NationStates Jolt Archive

You want to know why I don’t support the troop surge? Simple, because George W. Bush advocates it. I know this seems stupid, and I can’t possibly be claiming I reject the idea on the sole reason that it was George Bush’s, but that is in fact exactly what I’m saying.

Now I know what you’re going to say, that this is nothing more than petty partisan hackery, but hear me out.

I don’t ask much. I just recognize that our president is the commander in chief of the greatest military power that the world has ever seen. I recognize that he has at his disposal the most comprehensive domestic and international intelligence web on the planet, one who has eyes and ears in every corner of the globe. I recognize that as president he has access to some of the best and brightest military, civil, business, economic and political thinkers in the world. And knowing that, I ask only that with all these amazing tools, these staggering resources, that he manages to get it right once.

And that’s just it, he hasn’t. When all this began, I was willing, despite the ever knowing sense of dread, to give the man the benefit of the doubt. When he said Iraq was an instrument in the war on terror, I recognized that it was not out of the realm of possibility that either Saddam was allying with Bin Laden, or at least harboring terrorists that were (enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that). When he said there were weapons of mass destruction I thought it certainly possible that this were true, hell if it’s good enough for Korea and Iran. When his administration spoke about how the people of Iraq were oppressed by a brutal regime and we would be viewed as liberators, I viewed it not inconceivable, after all it happened in France in World War II. When he claimed that victory would be decisive, and Iraq would bloom in the desert as a true democracy, I thought “well, we are the world’s only superpower, if anyone can dismantle a third rate military, throw off the shackles of repression and install a peaceful democracy, it’s us!”

For all the reasons above, I tried very very hard to give President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt. But now, almost four years later, he hasn’t gotten it right once.
There are no terrorist ties, there are no WMDs, there are no crowds greeting us as liberators, there is no democratic oasis in a sea of Islamic Sharia law. There is a helium balloon truck, there are insurgents, there is a corrupt regime that is quite happily informing us that they’d like us out of their country, now please. There is a quagmire. There is a civil war. There is a body count rising daily.

And he hasn’t gotten it right once.

Every single prediction has been wrong
Every single strategy has failed
Every single decision has been in error.

And he hasn’t gotten it right once.

And now, despite the Iraq Study Group’s report, despite a midterm election that clearly showed a resounding rejection of his policies by the American people, his attitude that he is George “the W is for ‘what’cha gonna do mother fuckers?’” Bush, and he is right. That now, despite sitting on top of a mountain of failures that this is it. That now he’s got it, now he’s found the answer, this is what’s going to make it all ok. Forget all that other crap, NOW he’s got it. But frankly, I just don’t believe him anymore.

I’ve used up whatever little benefit of the doubt I had left. I’ve given up believing that maybe, JUST maybe, this time it’s going to be right. So no, I’m not going to support George W. Bush’s plan, for I do not believe that George W. Bush is capable of finding the right answer.

And when I see some definitive goals and specific, well thought out, and well planned strategies, some actual reasoned support for this “surge” by people who have demonstrated to me the capacity of getting it right now and again, then I may begin to support it.

But not for now.

You want to know why I don’t support the troop surge?

No? :p

Hot off the press; 7 US military people just died in Iraq.

Arthais101 - Great post!

What gets me is that many people I know said that the shit was going to hit the fan and chances were that the US under Bush would be seen as a laughing stock at best. That was Sept 12, 2001.

I take no delight in being proven right.

Bush is a maniac with his finger on the button. And that scares the shit out of me.

Well, I suppose the only people who'll oppose you are the hard-core Bush supporters and the 'OMG-TERRORISTS!!111!!oneeleven!' phobia people still around in America.

I for one totally support 'the surge' as it's been dubbed.

Why?

Because I'm a heartless bitch who thinks the deaths of US soldiers will finally cause US citizens to turn against Bush once and for all*.






*no, not really

Wouldn't it suck if Bush, one of these days, had an utterly brilliant idea that no-one would listen to because of his past fuck-ups?

... albeit the chances of him having a brilliant idea are, well, small...

It can't be easy being Bush. :(

Wouldn't it suck if Bush, one of these days, had an utterly brilliant idea that no-one would listen to because of his past fuck-ups?

... albeit the chances of him having a brilliant idea are, well, small...

It can't be easy being Bush. :(

I'm generally comforted by the belief that if he actually had a genuine good idea, then people whose intellect I respect would agree with him.

It can't be easy being Bush. :(
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/green.htm

You want to know why I don’t support the troop surge? Simple, because George W. Bush advocates it.

the sad thing is that that is MY reason for not supporting it too.

sure it seems like a reasonable last ditch effort. we cant just say "oops. sorry. we better go home now" without at least trying one more time.

except that its george bush at the helm. its george bush who listens to the generals in the field only as long as they agree with him. if they dont, he replaces them with someone who does, then he listens to that guy.

my only wonder is do we leave now since its lost anyway or limp along for another 2 years losing thousand of our soldiers and tens of thousands of iraqis and elect someone who might have a chance at sorting it out.

my only wonder is do we leave now since its lost anyway or limp along for another 2 years losing thousand of our soldiers and tens of thousands of iraqis and elect someone who might have a chance at sorting it out.

If it's still possible to sort it out. At least in a satisfactory way.

If it's still possible to sort it out. At least in a satisfactory way.

yeah.

i dont see how it could be.

sigh

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/green.htm

:p

I'm generally comforted by the belief that if he actually had a genuine good idea, then people whose intellect I respect would agree with him.

Like who?

See, the problem with the Iraq Study Group's report is that if Bush adopted it, the situation in Iraq might actually improve and U.S. Soldiers coul pull out, mission accompished. That would be disastrous, because right now, Bush has accomplished exactly nothing. Not a single plan of action he has begun has finished successfully. Not one. Bowing to the experts on Iraq might blemish his record! Can't have that. :p

See, the problem with the Iraq Study Group's report is that if Bush adopted it, the situation in Iraq might actually improve and U.S. Soldiers coul pull out, mission accompished. That would be disastrous, because right now, Bush has accomplished exactly nothing. Not a single plan of action he has begun has finished successfully. Not one. Bowing to the experts on Iraq might blemish his record! Can't have that. :p

Harsh but fair....and true!

I gotta say though...he's a hell of a role model for wastrels'...!

Harsh but fair....and true!

I gotta say though...he's a hell of a role model for wastrels'...!

False but crass....and untrue!

I gotta say though...he's a good role model!

Just so this doesn't go off-topic...
What makes you (generic you) think that just because Bush says it it's wrong? There are many things that he's done that have gone, not just according to plan, but better than planned, like the tax cuts. Just because Iraq isn't going as planned doesn't mean that the whole situation is unsolveable (how many free elections have there been?). Will a surge in troop numbers solve the problem? Maybe. Who knows? But your belief in the lack of Bush's competence doesn't change the fact that it might.

False but crass....and untrue!

I gotta say though...he's a good role model!

