|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > The Real World > World Events > Victory in Iraq | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
nathan
Sage
      
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 8/25/2006 2:38 PM (GMT -5) |   | The major point of our disagreement centers around time tables, I happen to think that if we are going to 'win' we are in the first 25% to 33% of the time it will take to do to Iraq what we have done for Germany and Japan. You say the time is past that we are headed for 100,000 troops dead, (at the rate we're going now it would take about a century and a half to get there) none of them draftees.
The gulf of understand we *don't* share has left far apart. I believe that in the modern world it is simply impossible to focus on internal America and not the world as an intergrated whole. The last point you made sounded shockingly isolationist. We both feel like we're chasing our tails.
Let me ask you a more general question. As a view point for life or a guiding force for government do you feel such a philosphy as the one quoted below to be simple hollow rhetoric?
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; *who errs and comes short again and again*; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, *at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."*
THEODORE ROOSEVELT -- Paris Sorbonne,1910
Not trying to get cute and stack the deck with quotes: you're a literary minded fellow and could (I'm sure) come up with some great quotes of your own. The question is how do you feel about the sentiments expressed (much more elequantly than I ever could) by TR?
I don't just mean about Iraq (though I do mean Iraq) or even about the War on Terror (whatever that means) though that certainly is a prism to view the quote through, but as a guiding force for a nation's foriegn policy. I'm not asking if you think the Bush admin is doing this (though I think Bush himself might say he is) but rather does this quote speak to you?
If not fine; this isn't a litmus test. I am just curious about your deeper views on conflict and risk.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 8/25/2006 3:00 PM (GMT -5) | | I happen to think that if we are going to 'win'
***
What would "victory" in Iraq even look like?
I think you may be misreading my comments; I'm not saying what I believe should be America's foreign policy, I am saying what I think it is now and will be in the future.
No, that quote didn't speak to me, particularly, although I really think it would be presumptious and also quite mistaken to read anything substantial in into my non-response, especially as it pertains or doesn't to my personal political beliefs! May be I've just read myriad quotes to the same effect form a diverse range of sources.
If you are asking me: do I think America is or should be a global "superpower" barnstorming over the world to create democracies, the answer is: no.
If you are asking if I think Bush is a great man who has stumbled, the answer is: obviously not.
If you are aksing whether or not I think that quote by Roosevelt (or something to the same effect) could have been and most likely was just as easily delivered by Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein or Rudyard Kipling or Caeser or some Mullah over in Iran or *any* person engaged in political agitprop -- I'd say: yes.
And in the end none of that has anything to do with Iraq at all, other than in a sympathetic relationship between rhetoric employed by all politicos.
Daniel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 8/25/2006 3:26 PM (GMT -5) | | | If you are aksing whether or not I think that quote by Roosevelt (or something to the same effect) could have been and most likely was just as easily delivered by Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein or Rudyard Kipling or Caeser or some Mullah over in Iran or *any* person engaged in political agitprop -- I'd say: yes.
***
No I was not asking you to qualify or dilute the emotional content expressed at all. I was asking how those sentiments (as expressed in the quote) spoke to you. You answered: No. I won't 'read too much into it' but I do take you at your word.
The sentiments speak to me greatly as ideals for viewing interaction in the world -- and yes the 'Devil can quote scripture' (or agitprop) but I see that as neither hear no there for having a guiding principle.
How will we ever see 'reality' and persuade each other if I think we should be willing to 'fail greatly' and you are a 'timid soul knowing neither victory or defeat'?
Okay that last line was a rib only and meant to show I'm not taking myself to seriously.
****
It sure doesn't seem that way to me. I think you are interested in presenting *your* views on "conflict and risk."
***
 Phone rings: Hello, Kettle? This is pot. You're black."
***
By even using those terms to define the conversation, which is very limiting, you are avoiding the "conflict and risk" of taking the conversation up out of the "talking point" Bush/Rove field of play.
Problem is: stadium's empty, game is over and everyone is now going to another "event."
Hopefully that will be the ousting of the neo-cons from power and maybe even Bush's impeachment!
***
Stadium's empty? Game is over? Another event? What reality are you talking about?
I have never used talking points. Sometimes my arguments have reflected some offical positions of the GOP. Considering the Howard Dean/Murtha/Pelosi/Boxer comments on the nightly news I think you might be throwing proverbial rocks in our little glass house about 'talking points.'
Impeach Bush, I won't cry. It isn't about Bush. None of my beliefs are about Bush or neo-cons and I have no idea why you bring them up. I'm a registered Independant who has always voted democrat starting with Clinton. It is as relevant as 'draftee' to the discussion we are having instead of working  Is it possible you think only neo-cons can hold the positions I do? Are you 'profiling' me sir? <g>
I am an old fashioned JFK liberal who thinks we should be 'barnstorming for democracy' around the world because all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do naught, and that America shouldn't promise something then leave before we even truly given *all* of our effort just because the task we promised to do is difficult.
If that's neo-con rhetoric I guess I'm guilty. But I don't feel Red, I feel Blue.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 8/25/2006 3:35 PM (GMT -5) | | | Phone rings: Hello, Kettle? This is pot. You're black."
***
I'm not presenting *any* views on "conflict and risk" those are Bush/Rove/Meyer terms, not mine!
My points were about troop levels and whether or not Bush and Co. would ratchet up the levels before leaving office. I also mentioned that I thought the war in Iraq was lost and should have never been started!
