly from the troops on the ground and the most sophisticated intelligence gathering systems we know of.

    Should the General be found to have betryed this position of extreme trust, then he should be dismissed and prosecuted immediately.

    Further, in the alternative, is there anyone else that we can trust to make a fully informed objective opinion? It seems to me that a General, who has been in military service through both republican and democratic administrations, would be the best choice to make such an assesment.

    Your choice?
    "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

    Comment

    • #182
      Originally posted by Ramo

      But you're right in that your deification of Petraeus is illustrative of the right wing argument on Iraq.
      Please remember that you are the only, and I do mean ONLY, one saying anything about deification.

      I simply state that Petraeus is the most qualified to make the assesment.
      "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

      Comment

      • #183
        Myself. Look at the facts, make your own judgement. Don't be a proxy for another person.

        Deifying a general is a ****ty basis on which to form public policy.
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment

        • #184
          Please remember that you are the only, and I do mean ONLY, one saying anything about deification.
          You're willing to automatically accept everything he says. You see no distinction between Petraeus's opinion as to what will happen, and what will actually happen. That's as close to deification as you get.
          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
          -Bokonon

          Comment

          • #185
            Originally posted by Ramo


            Powell to pick one at random
            I think that Powell would be an excellent choice to review the data and conclusions. His voice would certainly be welcmed by me.

            Look, I am not all for Petraeus because the report may be positive. Frankly, I am more interested in an accurate report than a positive or negative report. It is my belief that there is no one more qualified at the moment to make such a report.

            It is quite sad that you continue to call things into question just because they may not support your point of view.

            Let's say that the guy who said we couldn't sstain the surge has an agenda too. He must be wrong! Just because he is the most qualified to say it doesn't mean crap!

            Good Lord Ramo...I mean c'mon man.

            None of us are going to lie down for any report out of Iraq these days, but the fact is that Petraeus is the best qualified to make one and his words should carry the most weight...unless someone can show he is not being factual.
            "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

            Comment

            • #186
              Originally posted by Ramo


              You're willing to automatically accept everything he says. You see no distinction between Petraeus's opinion as to what will happen, and what will actually happen. That's as close to deification as you get.
              I never said any of this. Get a grip. I said he was "The most qualified"

              Quit changing what I say to meet your agenda.
              "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

              Comment

              • #187
                Originally posted by Ramo
                Myself. Look at the facts, make your own judgement. Don't be a proxy for another person.


                So how do your quaifications to make military assesments stand up to Petraeus?

                Deifying a general is a ****ty basis on which to form public policy.


                I agree...so is vilifying one.
                "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                Comment

                • #188
                  Everyone in the Pentagon is basically saying that we can't sustain the surge unless we make major changes as Patty pointed out. As I said, that's more or less a question of basic fact where there's broad consensus. What the best course in Iraq would be is a wide-open question.

                  I'm not saying that Petraeus isn't being factual. I pointed that out many times in this thread. I don't know why you have to keep distorting my words. I said that Petraeus is personally invested in the current strategy, having authored it, so is hardly an objective observer.

                  More than that, I'm saying that there are tons of smart people who oppose the current strategy (again, like Powell, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, etc., etc.). Deifying them would be just as ridiculous as your deification of Petraeus (and it is deification when you give him the ability to predict the future).
                  "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment

                  • #189
                    I agree...so is vilifying one.
                    I didn't villify him. That's dishonest.

                    I never said any of this. Get a grip. I said he was "The most qualified"
                    No, you equated his opinion as to the current strategy's viability with success itself. That's what the whole argument is about:
                    Some democratic leaders have even gone so far as to say that sucess in Iraq provides a problem for them that they will have to deal with.
                    "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                    -Bokonon

                    Comment

                    • #190
                      So how do your quaifications to make military assesments stand up to Petraeus?
                      How do your qualifications stand up to Powell? This argument from authority nonsense is inane.
                      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                      -Bokonon

                      Comment

                      • #191
                        Originally posted by Ramo
                        Everyone in the Pentagon is basically saying that we can't sustain the surge unless we make major changes as Patty pointed out. As I said, that's more or less a question of basic fact where there's broad consensus. What the best course in Iraq would be is a wide-open question.

                        I'm not saying that Petraeus isn't being factual. I pointed that out many times in this thread. I don't know why you have to keep distorting my words. I said that Petraeus is personally invested in the current strategy, having authored it, so is hardly an objective observer.

                        More than that, I'm saying that there are tons of smart people who oppose the current strategy (again, like Powell, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, etc., etc.). Deifying them would be just as ridiculous as your deification of Petraeus (and it is deification when you give him the ability to predict the future).
                        Look...it is really hard to keep listening to the same crap. I have answered every single one of your points. I have acknowledged that other voices will be good to add to the equation. There is certainly dissent on what to do in Iraq. Stating that someone is "Best qualified" does not mean deification. Further, I have not distorted your words (as you have done with mine), but simply pointed out that you are saying that Petraeus is "unreliable" to make the report, (Is "unreliable" a good characterization of what you mean?) when I point out that there is no one in a better position to make such a report. Your argument basically boils down to not being able to trust anything. That is certainly not a formula for any type of sucess in any endeavour.
                        "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                        Comment

                        • #192
                          Originally posted by Ramo


                          How do your qualifications stand up to Powell? This argument from authority nonsense is inane.
                          They don't. I am not questioning his ability. You are questioning Petraeus. Nice try, but get a life.
                          "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                          Comment

                          • #193
                            For the last time, you equated Petraeus' opinion as to what we should do with success. See the post above.

                            I said that Petraeus is unreliable only to the extent that he's not reliable as the sole source wrt what we should do in Iraq.

                            My argument boils down to making informed judgments rather than mindlessly following the leader.
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment

                            • #194
                              Originally posted by Ramo


                              I didn't villify him. That's dishonest.


                              Well, I didn't actually say you did. However, I guess I did infer that. Apologies. I withdraw the inference and will move back to the position that you think he is "unreliable".


                              No, you equated his opinion as to the current strategy's viability with success itself. That's what the whole argument is about:


                              Ahhh...I see. Okay...how's this. I equate it to the left's fear of viability of success. Does that help? Certainly I do not feel like anyone can predict the ultimate sucess or failure of any Iraq policy.
                              "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                              Comment

                              • #195
                                They don't. I am not questioning his ability. You are questioning Petraeus. Nice try, but get a life.
                                What makes him inferior to Petraeus as a Leader to follow? I already have a separate life, I don't need to follow a Leader.
                                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                                -Bokonon

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 23 28 template Next
                                Working...
                                X