Just so this doesn't go off-topic...
What makes you (generic you) think that just because Bush says it it's wrong? There are many things that he's done that have gone, not just according to plan, but better than planned, like the tax cuts. Just because Iraq isn't going as planned doesn't mean that the whole situation is unsolveable (how many free elections have there been?). Will a surge in troop numbers solve the problem? Maybe. Who knows? But your belief in the lack of Bush's competence doesn't change the fact that it might.

LOLOL!!! You should be on comedy central! ;)

LOLOL!!! You should be on comedy central! ;)

Well, to be fair, though the tax cuts have worked pretty well as far as helping th economy recover to its presently strong condition after the 9/11 attacks.

I don't support it because its a senseless waste of life. The coalition has achieved sod all in Iraq, apart from disillusioning the majority of the middle east, hence why perpetuate a futile, if not directly counter-productive, effort?

Well, to be fair, though the tax cuts have worked pretty well as far as helping th economy recover to its presently strong condition after the 9/11 attacks.

I admit I am not an expert on the US economy but things are not good...housing as a case in point...

False but crass....and untrue!

Nope. Have to majorly disagree with you there.

I gotta say though...he's a good role model!

Explain one way he's a good role model to me.
Stuck much?

Just so this doesn't go off-topic...
What makes you (generic you) think that just because Bush says it it's wrong? There are many things that he's done that have gone, not just according to plan, but better than planned, like the tax cuts. Just because Iraq isn't going as planned doesn't mean that the whole situation is unsolveable (how many free elections have there been?). Will a surge in troop numbers solve the problem? Maybe. Who knows? But your belief in the lack of Bush's competence doesn't change the fact that it might.

A surge in troop soldiers won't solve the problem. This war is turning into 'Nam II. No matter how many lives you throw at a conflict, you're still fighting pretty much a population. We're very hated over there, and no matter how many 'free elections' you have (calling them free is a bit of an exaggeration-chances are you'll end up being bullied or terrorized into voting for someone against your wishes) throwing troops at a country isn't going to get them to adopt good ol' American democracy, apple pie and the star spangled banner.

Bush is a maniac with his finger on the button. And that scares the shit out of me.Just you be really fucking glad the guy wasn't elected during the cold war, or we'd all be blowing on the winds of nuclear winter.

Arthritis101 I can't fault you for having a gut feeling that doing the opposite of what Bush wants, will be the right course of action in all circumstances. But to be honest, there's (apparently) no difference between how he makes decisions & how you do it, if you listen to that gut feeling.

Think matters through rationally instead. Dig up whatever information you need to make a decision & if you can't be arsed to do that, don't decide anything. Even if Bush does.

I admit I am not an expert on the US economy but things are not good...housing as a case in point...

Housing's bottomed out; the "crash" that was foreseen never happened, and in fact most of the indicators are improving significantly showing a true bottom in the market. The same is true of manufacturing and retail sales; the drop in oil prices starting in September really helped by dampening inflation, and the strong job growth at the end of the year pushed up real wages, giving people more money to spend.

I don’t ask much. I just recognize that our president is the commander in chief of the greatest military power that the world has ever seen.

It's really not worth reading after this bit.

Housing's bottomed out; the "crash" that was foreseen never happened, and in fact most of the indicators are improving significantly showing a true bottom in the market. The same is true of manufacturing and retail sales; the drop in oil prices starting in September really helped by dampening inflation, and the strong job growth at the end of the year pushed up real wages, giving people more money to spend.

Or maybe it hasn't happened yet...

What's the exchange rate for the Euro? Or the Pound for that matter? Its pretty high if I recall...

I am sure you will pound me...like I said..I am not an expert...so I am asking questions here more than making a point (I should have clarified that in the post you replied to..)

Just you be really fucking glad the guy wasn't elected during the cold war, or we'd all be blowing on the winds of nuclear winter.

heh....yeah...I wonder if the SCOTUS would have made a different ruling with regards to the 2000 election....

Housing's bottomed out; the "crash" that was foreseen never happened, and in fact most of the indicators are improving significantly showing a true bottom in the market. The same is true of manufacturing and retail sales; the drop in oil prices starting in September really helped by dampening inflation, and the strong job growth at the end of the year pushed up real wages, giving people more money to spend.

No. It hasn't. Housing has far from bottomed out. Srsly. Stop reading NAR reports.

No. It hasn't. Housing has far from bottomed out. Srsly. Stop reading NAR reports.

I'm reading government releases on housing sales and inventory. The trend lines and monthly data have all bottomed out in the past months and are trending up.

The housing crash is just wishful thinking...none of the predictions made by the doom and gloom people have come to pass, and the economy is accelerating rather than slowing down.

Arthritis101 I can't fault you for having a gut feeling that doing the opposite of what Bush wants, will be the right course of action in all circumstances. But to be honest, there's (apparently) no difference between how he makes decisions & how you do it, if you listen to that gut feeling.

You know the big crucial difference between him and I thought?

I'm not president of the united states, and I don't send people off to war. I'm sitting here in my apartment, sitting at my desk, musing hypothetically.

I'm allowed to think with my instinct, nobody diesas a result of it. When it comes to the president, I expect better than a rough equivalent of a civilian's saturday afternoon musings.

I'm reading government releases on housing sales and inventory. The trend lines and monthly data have all bottomed out in the past months and are trending up.

The housing crash is just wishful thinking...none of the predictions made by the doom and gloom people have come to pass, and the economy is accelerating rather than slowing down.

Housing is seasonal not monthly. (Tax barriers, school entrance and all that). YoY is down, and trending down indicating that the bottom has not yet been reached. Saying that, there has not yet been a crash, so if you are feeling bullish have a flutter on the case-shiller index on the CBoT.

Will it crash however? I don't know. I suspect, looking at fundamentals and credit tightening on the margin, that it will. And there is still a large downside risk to property. Inventory is at record highs, and demand is weak and likely to weaken further.

The other question is how much it will effect the rest of the economy. I suspect that the bond bubble will have more far reaching effects than housing anyway, making it a moot point.

Just so this doesn't go off-topic...
What makes you (generic you) think that just because Bush says it it's wrong? There are many things that he's done that have gone, not just according to plan, but better than planned, like the tax cuts. Just because Iraq isn't going as planned doesn't mean that the whole situation is unsolveable (how many free elections have there been?). Will a surge in troop numbers solve the problem? Maybe. Who knows? But your belief in the lack of Bush's competence doesn't change the fact that it might.

OK, let's make a bit of a hypothetical, ok?

Let's say, 6 years ago, you had a few extra bucks in your pocket and you figured hey, you'd play the stock market, see if you can get a return.

Except you don't really know how to invest, so you see bob the stockbroker. Now Bob is kind of an odd fellow, you get the impression maybe he's not all together there, but he's your wife's cousin's friend, so you give him a shot.

Now on your first few years bob gives a few suggestsions, and you invest, except the stocks he recommends don't do so well, and you lose some money.

But hey, investing is risky business, so you give it another shot...and the stocks drop again. In fact, a few of the companies bob has you invest in even go entirely out of business.

But bob tells you not to worry,the situation is bad now, but it'll improve, and that if you just stick it out those stocks are going to turn around and you're going to make a fortune.

