random off-topic thread - Page 43

Roxpert · December 20th, 2007, 08:14 PM

I just finished watching the video, JC, and can see why he is no longer associated with Bill Maher. Evan Sayet was interesting to listen to and quite articulate, but completely wrong. I wish you could have sat here with me while watching the video - I wanted to freeze it every 30 seconds to point out the falsehoods and misleading statements to you. There were so many.

All I can say is that the speaker is using over-generalizations, and sweeping statements to characterize the "modern liberal", and he is WAAAY over the top. Maybe he did too many drugs in Hollywood and suffered brain damage, but this self-proclaimed former New York Jewish liberal is extremely confused.

His assertions are nonsense. He makes liberals out to be like Ward Churchill, who he cites in his speech. Churchill is not a mainstream liberal, does not speak for me or any other liberal I know. He is a fringe radical.

Liberals did not side with Saddam Hussein and against America.

Liberals were not for Yassir Arafat and against Israel. This is such utter nonsense since most Jews are liberals (I'm one of them), and Jews are for Israel and didn't like Arafat.

He denegrates modern liberalism as a mindless indiscrimating ideology born of a "5 year-old" mentality, devoid of any rational thought. He claims he and the conservatives use rational thought, but in categorizing liberals in this warped manner, he is showing the very essence of IRrationality and lack of coherent thought.

In short, Sayet is doing his best to attempt to adopt "Ann Coulter talking points" about liberals, and in so doing has completely missed the mark of what liberalism is all about. If you believe mischaracterizations like this, you have a lot more reading to do than "Hit Man".

Jack Dobb · December 20th, 2007, 09:08 PM

Newman, you've got some giant balls suggesting that I've been brainwashed. I'm through hoping you can be objective on the war at this point. Merry Christmas.

Roxpert, how can you say that those links have more facts than what I posted? I told you I've spoken with a woman about her son's experiences and a man about his brother's experiences. I also posted a newspaper article with quotes from a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think there's no military goal that can be won, and if you think that we're not fighting terrorists over there, then you are necessarily saying one of two things:

1. The article misquoted a qualified source; or
2. A decorated veteran is full of sh!t.

The former is your choice, but I doubt you have any proof. The latter would be entirely disrespectful. Which is it?

Meanwhile, you're citing a British newspaper article and an opinion column. Maybe Ian Superstar has a better handle on the war than you do, or than I do, but does he have any more of a handle on it than the veterans who have talked about the good things we're doing over there? (Setting aside Newman's accusations of brainwashing.)

Finally, enough of the "your opinion is the minority opinion" talk about global warming. The fact remains that scientists who do not believe in global warming or, even worse, fairly believe that the science is not yet "settled" as the Oscar winner often says, are losing research funding and are being pushed out of the public eye -- isn't that exactly the same behavior (i.e., suppressing science) that you've alleged against the White House?

Jack Dobb · December 20th, 2007, 09:14 PM

Just so you know, this is the type of people we're dealing with:

Torture chamber found in Iraq - Yahoo! News

Let me guess -- al Qaeda wouldn't do things like that if we didn't invade Iraq, right?

Roxpert · December 20th, 2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Dobb

Roxpert, how can you say that those links have more facts than what I posted? I told you I've spoken with a woman about her son's experiences and a man about his brother's experiences.

You've posted anecdotes. I've posted articles containing facts (even if one or two of them are "opinion columns", they are backed with facts.)

Quote:

If you think there's no military goal that can be won, and if you think that we're not fighting terrorists over there,

Well, I'll stop you right there. Sure, there are military goals that can be "won" (or achieved, a more appropriate word). And, sure, we are fighting outside agitators or "terrorists", as you call them. Al Qaeda in Iraq is about 7% of the problem there, though. And the ultimate "victory" is neither tactical nor American in nature. It is only the achievment of a self-sustaining Iraq that doesn't need us to baby-sit them.

Quote:

Maybe Ian Superstar has a better handle on the war than you do, or than I do, but does he have any more of a handle on it than the veterans who have talked about the good things we're doing over there? (Setting aside Newman's accusations of brainwashing.)