But I wouldn't say that has anything to do with espousing a personal philosophy on conflict and risk.
Your ignoring the most obvious fact here: I *never* supported the Iraq "war" to begin with! It's not "conflict and risk" I object to! -- its "hubris and incompetence" and one does *not* necessarily have to do with the other.
If you want to be personal about it: I have never shied away from conflict in my life; my world is made of risk. I think that's pretty obvious considering my chosen profession! And if I had some sort of "conflict" shy personality, how can I (properly) be the Devil?
Daniel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 8/25/2006 4:03 PM (GMT -5) | | How will we ever see 'reality' and persuade each other if I think we should be willing to 'fail greatly' and you are a 'timid soul knowing neither victory or defeat'?
Okay that last line was a rib only and meant to show I'm not taking myself to seriously.
***
Adam's rib?
My dear friend, we have already "failed greatly" in Iraq. It has been a spectacular failure of untold proportions!
Is see your position as representing the "timid souls" in this argument: those afraid to step away from the canned rhetoric of their obviosly incompetent and possibly psychotic political leaders. Also, afraid to embrace a world vison that doesn't stem fromthe antiquated "Cold war" post ww2 era of Reaganites and the like with America as the world's enforcers/gestapo.
But who's counting?
Daniel | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 8/25/2006 4:13 PM (GMT -5) | | | Are arguments have been reduced to flat declarations. Not a good sign. It is rather like putting your finger in your ears and humming.
My view is deatched from yours, yes, but reality. Well if you're the master of reality.
How 'bout this. How 'bout instead of sweeping statements declared as universal truths you make a specific point?
Example: you say we're We are loosing a battalion a month.
Uhm a battalion is about 500 to 1k in man power dependeding on TOE of the unit. I have no idea where you got the impression we are loosing 500 to 1000 soldiers a month. This is an example of skewed reality.
Where did you get this figure from? Move On.org? KIA on the evening news dosn't show anything like that. On the military boards I ghost this isn't the numbers they're using.
I have (in the spirit of being fair) tried to address each specific point about something specific with, well something specific. The pattern seems to be in this thread: you make a point (among other things) then I point how this could just as easily be viewed another way (mullahs protesting in the street for example) and you accuse me of talking points.
I say again. I am well read. I do research and I think for myself. I am not relying on talking points. I hope you are as *widely* read on this subject. Could I be wrong: of course. But it won't be because I'm spitting Fox news at you Daniel.
You also seem to think you are in a political majority. Do not confuse polls that say people are unsatisfied with HOW the war is being conducted with a majority of people thinking we should pullout (or whatever unoffensive term would apply to your stradegy which is, I ask again?). As many people hate Mrs. Clinton and Howard Dean as hate Cheney/Rove and it frightens me that my party of smypathy may so not appeal to the middle that we will loose the election. The majority may not like Bush but they may be smpyathetic to the other GOPers and for every point Bush looses the DNC as a whole doesn't seem to climb. This worries me.
The discussion is not about whether we should have gone in or not. That is over, the stadium is empty and the event has moved -- the discussion is what would be better for America to do now that we are there.
Is it possibly your view of the war is so wrapped up in your hatred for Bush and neo-cons that you wouldn't want to 'see' anything less than completely unflattering pov's because it might strengthen them politically? Be a Lieberman not a Dean. Be open to milestones of progress. Don't declare a work in progress as a done deal. No democrat on a military or intelligence oversight committee is saying this -- though neither are they cheerleading.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BarbT
Acolyte
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 394
| Posted 8/25/2006 4:16 PM (GMT -5) | |
Daniel said...Hopefully that will be the ousting of the neo-cons from power and maybe even Bush's impeachment!
I was going to keep my mouth firmly shut on this, lest I stick my shoe-bombed foot in it, but I had to jump into the middle ground of this argument.
I don't like George Bush very well, but neither do I think he's the devil incarnate. He and his advisers misjudged badly when they invaded Iraq. I think they (and especially W.) really believed that, once Saddam H. was gone, the Iraqi people would all join hands, sing Yankee Doodle Dandy, and go on to 1950's style American domestic tranquility.
[This space reserved for appropriate expletives]
They somehow forgot that it was only Saddam's bloody iron fist that was keeping Iraq from being what it is today.
Should we have gone in overtly? I don't think so.
Should we cut and run now? I don't think so.
It's too late to be wise. There are too many watching, judging the "softness" of American (or Western or - here come those &$@! Crusades again - "Christian" ) society.
A jackal will not wag his tail and go away if you throw him a Milkbone.
Impeaching George Bush would make a segment of the American public happy. It would make 100% of the movement for Islamic world domination jubilant.
~Barb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 8/25/2006 4:28 PM (GMT -5) | | | have (in the spirit of being fair) tried to address each specific point about something specific
***
No, you haven't.
I asked: what would victory in Iraq look like?
No answer.
Also:
You are calling anyone who disagrees with your points "weak willed" and inferring that they are not patriotic.
You are using anecdotal 'evidence" ie -- your opinions and quotes from Roosevelt to "back up" your points. You're using ad hominem attacks (calling me the devil, calling me weak, soft,and unpatriotic) you are also projecting opinions onto me, which I have never espoused. None of that comes from doing "research" but maybe you should start here:
On losses in Iraq here's a link with *specific* evidence from a US retired general:
Daniel
| | Back to Top | | |
| | |