So you go home, vaguely unsatisfied and worried, but after all, Bob knows what he's doing, right? Except that doesn't happen, in fact the value of the stocks continue to free fall.

Now occassionally they might have a good day, and the price might go up a buck or two now and then. And on those days when the price does bump up, bob calls you excitedly, telling you about how now you should see how right he was, and the price is going up, and look at how he is right.

Except those occassional up swings are few and far between, and on average, the price keeps dropping, and you keep losing money. Sure the price may bump up now and again, but on average, it's falling.

Now a few years have gone by, a few of your initial investments have gone totally bankrupt, those that are still in business are plagued by financial troubles, and you've now lost thousands of dollars.

Now what makes it more alarming is that you start to flip through the wall street journal one day, and not only do you see that the financial experts not advising you to intest in these stocks, numerous people actually predicted bad financial problems ahead for the very same companies you invested in.

Not only that, but in the same edition, the journal reports on a conveined panel of several very prominent economists who have spent considerably time evaluating the economy in depth. These panels have concluded their opinions as to where the economy is headed, and what industries will be valuable, which won't, and which will basically collapse and die in the coming years.

The next day bob calls you up and tells you he has a hot stock tip for you, the problem is, it's in one of those companies that the convenied economist panel has advised strongly NOT investing in. You ask bob about this economy report, but he tells you not to worry, he knows what he's doing, and who are these damned economists anyway and why do they think they know better than bob?

Now, bob might be a good person, he might have redeaming qualities. He might be a good parent, take good care of his pets, hell he may even have a prize winning rose garden, and if you have any rose related questions, bob's your guy, he is in fact is very accomplished with those roses.

But being a good parent, a good pet owner, and a prize winning rose grower doesn't really speak to whether he's competant at giving good stock advice.

So would you do what bob tells you to do? It's possible that he's right and the experts are wrong, it's POSSIBLE that this time he's really right But judging on his history in picking stocks, would you be willing to bet money on it?

Would you bet your life on it? How about someone elses? Because that's exactly what we're being asked to do, right now. We're being asked to bet the lives of more american soldiers on Bush being right.

And he MIGHT JUST BE RIGHT. But I ask you, given his record, would you take that bet if it was your life?

OK, let's make a bit of a hypothetical, ok?

Let's say, 6 years ago, you had a few extra bucks in your pocket and you figured hey, you'd play the stock market, see if you can get a return.

Except you don't really know how to invest, so you see bob the stockbroker. Now Bob is kind of an odd fellow, you get the impression maybe he's not all together there, but he's your wife's cousin's friend, so you give him a shot.

Now on your first few years bob gives a few suggestsions, and you invest, except the stocks he recommends don't do so well, and you lose some money.

But hey, investing is risky business, so you give it another shot...and the stocks drop again. In fact, a few of the companies bob has you invest in even go entirely out of business.

But bob tells you not to worry,the situation is bad now, but it'll improve, and that if you just stick it out those stocks are going to turn around and you're going to make a fortune.

So you go home, vaguely unsatisfied and worried, but after all, Bob knows what he's doing, right? Except that doesn't happen, in fact the value of the stocks continue to free fall.

Now occassionally they might have a good day, and the price might go up a buck or two now and then. And on those days when the price does bump up, bob calls you excitedly, telling you about how now you should see how right he was, and the price is going up, and look at how he is right.

Except those occassional up swings are few and far between, and on average, the price keeps dropping, and you keep losing money. Sure the price may bump up now and again, but on average, it's falling.

Now a few years have gone by, a few of your initial investments have gone totally bankrupt, those that are still in business are plagued by financial troubles, and you've now lost thousands of dollars.

Now what makes it more alarming is that you start to flip through the wall street journal one day, and not only do you see that the financial experts not advising you to intest in these stocks, numerous people actually predicted bad financial problems ahead for the very same companies you invested in.

Not only that, but in the same edition, the journal reports on a conveined panel of several very prominent economists who have spent considerably time evaluating the economy in depth. These panels have concluded their opinions as to where the economy is headed, and what industries will be valuable, which won't, and which will basically collapse and die in the coming years.

The next day bob calls you up and tells you he has a hot stock tip for you, the problem is, it's in one of those companies that the convenied economist panel has advised strongly NOT investing in. You ask bob about this economy report, but he tells you not to worry, he knows what he's doing, and who are these damned economists anyway and why do they think they know better than bob?

Now, bob might be a good person, he might have redeaming qualities. He might be a good parent, take good care of his pets, hell he may even have a prize winning rose garden, and if you have any rose related questions, bob's your guy, he is in fact is very accomplished with those roses.

But being a good parent, a good pet owner, and a prize winning rose grower doesn't really speak to whether he's competant at giving good stock advice.

So would you do what bob tells you to do? It's possible that he's right and the experts are wrong, it's POSSIBLE that this time he's really right But judging on his history in picking stocks, would you be willing to bet money on it?

Would you bet your life on it? How about someone elses? Because that's exactly what we're being asked to do, right now. We're being asked to bet the lives of more american soldiers on Bush being right.

And he MIGHT JUST BE RIGHT. But I ask you, given his record, would you take that bet if it was your life?


I like it! Reasoning by analogy and basing future performance on past history. I ask you, is there any better way to evaluate a plan?

You must have one of those smartypants degrees where they teach you the cost of everything.

I like it! Reasoning by analogy and basing future performance on past history. I ask you, is there any better way to evaluate a plan?

You must have one of those smartypants degrees where they teach you the cost of everything.

I am entirely unsure if this is sarcasm or not.

I think the basic idea of a "troop surge" is a good one. However, a good idea can be screwed by a bad implementation. And given the track record of Bush, and everyone appointed by Bush, I'm afraid all we'll get out of this surge is more dead American soldiers.

I am entirely unsure if this is sarcasm or not.

I'm not surprised.

I am entirely unsure if this is sarcasm or not.

I think the tip-off is the use of 'smartypants'.

If it weren't for that, I'd take it at face value and agree with him.

I'm not surprised.

how about this, you point out a single error in my logic, or a practical way in which my analogy fails.

And I see you haven't answered the question, how about you tell me, would you listen to him, or not?

And if not, why don't you tell me how this situation is any different?

I think the tip-off is the use of 'smartypants'.

If it weren't for that, I'd take it at face value and agree with him.

my general point (for which I suppose I was a tad to subtle) is that if you disagree with an argument, without being able to in any way counter it, that's an implicit admission to your inability to find a fault with it.

I'm quite sure the poster was being sarcastic, however onsidering he has failed to, in any way, actually refute my point, I'll take it quite at face value, since he seems quite ineffectual at actually arguing against my position.

I do not think any sane, rational person, in my little hypothetical, would tell our friend bob anything other than "fuck off, you're fired".

So why the hell should we expect LESS when people's LIVES are on the line here?

I am entirely unsure if this is sarcasm or not.

You're doing an MBA right? :p

You're doing an MBA right? :p

nah, got an MA and a JD...might go back to the PhD one of these days, really never found much interest in business school.