The military has done everything asked of them. EVERTHING. I have nothing but admiration for them. Yet, the military does NOT set policy; they are only trained to follow orders. What the veterans have talked about has nothing to do with the strategic mistake that this Iraq misadventure has been.

Some veterans, though, don't like this war. See VoteVets.org | The Voice of America’s 21st Century Patriots , which has both Republican and Democratic veterans opposed to our occupation. Just look around that site for proof.

Quote:

Finally, enough of the "your opinion is the minority opinion" talk about global warming. The fact remains that scientists who do not believe in global warming or, even worse, fairly believe that the science is not yet "settled" as the Oscar winner often says, are losing research funding and are being pushed out of the public eye -- isn't that exactly the same behavior (i.e., suppressing science) that you've alleged against the White House?

I'd like to see evidence of this "suppression" or withdrawal of funding you speak of.

Jack Dobb · December 20th, 2007, 10:12 PM

Evidence -- or will you dismiss this as simple "anecdotes"? One of our own:

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Global-warming skeptics continue to punch away

Here's more -- no dissent allowed:

The Denver Post - Chill out over global warming

Roxpert · December 20th, 2007, 11:05 PM

I think I saw both articles over a year ago, when they came out. Do they really provide evidence of this "science supression" and removal of funding? Is this just one guy that had trouble getting funding back in '06, or is there a pattern?

I do notice, however, that you are now doing the same thing you said I was the other day. When you don't like the way one debate has gone for you (Iraq), you switch to the other one. Do you concede any of the points I made earlier on Iraq? Or do you just want to move on?

Jack Dobb · December 21st, 2007, 05:03 AM

No -- not at all. However, when I posted quotes from a veteran who's actually been there, you made it sound like those were mere anecdotes. Do you really think that all of Iraq was falling down around this guy, and he just happened to get lucky all the time, like Forrest Gump? Or do you think that the truth is better than the press indicates most of the time? That's what I believe. After all, I always say that you can tell the war is going well because it's not in the media anymore.

Global warming is another issue entirely. I think you're wrong on both, that's all.

Jack Dobb · December 21st, 2007, 05:48 AM

...and when you asked for evidence, and I pointed to an article (how is that different from your sources of "evidence"?) about perhaps the nation's leading expert on atmospheric science having to dig into his own pocket to the tune of six figures just to keep his research afloat, you said, "is it just that one?"

It's tough to have a rational argument when I present relatively credible quotes from certifiable experts and you say, "that's not enough."

Newman · December 21st, 2007, 06:43 AM

TheIncredibleRox;147432]Okay. I'm just watching us win this war, every day, militarily.

Again, what is winning, TIR? If we kill all the bad guys in Iraq did we win? Who determines who are the bad guys? Is it the Shia who are in power now, thanks to us? Is it tribal chieftains who won't cooperate with Uncle Sam?

Why don't we declare victory and leave then, if we've won, militarily? I never hear of body counts. The Repubs learned from Vietnam. Don't show funerals. Don't mention numbers. Don't televise the war. The Repubs are slick. Cheney learned from dodging the draft in Vietnam. He learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. No draft for example.

As I see it, the way the military wins is by providing as much of a lasting peace for as long as possible for this to happen. The relative peace has just started and life is begining to return to normalcy. Iraqi congress has essentially been on vacation. But political progress has been made over the last 2-3 years, and the hope is it will continue and accelerate as the peace continues to grow.

Huh? The Iraqi congress has been on vacation but political progress has been made? Do words mean anything?

The success or failure of the Iraqi government is in the hands of the Iraqi government and it's people, and will determine the success of the nation. That's on them.... if they fail for a lack of security, thats on us.

Do the Iraqi govt want a unified nation? Seems to me that the Kurds want their territory, the Sunni want theirs and the Shia want theirs as well. This could have been seen back in 2003 if Cheney had done his homework. Maybe he did. Maybe he just doesn't care.