I'm not president of the united states, and I don't send people off to war. I'm sitting here in my apartment, sitting at my desk, musing hypothetically.Really?! :pI'm allowed to think with my instinct, nobody diesas a result of it. When it comes to the president, I expect better than a rough equivalent of a civilian's saturday afternoon musings.And thus we got to the heart of the nomatter.

Politicians aren't any different from you & I. They're stupid, fucked up, arrogant twits who'll disregard objective reality in favour of an imagined one that suits them better - just like you & I do. Some of them are bright as hell. Some would prolly be labeled 'retarded' after an IQ test, just like the people you'll find if you walk out your front door.

I realise that especially Americans have a tradition of considering any form of 'authority' a sainthood, and the office of the president to be something very nearly divine. But it's bullshit. People don't magically stop being who they are, just because you allow them to make your decisions for you.

The rational approach to people seeking power, is one of extreme caution & assloads of suspicion. Just look at yourself. You're perfectly frank about not really knowing what the fuck you're on about, and one of the reasons you're not seeking dominion over your peers, is exactly because you're a clueless fuck. So try looking at it from a just slightly objective point of view. Do you really think you could know everything you'd like the person in charge of your nation to know? Seriously? Think hard. I'm betting the answer is no.

When you've reached the obvious conclusion that the skills alone requires a superhuman, and that humans are just human, you've also reached the inescapable conclusion that the people ruling you aren't fit to rule, and are either too stupid to realise it, or to immoral to give a shit. In either case, the next conclusion you can draw with reasonable certainty, is that they're either oblivious to their responsibility, and thus won't be in a better position to make decisions & won't make better decisions that you.. Or they might simply not care about their jobs & be busy persuing personal agendas that almost certainly conflict with what's in the best interest of the nation, since they apparently need power over the nation to persue their goals.

To sum up: don't expect anything from politicians. There's no reason to.

The fact that the US is very nearly run like a fascist state doesn't help matters at all, as milking you for all you're worth becomes the criteria for ascending (or descending?) to power.

Post Scrotum: I'm sorry about mistyping your nation's name. I read what I expected to read, methinks. Didn't notice 'til now.

I'm quite sure the poster was being sarcastic, however onsidering he has failed to, in any way, actually refute my point, I'll take it quite at face value, since he seems quite ineffectual at actually arguing against my position.

Reasoning by analogy!

Basing future performance on past history!

Both are wrong.

If you want to critique why the troop surge is wrong - and I don't disagree that it will fail insofar as its claimed results will be - you can't just dispute it on the basis of how some hypothetical stockbroker may, or may not, have misled some investor in the past. You have to dispute it on its own merits.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Once in some countries).

Reasoning by analogy!

Basing future performance on past history!

Both are wrong.

If you want to critique why the troop surge is wrong - and I don't disagree that it will fail insofar as its claimed results will be - you can't just dispute it on the basis of how some hypothetical stockbroker may, or may not, have misled some investor in the past. You have to dispute it on its own merits.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Once in some countries).

I can come up with a lot of very logical reasons I don't support it, but I don't really have to.

Answer my question, would you bet your money on the stockbroker being right, based on past performance?

Would you be willing to invest?

Would you, in fact, bet your life on it? That's the question, really, would you bet your life on it? Knowing ONLY his history, knowing ONLY his results, would you be willing to put your life on the line knowing that you will die if he is wrong?

Would you bet your life?

no? Then why the hell is it ok to bet someone else's?

The fact is we do it all the fucking time. You don't bring your car to the mechanic who screwed up your brakes. You don't go back to the accountant who gets you audited. You don't keep the employee on who misplaces a few hundred dollars from the register. We do t all the time.

Why should bush be afforded any better courtesy?

nah, got an MA and a JD...might go back to the PhD one of these days, really never found much interest in business school.

Fair enough...I was trying to make a joke...albeit bad LOL

Whats a JD?

I can come up with a lot of very logical reasons I don't support it, but I don't really have to.Wrong. And the rest of that post is pretty much a Commie Fish.

Lacadaemon just pointed out two glaring fallacies in your reasoning. If you don't understand them, look them up. Alternatively flip back theough the thread & read my initial reply & the rest like it.

You cannot determine the validity of the surge based on the administration's trackrecord. You have to evaluate the surge in terms of what it seeks to accomplish & what the most likely consequences of implimenting it will be. If those two don't match, it's a bad idea. The Shrub's lack of grey cells has fuck all to do with it.

I can come up with a lot of very logical reasons I don't support it, but I don't really have to.

Answer my question, would you bet your money on the stockbroker being right, based on past performance?

Would you be willing to invest?

Would you, in fact, bet your life on it? That's the question, really, would you bet your life on it? Knowing ONLY his history, knowing ONLY his results, would you be willing to put your life on the line knowing that you will die if he is wrong?

Would you bet your life?

no? Then why the hell is it ok to bet someone else's?

The fact is we do it all the fucking time. You don't bring your car to the mechanic who screwed up your brakes. You don't go back to the accountant who gets you audited. You don't keep the employee on who misplaces a few hundred dollars from the register. We do t all the time.

Why should bush be afforded any better courtesy?


None of that has anything to do with whether or not the underlying plan is any good. You are offering immaterial evidence. What people do, or do not do, based upon their preferences in respect of history has no bearing on the instant case.

The plan should be evaluated on its own merits only.

*shrug* Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics. Should I ignore that because of his track record?

Wrong. And the rest of that post is pretty much a Commie Fish.

Lacadaemon just pointed out two glaring fallacies in your reasoning. If you don't understand them, look them up. Alternatively flip back theough the thread & read my initial reply & the rest like it.

You cannot determine the validity of the surge based on the administration's trackrecord. You have to evaluate the surge in terms of what it seeks to accomplish & what the most likely consequences of implimenting it will be. If those two don't match, it's a bad idea. The Shrub's lack of grey cells has fuck all to do with it.

Once you have a JD logic no longer applies. You know everything.

OK, let's make a bit of a hypothetical, ok?

Let's say, 6 years ago, you had a few extra bucks in your pocket and you figured hey, you'd play the stock market, see if you can get a return.

Except you don't really know how to invest, so you see bob the stockbroker. Now Bob is kind of an odd fellow, you get the impression maybe he's not all together there, but he's your wife's cousin's friend, so you give him a shot.

Now on your first few years bob gives a few suggestsions, and you invest, except the stocks he recommends don't do so well, and you lose some money.

But hey, investing is risky business, so you give it another shot...and the stocks drop again. In fact, a few of the companies bob has you invest in even go entirely out of business.

But bob tells you not to worry,the situation is bad now, but it'll improve, and that if you just stick it out those stocks are going to turn around and you're going to make a fortune.

So you go home, vaguely unsatisfied and worried, but after all, Bob knows what he's doing, right? Except that doesn't happen, in fact the value of the stocks continue to free fall.

Now occassionally they might have a good day, and the price might go up a buck or two now and then. And on those days when the price does bump up, bob calls you excitedly, telling you about how now you should see how right he was, and the price is going up, and look at how he is right.

Except those occassional up swings are few and far between, and on average, the price keeps dropping, and you keep losing money. Sure the price may bump up now and again, but on average, it's falling.

Now a few years have gone by, a few of your initial investments have gone totally bankrupt, those that are still in business are plagued by financial troubles, and you've now lost thousands of dollars.

Now what makes it more alarming is that you start to flip through the wall street journal one day, and not only do you see that the financial experts not advising you to intest in these stocks, numerous people actually predicted bad financial problems ahead for the very same companies you invested in.

Not only that, but in the same edition, the journal reports on a conveined panel of several very prominent economists who have spent considerably time evaluating the economy in depth. These panels have concluded their opinions as to where the economy is headed, and what industries will be valuable, which won't, and which will basically collapse and die in the coming years.

The next day bob calls you up and tells you he has a hot stock tip for you, the problem is, it's in one of those companies that the convenied economist panel has advised strongly NOT investing in. You ask bob about this economy report, but he tells you not to worry, he knows what he's doing, and who are these damned economists anyway and why do they think they know better than bob?

Now, bob might be a good person, he might have redeaming qualities. He might be a good parent, take good care of his pets, hell he may even have a prize winning rose garden, and if you have any rose related questions, bob's your guy, he is in fact is very accomplished with those roses.

But being a good parent, a good pet owner, and a prize winning rose grower doesn't really speak to whether he's competant at giving good stock advice.

So would you do what bob tells you to do? It's possible that he's right and the experts are wrong, it's POSSIBLE that this time he's really right But judging on his history in picking stocks, would you be willing to bet money on it?

Would you bet your life on it? How about someone elses? Because that's exactly what we're being asked to do, right now. We're being asked to bet the lives of more american soldiers on Bush being right.

And he MIGHT JUST BE RIGHT. But I ask you, given his record, would you take that bet if it was your life?

That sounds good, but it fails in a few important places. For example, what if Bob were a good investor, but the economy was just so crappy that every share dropped? Would you skip over this good investor simply because the economy was doing horribly? Or, like you said, Bob is a terrible investor; would you pick him to pick your stocks even though the economy was in such good shape that every share raised in price?

And, to illustrate what others have pointed out to you:
Bob is terrible at choosing stocks, we've seen that. But, does that mean that you should ignore his expertise in law even though he is one of the best lawyers in the country based solely on his performance with your money in the stock market?

Once you have a JD logic no longer applies. You know everything.

Awww, isn't that sweet. When you two stroke one another, do you call each other 'honey' too?

Awww, isn't that sweet. When you two stroke one another, do you call each other 'honey' too?

Yeah, like someone of subnormal intelligence can't get a law degree in their spare time.

When you've passed a real bar exam you get to give people shit. Until then stfu.

You cannot determine the validity of the surge based on the administration's trackrecord. You have to evaluate the surge in terms of what it seeks to accomplish & what the most likely consequences of implimenting it will be. If those two don't match, it's a bad idea. The Shrub's lack of grey cells has fuck all to do with it.

Do me one little favor, ok? Go read the title of this thread.

See it? See where it says "why I don't support 'the surge'". That's what this thread is about, why I don't support it. Why don't I support it? Because in my belief this administration has shown itself to be incompetant as to the strategy of this war.

I don't need another reason, this is my own, I dont' trust George W. Bush to come up with a good plan, I do not believe he's capable of it. Therefore, since I believe Bush is incapable of forming a good plan (which is formed through past experiences) I believe, by extention, this plan is no good.

It's rather fucking arrogant of you to tell me by what standard I should use to form my own opinions, isn't it?

When you've passed a real bar exam you get to give people shit. Until then stfu.

I've passed three. And I'll reitterate what I've said before. Human beings judge individuals and their capacity by their past experiences all the time, every damn day.

You're damned right I judge people by their past performances, and you do it too, every single one of us does it. I dare you to deny it, go ahead and tell me that you don't do it.

And, to illustrate what others have pointed out to you:
Bob is terrible at choosing stocks, we've seen that. But, does that mean that you should ignore his expertise in law even though he is one of the best lawyers in the country based solely on his performance with your money in the stock market?

I in fact addressed that, read it again. In my example bob is a great grower of roses and perhaps an tell you anything you need about the subject. But if every time he tries to pick a stock it fails, all the good gardening in the world isn't going to make him pick stocks any better.

And if you can show me some things bush has done right in areas other than the war, then perhaps I will listen to him on those subjects. But this isn't about that.

Subnormal intelligence hmm...where'd you get your JD from?

Fordham.

Ah, then I guess you should go back and eat that shit...you realise Arthais is a practicing attorney, right?

Well he needs to practice. At least until he masters evidence.

By the way, you're acting like a right ****...any reason?


I don't know. You just bring it out in me.

I don't know. You just bring it out in me.

Aww, that's the second sweet thing you've said in this thread!

None of that has anything to do with whether or not the underlying plan is any good.

Which is the funny thing, since I said I already concede the possibility that he MIGHT be right. I never addressed whether the plan is objectively good or objectively bad.

I said that by default I do not believe the plan is any good because of the source from which it comes from.

Which is the funny thing, since I said I already concede the possibility that he MIGHT be right. I never addressed whether the plan is objectively good or objectively bad.

I said that by default I do not believe the plan is any good because of the source from which it comes from.

And I hate rhetoric. That's the problem with this damn country. :mad:

Well he needs to practice. At least until he masters evidence.

You know what's funny? This isn't a court room, and my personal opinions need not be based on the rules of evidence.

I made this thread to give you my reasons. You don't like them, feel free to not use them. YOu can base your opinions on, frankly, whatever the fuck you want to.

I'll base mine on my own.

And fordham? Meh, if you feel like bragging about being mediocre, but considering you couldn't break top 20, I wouldn't be too honest about that.

And I hate rhetoric.

Well you are quite free to go the fuck away, if you wish.

Do me one little favor, ok? Go read the title of this thread.Where did you post it again? Oh, right. A debate forum! It's almost like you IN-FUCKIN-VITED critique.It's rather fucking arrogant of you to tell me by what standard I should use to form my own opinions, isn't it?Since you've opened a debate about your method of forming your opinion; no. It's pretty fucking arrogant of you to seek to end the debate, simply because you cannot defend the method you used to arrive at your conclusion.

Since the logical consistency of that method in this case can be clearly determined, it's also pretty fucking arrogant to maintain that it's somehow valid, because it's what you used. Objectively it isn't & you're as wrong as can be. That, however, does not mean you need to heed anyone's conclusions, opinions or advice. You're welcome to your unreason, but you're not welcome to call me arrogant for posting my opinion of it, when you invited me to do so.

In other words; there's nothing arrogant about telling you to refrain from jumping to conclusions (because that's what you're doing). It'd be arrogance if anyone expected you to listen to reason, perhaps, but I see no indication that that is the case.

I in fact addressed that, read it again. In my example bob is a great grower of roses and perhaps an tell you anything you need about the subject. But if every time he tries to pick a stock it fails, all the good gardening in the world isn't going to make him pick stocks any better.

Ah, sorry, missed that. It is, after all, a very long post.