The righties at the PO say we will be in Iraq like Korea, the Korean model, for the next 50 years. The difference is there is no bloodshed in Korea, no IEDs killing American soldiers on a daily basis. Plus a unified government, and no warring religions. The only similarity is our foreign occupation.

But the important 'political' solution libs keep referring to is less a political matter than a civil matter; it's the ability of Sunnis and Shias to coexist without killing each other. The 'Anbar Awakening' is spreading with resounding success, and it's working. No one was ever suicide bombing over the lack of a comprehensive deal for oil distribution amongst ethnic minorities; it's about deep-seated cultural/religious beliefs (and history of war) between Sunni and Shiite. The Anbar Awakening is basically the realization (and popularization) of the notion that there are better ways to compete than killing each other. It's a beautiful thing.

Then why isn't it working in Baghdad and other heavily populated areas? Anbar worked because America gave guns to Sunni tribes to kill burgeoning al qaeda there. If we give guns to Sunni in Baghdad there will be more Sunni on Shia violence. There aren't very many Shia in Anbar. That's why the "Awakening" worked.

What are either of you going to say, when 12 months from now, we A) have an Iraq that is basically self sufficient in terms of security and keeping peace B) we begin drawing our troops dont to the 20-40k level, and they're mostly non-combat guys, C) Iraq is continuing to be a government of the people, that respects human rights, enjoys peaceful transfers of power, is an ally against terrorism, and serves as a successful model to the citizens of it's neighbors?

Thats a tall order in that time frame, and one truly horrific event could derail it by months. But it's possible.

Sure, it's possible. And the Rockies could win the World Series next year, especially with all the great moves they made over the winter, like securing Vizcaino. Wasn't he the last piece of the Rockies Awakening?

I mean, I know you libs don't want to see that happen. I know it kills you to root for the home team. But what are you going to say, after all the amped up rhetoric of the last few years, if we win?

Win. There you go again (said in my best Ronald Reagan voice). I can hope and pray all I want but I'm not going to slam dunk a basketball. Ain't gonna happen. I'm realistic.

You've drunk the Kool Aid, TIR. What's to talk about? Hey, I'm like Miss South Carolina. I'm all for World Peace. But again, and I know you're not listening, it needs a political settlement in Iraq, not a military one.

Adam, why don't you be consistent, join the military, go over there, and report back to this group. Give us a first hand account. Do it while you're young. Tell us if you think our military occupation is changing anything, making a difference.

No hurry. We'll be there in the slow bleed for the next 50 years. So learn Arabic before you enlist. And take a lot of candy with you, to hand out to the impoverished people. They love our American choc-o-late.

Roxpert · December 21st, 2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Dobb

No -- not at all. However, when I posted quotes from a veteran who's actually been there, you made it sound like those were mere anecdotes.

Well, that's exactly what they were. Any stories from people on the ground about their own experiences are, by definition, anecdotal.

Quote:

Do you really think that all of Iraq was falling down around this guy, and he just happened to get lucky all the time, like Forrest Gump?

No, I don't.

Quote:

Or do you think that the truth is better than the press indicates most of the time? That's what I believe. After all, I always say that you can tell the war is going well because it's not in the media anymore.

The media can be a joke, depending on what you read and watch. If you get your info. from Fox News, or even the CBS Evening News, you aren't getting news. No investigative reporting goes on there. I read a wide variety of sources, online and offline. Having said that, the security situation of our occupation ("war") is improved temporarily thanks to our brave troops who are tamping down violence due to the reinforcements (surge) brought in, but killings are still occuring. Over 500 Iraqi civilians were officially found dead in November alone (unofficially, I'm sure much higher), and 40 US troop deaths occured, about the same levels that were typical of early 2006. If that's your definition of the "war going well", then I just don't know what further to say at this point.

Quote:

It's tough to have a rational argument when I present relatively credible quotes from certifiable experts and you say, "that's not enough."