And if you can show me some things bush has done right in areas other than the war, then perhaps I will listen to him on those subjects. But this isn't about that.

Off the top of my head... the tax cuts.
There are more, but my head's not really functioning today...

Where did you post it again? Oh, right. A debate forum! It's almost like you IN-FUCKIN-VITED critique.Since you've opened a debate about your method of forming your opinion; no. It's pretty fucking arrogant of you to seek to end the debate, simply because you cannot defend the method you used to arrive at your conclusion.

Since the logical consistency of that method in this case can be clearly determined, it's also pretty fucking arrogant to maintain that it's somehow valid, because it's what you used. Objectively it isn't & you're as wrong as can be. That, however, does not mean you need to heed anyone's conclusions, opinions or advice. You're welcome to your unreason, but you're not welcome to call me arrogant for posting my opinion of it, when you invited me to do so.

In other words; there's nothing arrogant about telling you to refrain from jumping to conclusions (because that's what you're doing). It'd be arrogance if anyone expected you to listen to reason, perhaps, but I see no indication that that is the case.

Except you know your one big problem? YOu still haven't actually shown any fault with my logic.

Answer my damned question, would you go to a mechanic if that mechanic screwed up your car in the past?

Would you go to an accountant who fucked up your taxes before?

Would you go to a doctor who perscribed you the wrong medication?

Yes or no, answer the questions

Off the top of my head... the tax cuts.
There are more, but my head's not really functioning today...

We can debate the tax cuts, but frankly the tax cuts don't in any way relate to handling of a war, and therefore his performance in one area is in no way indicative of his ability to form policy in the other.

And fordham? Meh, if you feel like bragging about being mediocre, but considering you couldn't break top 20, I wouldn't be too honest about that.

It has the part time JD. And clearly I wasn't bragging. Anyone can get a JD as I said.

Doubtless, judging by your lack of logic you are a yale person or some such. :rolleyes:

Doubtless, judging by your lack of logic you are a yale person or some such. :rolleyes:

only for undergrad, the new haven weather didn't agree with me, too cold, and the city sucked.

Still waiting for your answer, would you go to an accountant who fucked up your taxes?

It has the part time JD. And clearly I wasn't bragging. Anyone can get a JD as I said. Wait...then you seriously referred to yourself as having subnormal intelligence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12262422&postcount=51)?

That's...bizarre.

Except you know your one big problem? YOu still haven't actually shown any fault with my logic.

Answer my damned question, would you go to a mechanic if that mechanic screwed up your car in the past?

Would you go to an accountant who fucked up your taxes before?

Would you go to a doctor who perscribed you the wrong medication?

Yes or no, answer the questions

Yes, I would. Show me one mechanic, accountant, doctor OR lawyer who's never made a major blunder.

Duh.

Except you know your one big problem? YOu still haven't actually shown any fault with my logic.I have, twice.Answer my damned question, would you go to a mechanic if that mechanic screwed up your car in the past?Faulty analogy. In this case, I'm already at the sub-par mechanic, I have nowhere else to turn, and the only question is whether the repairs he'll proposing are relevant to my car. That question cannot be answered based on the mechanic's past performance.Would you go to an accountant who fucked up your taxes before?Faulty analogy again. Same problem as the first one.Would you go to a doctor who perscribed you the wrong medication?Faulty analogy again. Same problem as the first one.Yes or no, answer the questionsClick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies)

Wait...then you seriously referred to yourself as having subnormal intelligence?

That's...bizarre.

You also need to take a logic class.

I have, twice.Faulty analogy. In this case, I'm already at the sub-par mechanic, I have nowhere else to turn, and the only question is whether the repairs he'll proposing are relevant to my car. That question cannot be answered based on the mechanic's past performance.Faulty analogy again. Same problem as the first one.Faulty analogy again. Same problem as the first one.Click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies)

let me rephrase my question just a little bit.

When tax time rolls around again will you return to an accountant who had already in the past screwed up your taxes?

Would you? If not, why not?

Humor me, why not?

You also need to take a logic class.

Yes, then perhaps I will understand the complexities of an auto-flame. Of course...the only conclusion I can come to, in my current, uneducated state, is that it was unintentional, and you didn't quite realise how bad it sounded until now.

In this case, I'm already at the sub-par mechanic, I have nowhere else to turn, and the only question is whether the repairs he'll proposing are relevant to my car.

That is not the question I asked you. Please answer the question I asked. I didn't ask why it wasn't relevant, I didn't ask if it was proper, I asked you would you?

I, frankly did not ask if the analogy was faulty, I asked you whether or not you would do it.

Now please, answer the question as I asked it.

In case you missed it let me ask you again.

"would you go to a mechanic if that mechanic screwed up your car in the past?" Simply a yes or a no please, and a bit of an explanation as to why.

let me rephrase my question just a little bit.

When tax time rolls around again will you return to an accountant who had already in the past screwed up your taxes?

Would you? If not, why not?

Humor me, why not?This is becomming idiotic.

How does this apply to your opening post? Are you perhaps serving up another one of those Commie Fish?

Sadly I'm not gonna bite. I'm vegan.

Still waiting for your answer, would you go to an accountant who fucked up your taxes?

Assuming for a second that I was too stupid to do my own taxes, how would I know?

Assuming for a second that I was too stupid to do my own taxes, how would I know?

You're also still avoiding the quetion I asked, but if you must know, let's say last year you got audited and ended up owing several thousand dollars, let's just say, and further research shows that the reason you got audited and owed is due to a mistake your accountant made.

Now that's not really relevant, but if it helps you, there you go.

Yes, then perhaps I will understand the complexities of an auto-flame. Of course...the only conclusion I can come to, in my current, uneducated state, is that it was unintentional, and you didn't quite realise how bad it sounded until now.

anyone != everyone.

anyone != everyone.

*giggles*

It's still hilarious...and it probably stings.

But go on, you have a question to answer.

This is becomming idiotic.

How does this apply to your opening post? Are you perhaps serving up another one of those Commie Fish?

Sadly I'm not gonna bite. I'm vegan.

In other words, you talk about debate, and yet won't actually engage in one.

And if you want to know why it relates to my opening post, I would have hoped you would have been smart enough to figure it out, but oh well.

No sane, normal, rational person would continue to use the services of someone who has made continual errors in the past.

Why? because no sane, normal, rational person would trust that individual anymore. You wouldn't, I wouldn't, nobody would. Your attempts to characterize me as stupid or irrational fail the moment we all realize that no, you would not continue to utlilze someone who has made serious professional blunders in the past, because you no longer have trust in that individual, or faith that they will make the correct choice.

I no longer have trust in our president in matters of this war, or faith that he will make the correct choice, based purely on his past performance.

But hell, if you want to continue to use the same mechanic who screwed your car up before because "past performance is not an indication of future performance" be my guest. And I do hope you do so, because otherwise I suppose you'd just be...what, irrational and stupid?

Or maybe, JUST maybe you can get off your high horse and admit that, no, of course you wouldn't frequent a mechanic who damaged your car, you wouldn't hire an accountant who already screwed up your taxes, you wouldn't keep returning to the doctor that constantly gives you the wrong medication because you, *gasp* are basing how tey will perform in the future on how they performed in the past.