Well, it's not enough if you are trying to prove some vast left-wing conspiracy to squelch scientific research that may alter the consensus on global warming. After all, this is what you asserted. If you think one story from June 2006 will prove your case against the left's supposed suppression of scientific research, then I can't help it.

Newman · December 24th, 2007, 03:32 PM

I'd encourage everyone who's interested in "the war" to watch the only weekly show that would even suggest that our country is at war, and that would be "This Week at War", telecast by CNN, every Saturday afternoon at 5pm, and repeated Sunday morning at 11am.

Otherwise, unless you had a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, how would you know we were at war? You wouldn't.

In Vietnam, my generation's war, it was televised nightly, on the nightly news. There was a draft. There were body bags. Funerals. Body counts. You knew how many Americans died that week. And there was a guess at how many dirty commies were killed too.

This war has none of that.

In the last episode of TWAW, the host Tom Foreman, suggested in his best CNN spin that we were winning the war. How you may ask? But constructing 30' high concrete barriers in Baghdad. And by segregating communities, having only majority Shia live in certain areas, and minority Sunni in others.

This is being described (spun) as the "Iraqi Awakening". That's the new phrase that is being used all the time now by spin disseminators.

rockieprogress · December 24th, 2007, 09:34 PM

Jack, the "War" is long since over.

The only way to "win" this is through a political solution.
When Bush43 came to a crossroads at the end of the actual campaign, he was faced with a choice. Who would run the rebuilding of Iraq. He chose to go with the Defense Dept. He should've chosen the State Dept, but he succumbed to the wishes of the hawks in his Administration.

Rebuilding a Nation is not the job of the Defense Dept. It never has been, and it NEVER will be in the future.

John Cocktoston · December 24th, 2007, 10:27 PM

[quote=Newman;147674]Sure, it's possible. And the Rockies could win the World Series next year, especially with all the great moves they made over the winter, like securing Vizcaino. Wasn't he the last piece of the Rockies Awakening?[quote=Newman;147674]

[quote=Newman;147674]This is being described (spun) as the "Iraqi Awakening". That's the new phrase that is being used all the time now by spin disseminators.[quote=Newman;147674]

First of all, you're mixing your liberal group-think metaphors, Newman.

Second, you're demonstrably wrong on the first and arguably wrong on the second; but my issue is with the first.

The Rockies won 90 games in 2007. They played in the World Series. Bill James ranked them as having the most "young talent" in major league baseball. Baseball America named them their organization of the year. So save the Mark Kiszla talking points about how the Rockies need an "awakening", will you? If anyone needs to wake the hell up, it's the perpetual pessimists and naysayers who are personally (you) or professionally (Kiszla, Paige) invested in seeing the Rockies fail.

Or does the misanthropic letter carrier from Aurora know more about baseball than Bill James and Baseball America? Are they just two more examples of the "Kool-Aid conspiracy" that you and your tin-foil hat wearing friends see at every turn, whether it be the Rockies, the Republican party, Roswell or the lunar landing?

Why don't we try to keep the war, the economy, the 2008 election, the space program and social policy discussions on this thread and leave the Rockies discussions on the Rockies threads, alright Chief?

Go sell crazy somewhere else. And Merry Christmas!

Roxpert · December 24th, 2007, 11:19 PM

Happy holidays (even to my right-wing friends)....

Chris Durang: Yes, Virginia, There is a War on Terror - Politics on The Huffington Post

indianadrew · December 25th, 2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Happy holidays (even to my right-wing friends)....

Chris Durang: Yes, Virginia, There is a War on Terror - Politics on The Huffington Post

great article roxpert. happy holidays to all.

bring our troops home safe and now and place them on our borders

December 20th, 2007, 11:05 PM	#636 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	I think I saw both articles over a year ago, when they came out. Do they really provide evidence of this "science supression" and removal of funding? Is this just one guy that had trouble getting funding back in '06, or is there a pattern? I do notice, however, that you are now doing the same thing you said I was the other day. When you don't like the way one debate has gone for you (Iraq), you switch to the other one. Do you concede any of the points I made earlier on Iraq? Or do you just want to move on? Last edited by Roxpert; December 21st, 2007 at 12:13 AM.

December 24th, 2007, 10:27 PM	#643 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	Who is spinning whom? [quote=Newman;147674]Sure, it's possible. And the Rockies could win the World Series next year, especially with all the great moves they made over the winter, like securing Vizcaino. Wasn't he the last piece of the Rockies Awakening?[quote=Newman;147674] [quote=Newman;147674]This is being described (spun) as the "Iraqi Awakening". That's the new phrase that is being used all the time now by spin disseminators.[quote=Newman;147674] First of all, you're mixing your liberal group-think metaphors, Newman. Second, you're demonstrably wrong on the first and arguably wrong on the second; but my issue is with the first. The Rockies won 90 games in 2007. They played in the World Series. Bill James ranked them as having the most "young talent" in major league baseball. Baseball America named them their organization of the year. So save the Mark Kiszla talking points about how the Rockies need an "awakening", will you? If anyone needs to wake the hell up, it's the perpetual pessimists and naysayers who are personally (you) or professionally (Kiszla, Paige) invested in seeing the Rockies fail. Or does the misanthropic letter carrier from Aurora know more about baseball than Bill James and Baseball America? Are they just two more examples of the "Kool-Aid conspiracy" that you and your tin-foil hat wearing friends see at every turn, whether it be the Rockies, the Republican party, Roswell or the lunar landing? Why don't we try to keep the war, the economy, the 2008 election, the space program and social policy discussions on this thread and leave the Rockies discussions on the Rockies threads, alright Chief? Go sell crazy somewhere else. And Merry Christmas!

December 24th, 2007, 11:19 PM	#644 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	Yes, Virginia, there is a...... Happy holidays (even to my right-wing friends).... Chris Durang: Yes, Virginia, There is a War on Terror - Politics on The Huffington Post

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.fanhome.com/forums/colorado-rockies/1592-random-off-topic-thread.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Colorado Rockies - FanHome	This thread	Refback	January 6th, 2007 02:48 PM

December 20th, 2007, 08:14 PM	#631 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	I just finished watching the video, JC, and can see why he is no longer associated with Bill Maher. Evan Sayet was interesting to listen to and quite articulate, but completely wrong. I wish you could have sat here with me while watching the video - I wanted to freeze it every 30 seconds to point out the falsehoods and misleading statements to you. There were so many. All I can say is that the speaker is using over-generalizations, and sweeping statements to characterize the "modern liberal", and he is WAAAY over the top. Maybe he did too many drugs in Hollywood and suffered brain damage, but this self-proclaimed former New York Jewish liberal is extremely confused. His assertions are nonsense. He makes liberals out to be like Ward Churchill, who he cites in his speech. Churchill is not a mainstream liberal, does not speak for me or any other liberal I know. He is a fringe radical. Liberals did not side with Saddam Hussein and against America. Liberals were not for Yassir Arafat and against Israel. This is such utter nonsense since most Jews are liberals (I'm one of them), and Jews are for Israel and didn't like Arafat. He denegrates modern liberalism as a mindless indiscrimating ideology born of a "5 year-old" mentality, devoid of any rational thought. He claims he and the conservatives use rational thought, but in categorizing liberals in this warped manner, he is showing the very essence of IRrationality and lack of coherent thought. In short, Sayet is doing his best to attempt to adopt "Ann Coulter talking points" about liberals, and in so doing has completely missed the mark of what liberalism is all about. If you believe mischaracterizations like this, you have a lot more reading to do than "Hit Man".