To say anything otherwise makes you, frankly, either a liar or an idiot.

You're also still avoiding the quetion I asked, but if you must know, let's say last year you got audited and ended up owing several thousand dollars, let's just say, and further research shows that the reason you got audited and owed is due to a mistake your accountant made.

Now that's not really relevant, but if it helps you, there you go.

Well what was the mistake? And why did I get audited?

As you well know, being a hotshot lawyer and all from one of the top schools in the whole world ever, the accountant is not responsible for the tax return. Only the idiot who signed it.

But I digress, because none of this has anything to do with your original point.

Well what was the mistake? And why did I get audited?

He added 2+2 and got 22. You got audited becuase the IRS was curious why you were claiming exemptions higher than your income. Let's say it's also the third time such a thing has happened with this accountant.

As you well know, being a hotshot lawyer and all from one of the top schools in the whole world ever, the accountant is not responsible for the tax return. Only the idiot who signed it.

Legally this is quite true (except of course due to gross negligence, but that's besides the point).

I'm not talking about legal responsibility, I'm talking about whether you, you angry little person you, would continue to return to that accountant. Of course, such a smart fordham graduate like you would understand the difference.

But I digress, because none of this has anything to do with your original point.

If you think that, than you're really not as smart as you think you are. It has EVERYTHING to do with my original point, namely "I stop trusting people after they've demonstrated manifest incompetance"

Now, answer the question.

I'm also greatly amused that when both you and Similization finally get pressed to actually answering a question with an honest answer to back up your positions...you both refuse.

Curious that. What happened guys? Where's your indignation? Where's your insults? Where's your smug superiority?

Just go ahead...answer the question

If you think that, than you're really not as smart as you think you are. It has EVERYTHING to do with my original point, namely "I stop trusting people after they've demonstrated manifest incompetance"


I withdraw my former statement in respect of what you are referencing. You are correct. I spoke in haste.

Nevertheless your point is: I am against is because he is for it.

And I submit to you that is a fundamentally flawed point. A point without merit &c.

I withdraw my former statement in respect of what you are referencing. You are correct. I spoke in haste.

Nevertheless your point is: I am against is because he is for it.

And I submit to you that is a fundamentally flawed point. A point without merit &c.

does it have any direct logic? No, it doesn't. It's not a logical evaluation of the plan itself, this is true. It does not address any merits, or flaws, of the argument in and of itself, I admit to that 100%. Now there may be logical reasons for that, and I have a few, but that's not it for me, not primarily.

You're right, him being wrong consistantly in the pst does not directly demonstrate that he's wrong now (although it does somewhat speak to the odds). You're right that isnot, in any reason, completely logical. It's a gut feeling, it's pure instinct. It's the same instinct that keeps a beaten dog hiding from the person who beat him.

And the simple fact is, I don't trust him, simple as that. I don't trust him to be capable of coming up with a good plan, I don't trust him based on experience, and my gut feeling may be wrong (I don't think it is, but for more "logical" reasons). It is, as I said before, pure instinct. But it's reasonable instict, it is, to a degree, a rational instinct. It's an instinct we all utilize, every single one of us. The one that says "he's screwed me in the past, and I just don't trust him anymore".

And that's not logical, surely (though I have my own logical reasoning), and, as we both know, would never stand up in court.

But I just don't trust him, and am immediatly strongy suspect of every word that comes out of that man's mouth in regards to the war.

Once bitten twice shy, and all that.

Bollocks. This isn't a question of trust. You can't determine the consequences of an action, based exclusively on the past performance of the actor. It's two different things.

Just because I've commited crimes in the past at this hour of night, for example, doesn't mean that the next time I waddle off to the kitchen to brew coffee, it'll involve criminal behaviour. Your (un)reasoning is absurd, man.

What you're arguing is called an 'argument from precedent'. Click that link I gave you earlier, if you don't know what it is & why it's irrelevant to the conclusion you've drawn.

You're judging the president, and applying the judgement to a course of action he's proposing. You can, of course, do that 'til your head falls off, but whether your conclusion is valid will be entirely down to chance, because you've not actually examined the course of action.

I don't know if it's any consolation, but I agree that he's a fucking spectacular failure as prez, and I agree that the surge idea is without merit. But my conclusions about his surge idea has nothing to do with his general performance as president, because the surge idea itself has nothing to do with his person.

does it have any direct logic? No, it doesn't. It's not a logical evaluation of the plan itself, this is true. It does not address any merits, or flaws, of the argument in and of itself, I admit to that 100%. Now there may be logical reasons for that, and I have a few, but that's not it for me, not primarily.

You're right, him being wrong consistantly in the pst does not directly demonstrate that he's wrong now (although it does somewhat speak to the odds). You're right that isnot, in any reason, completely logical. It's a gut feeling, it's pure instinct. It's the same instinct that keeps a beaten dog hiding from the person who beat him.

And the simple fact is, I don't trust him, simple as that. I don't trust him to be capable of coming up with a good plan, I don't trust him based on experience, and my gut feeling may be wrong (I don't think it is, but for more "logical" reasons). It is, as I said before, pure instinct. But it's reasonable instict, it is, to a degree, a rational instinct. It's an instinct we all utilize, every single one of us. The one that says "he's screwed me in the past, and I just don't trust him anymore".

And that's not logical, surely (though I have my own logical reasoning), and, as we both know, would never stand up in court.

But I just don't trust him, and am immediatly strongy suspect of every word that comes out of that man's mouth in regards to the war.

Once bitten twice shy, and all that.


Meh. Fair enough. Can we stop insulting each other now then?

As I said before, I don't believe that the 'surge' will produce the results that are promised.

now if you want to talk about why I think the surge is a bad idea from a purely logical standpoint, than fine. Primarily I think that most of the sectarian strife going on in Iraq will be hightened by a perceived "crack down" by US forces as numbers increase. Much of the tention is created by a feelin of occupation, which will be heigtened by more US presence, causing more violence.

In addition, simply adding more troops to the mix will be pointless, since we already have overwhelming numbers, an increasing that ratio by a bit more will prove markedly ineffective, since it is not the numbers in this situation, but how they are utilized, and this will require a complete and total overhaul of standard operating procedure in Iraq before ANY amount of troops will be effective.

That, of course, is a start. But as I said, whenever I thin of the plan, the very first thing that pops into my head is "I do not trust him".

The logical reasons come second.

Meh. Fair enough. Can we stop insulting each other now then?

As I said before, I don't believe that the 'surge' will produce the results that are promised.

works. And I'm about to throw my keyboard through the window for not working, apologizes if random letters go missing, this keyboard is on its last legs.

And sure I can give rational reasons as to why it will not work, just gave a few. But at the end of the day, when I think about it, my first response is the same, a strong, instinctual, almost viceral feeling of "I do not trust him".

That, of course, is a start. But as I said, whenever I thin of the plan, the very first thing that pops into my head is "I do not trust him".