December 20th, 2007, 09:08 PM	#632 (permalink)
Jack Dobb Rookie Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 14	Newman, you've got some giant balls suggesting that I've been brainwashed. I'm through hoping you can be objective on the war at this point. Merry Christmas. Roxpert, how can you say that those links have more facts than what I posted? I told you I've spoken with a woman about her son's experiences and a man about his brother's experiences. I also posted a newspaper article with quotes from a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think there's no military goal that can be won, and if you think that we're not fighting terrorists over there, then you are necessarily saying one of two things: 1. The article misquoted a qualified source; or 2. A decorated veteran is full of sh!t. The former is your choice, but I doubt you have any proof. The latter would be entirely disrespectful. Which is it? Meanwhile, you're citing a British newspaper article and an opinion column. Maybe Ian Superstar has a better handle on the war than you do, or than I do, but does he have any more of a handle on it than the veterans who have talked about the good things we're doing over there? (Setting aside Newman's accusations of brainwashing.) Finally, enough of the "your opinion is the minority opinion" talk about global warming. The fact remains that scientists who do not believe in global warming or, even worse, fairly believe that the science is not yet "settled" as the Oscar winner often says, are losing research funding and are being pushed out of the public eye -- isn't that exactly the same behavior (i.e., suppressing science) that you've alleged against the White House?

December 20th, 2007, 09:14 PM	#633 (permalink)
Jack Dobb Rookie Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 14	Just so you know, this is the type of people we're dealing with: Torture chamber found in Iraq - Yahoo! News Let me guess -- al Qaeda wouldn't do things like that if we didn't invade Iraq, right?

December 20th, 2007, 10:12 PM	#635 (permalink)
Jack Dobb Rookie Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 14	Evidence -- or will you dismiss this as simple "anecdotes"? One of our own: The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Global-warming skeptics continue to punch away Here's more -- no dissent allowed: The Denver Post - Chill out over global warming

December 21st, 2007, 05:03 AM	#637 (permalink)
Jack Dobb Rookie Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 14	No -- not at all. However, when I posted quotes from a veteran who's actually been there, you made it sound like those were mere anecdotes. Do you really think that all of Iraq was falling down around this guy, and he just happened to get lucky all the time, like Forrest Gump? Or do you think that the truth is better than the press indicates most of the time? That's what I believe. After all, I always say that you can tell the war is going well because it's not in the media anymore. Global warming is another issue entirely. I think you're wrong on both, that's all.

December 21st, 2007, 05:48 AM	#638 (permalink)
Jack Dobb Rookie Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 14	...and when you asked for evidence, and I pointed to an article (how is that different from your sources of "evidence"?) about perhaps the nation's leading expert on atmospheric science having to dig into his own pocket to the tune of six figures just to keep his research afloat, you said, "is it just that one?" It's tough to have a rational argument when I present relatively credible quotes from certifiable experts and you say, "that's not enough."

December 21st, 2007, 06:43 AM	#639 (permalink)
Newman Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Aurora Posts: 566	TheIncredibleRox;147432]Okay. I'm just watching us win this war, every day, militarily. Again, what is winning, TIR? If we kill all the bad guys in Iraq did we win? Who determines who are the bad guys? Is it the Shia who are in power now, thanks to us? Is it tribal chieftains who won't cooperate with Uncle Sam? Why don't we declare victory and leave then, if we've won, militarily? I never hear of body counts. The Repubs learned from Vietnam. Don't show funerals. Don't mention numbers. Don't televise the war. The Repubs are slick. Cheney learned from dodging the draft in Vietnam. He learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. No draft for example. As I see it, the way the military wins is by providing as much of a lasting peace for as long as possible for this to happen. The relative peace has just started and life is begining to return to normalcy. Iraqi congress has essentially been on vacation. But political progress has been made over the last 2-3 years, and the hope is it will continue and accelerate as the peace continues to grow. Huh? The Iraqi congress has been on vacation but political progress has been made? Do words mean anything? The success or failure of the Iraqi government is in the hands of the Iraqi government and it's people, and will determine the success of the nation. That's on them.... if they fail for a lack of security, thats on us. Do the Iraqi govt want a unified nation? Seems to me that the Kurds want their territory, the Sunni want theirs and the Shia want theirs as well. This could have been seen back in 2003 if Cheney had done his homework. Maybe he did. Maybe he just doesn't care. The righties at the PO say we will be in Iraq like Korea, the Korean model, for the next 50 years. The difference is there is no bloodshed in Korea, no IEDs killing American soldiers on a daily basis. Plus a unified government, and no warring religions. The only similarity is our foreign occupation. But the important 'political' solution libs keep referring to is less a political matter than a civil matter; it's the ability of Sunnis and Shias to coexist without killing each other. The 'Anbar Awakening' is spreading with resounding success, and it's working. No one was ever suicide bombing over the lack of a comprehensive deal for oil distribution amongst ethnic minorities; it's about deep-seated cultural/religious beliefs (and history of war) between Sunni and Shiite. The Anbar Awakening is basically the realization (and popularization) of the notion that there are better ways to compete than killing each other. It's a beautiful thing. Then why isn't it working in Baghdad and other heavily populated areas? Anbar worked because America gave guns to Sunni tribes to kill burgeoning al qaeda there. If we give guns to Sunni in Baghdad there will be more Sunni on Shia violence. There aren't very many Shia in Anbar. That's why the "Awakening" worked. What are either of you going to say, when 12 months from now, we A) have an Iraq that is basically self sufficient in terms of security and keeping peace B) we begin drawing our troops dont to the 20-40k level, and they're mostly non-combat guys, C) Iraq is continuing to be a government of the people, that respects human rights, enjoys peaceful transfers of power, is an ally against terrorism, and serves as a successful model to the citizens of it's neighbors? Thats a tall order in that time frame, and one truly horrific event could derail it by months. But it's possible. Sure, it's possible. And the Rockies could win the World Series next year, especially with all the great moves they made over the winter, like securing Vizcaino. Wasn't he the last piece of the Rockies Awakening? I mean, I know you libs don't want to see that happen. I know it kills you to root for the home team. But what are you going to say, after all the amped up rhetoric of the last few years, if we win? Win. There you go again (said in my best Ronald Reagan voice). I can hope and pray all I want but I'm not going to slam dunk a basketball. Ain't gonna happen. I'm realistic. You've drunk the Kool Aid, TIR. What's to talk about? Hey, I'm like Miss South Carolina. I'm all for World Peace. But again, and I know you're not listening, it needs a political settlement in Iraq, not a military one. Adam, why don't you be consistent, join the military, go over there, and report back to this group. Give us a first hand account. Do it while you're young. Tell us if you think our military occupation is changing anything, making a difference. No hurry. We'll be there in the slow bleed for the next 50 years. So learn Arabic before you enlist. And take a lot of candy with you, to hand out to the impoverished people. They love our American choc-o-late.

December 24th, 2007, 03:32 PM	#641 (permalink)
Newman Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Aurora Posts: 566	I'd encourage everyone who's interested in "the war" to watch the only weekly show that would even suggest that our country is at war, and that would be "This Week at War", telecast by CNN, every Saturday afternoon at 5pm, and repeated Sunday morning at 11am. Otherwise, unless you had a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, how would you know we were at war? You wouldn't. In Vietnam, my generation's war, it was televised nightly, on the nightly news. There was a draft. There were body bags. Funerals. Body counts. You knew how many Americans died that week. And there was a guess at how many dirty commies were killed too. This war has none of that. In the last episode of TWAW, the host Tom Foreman, suggested in his best CNN spin that we were winning the war. How you may ask? But constructing 30' high concrete barriers in Baghdad. And by segregating communities, having only majority Shia live in certain areas, and minority Sunni in others. This is being described (spun) as the "Iraqi Awakening". That's the new phrase that is being used all the time now by spin disseminators.

December 24th, 2007, 09:34 PM	#642 (permalink)
rockieprogress Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: aurora Posts: 183	Jack, the "War" is long since over. The only way to "win" this is through a political solution. When Bush43 came to a crossroads at the end of the actual campaign, he was faced with a choice. Who would run the rebuilding of Iraq. He chose to go with the Defense Dept. He should've chosen the State Dept, but he succumbed to the wishes of the hawks in his Administration. Rebuilding a Nation is not the job of the Defense Dept. It never has been, and it NEVER will be in the future.