The logical reasons come second.In that case.. Why the hell are we arguing?

Bollocks. This isn't a question of trust. You can't determine the consequences of an action, based exclusively on the past performance of the actor. It's two different things.

Yet you surely can admit that I can quite well get a general idea of how successful one will be in an endevour in the future based on how successful he has been on similar endevours in the past.

If one has shown a complete inability to perform a task in the past, surely this INDICATES (proves, no, but indicates) that the individual will likely have trouble performing the same task in the future, correct?

In that case.. Why the hell are we arguing?

because you keep insisting that I be able to rationally back up a feeling =P

Adding more troops is just throwing fuel onto the fire. There is no way we can "win," short of committing genocide, and that is not acceptable. Enough innocent people and American boys have been killed or maimed by this pointless war. The sooner we withdraw completely, the better. Bush should be tried as a war criminal.

Adding more troops is just throwing fuel onto the fire. There is no way we can "win," short of committing genocide, and that is not acceptable. Enough innocent people and American boys have been killed or maimed by this pointless war. The sooner we withdraw completely, the better. Bush should be tried as a war criminal.

Certainly will get no arguement here. The simple fact is that Iraq is now facing sectarian violence that we simply can't fix on our own. It is up to the Iraqis themselves who need to fix their current situation. We are simply in the way and get our soldiers killed for nothing, protecting a useless, corrupt Iraqi governemnt. Bush, if he had a single moral bone in his body, should admit that our presense is not helping in the slightest and begin withdrawing our troops.

See, the problem with the Iraq Study Group's report is that if Bush adopted it, the situation in Iraq might actually improve and U.S. Soldiers coul pull out, mission accompished. That would be disastrous, because right now, Bush has accomplished exactly nothing. Not a single plan of action he has begun has finished successfully. Not one. Bowing to the experts on Iraq might blemish his record! Can't have that. :p

The problem with the Iraq Study Group is that they want to negotiate with Syria and Iran, which will not solve the situation in Iraq in any way that's beneficial to the US.

You want to know why I don’t support the troop surge?

I know why: it's a very bad idea.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW011707.jpg

The problem with the Iraq Study Group is that they want to negotiate with Syria and Iran, which will not solve the situation in Iraq in any way that's beneficial to the US.

and here I thought the tag line was how we were doing this "for the betterment of the Iraqi people", not our own nationalist concerns.

Silly me.

The problem with the Iraq Study Group is that they want to negotiate with Syria and Iran, which will not solve the situation in Iraq in any way that's beneficial to the US.

Yes... I can see how negotiation is something to avoid. After all, it makes you look weak. Much better to remain in an adversarial position with these nations and not try to work out our differences. Violence, of course, solving everything. Look how well our strategy of violence is working in Iraq!

You want to know why I don’t support the troop surge? Simple, because George W. Bush advocates it.


Wow...that's so smart... :rolleyes:

Wow...that's so smart... :rolleyes:

Ooooh...you really have a crush on Arthais, don't you...

Ooooh...you really have a crush on Arthais, don't you...

Yeah, he gives me serious wood. Might hafta bang that bad boy on the bathroom sink to get him to settle down. :rolleyes:

You're actually supporting that ridiculous argument? Damn...we disagree on, well, nearly everything, but I thought better of you. At least you usually try to support your opinions with what you consider to be facts. Something change since you got this new nation, Sin?

Yeah, he gives me serious wood. Might hafta bang that bad boy on the bathroom sink to get him to settle down. :rolleyes:

You're actually supporting that ridiculous argument? Damn...we disagree on, well, nearly everything, but I thought better of you. At least you usually try to support your opinions with what you consider to be facts. Something change since you got this new nation, Sin?

Cluich, have you seen me once in this thread actually offer an opinion on the subject either way? I've just been in the peanut gallery enjoying the show.

My comment to you is based on the fact that you seem to follow Arthais around just to post the rolly eye smiley and 'call him out'. It's a bit stalker-ish is all. Did you actually read the whole OP? I'd like to see you actually offer a counter-argument to the intuitive belief that further decisions made by this particular world leader will turn out badly.

Cluich, have you seem me once in this thread actually offer an opinion on the subject either way? I've just been in the peanut gallery enjoying the show.

My comment to you is based on the fact that you seem to follow Arthais around just to post the rolly eye smiley and 'call him out'. It's a bit stalker-ish is all.

I post in lots of threads, as does Arthais. No stalking involved here, just two people posting a lot.

I post in lots of threads, as does Arthais. No stalking involved here, just two people posting a lot.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Yes, I'm in the US, Sin, so I figure I've got a big bull's-eye on my chest as far as you're concerned. Get over it and just knock it off.

I happen to agree with the first post on this thread. I can't wait for 2008.

Yes, I'm in the US, Sin, so I figure I've got a big bull's-eye on my chest as far as you're concerned. Get over it and just knock it off.

Why don't you post on the topic of the thread while you're here, feeling persecuted?

You assume in me an anti-US stance I don't entirely hold.

What makes you a 'target' in my mind is the way you guerrilla-post, sort of akin to how Eut used to...make a snide comment on a thread, post a smiley, and then cut and run.

So I'm challenging you in this case to MAKE your case.

What makes you a 'target' in my mind is the way you guerrilla-post, sort of akin to how Eut used to...make a snide comment on a thread, post a smiley, and then cut and run.


Whoops, sounds like me! :cool:

Whoops, sounds like me! :cool:

*sends an arrow singing home*
THWACK!

I made my case. Simply being against the surge, as the OP himself stated, because the US president advocates it, is downright assinine. "I don't like you, so everything you say, I will oppose." Come now, that's downright absurd.

*sends an arrow singing home*
THWACK!

Haha!

I made my case. Simply being against the surge, as the OP himself stated, because the US president advocates it, is downright assinine. "I don't like you, so everything you say, I will oppose." Come now, that's downright absurd.

Is it? How about addressing the comparisons made? Would you honestly continue to trust someone that has so disasterously led you awry? And if so...why?

His position is not stated as being 'simply because the US president advocates it I oppose it'. He is saying that here is a leader who has NEVER BEEN RIGHT, not once, on any of these important issues listed...and on the balance of probabilities, he isn't going to be right on this. Proof? No. Educated guess. The odds are against this turning out well. Can you deny that? Nor did he say he'd oppose every single decision made by Georgie, rather this one in particular.

Is it? How about addressing the comparisons made? Would you honestly continue to trust someone that has so disasterously led you awry? And if so...why?

His position is not stated as being 'simply because the US presiden advocates it I oppose it'. He is saying that here is a leader who has NEVER BEEN RIGHT, not once, on any of these important issues...on the balance of probabilities, he isn't going to be right on this. Proof? No. Educated guess. The odds are against this turning out well. Can you deny that?

Um...yeah. I can. Even you have been right about a thing or two, although you've been wrong about so much. I don't discount ideas offhand because of the person suggesting them. I judge the ideas themselves. I don't just automatically assume that an idea is wrong based on the person throwing it out there.

And "NEVER BEEN RIGHT?" [emphasis mine, obviously] Get real. Oh, wait...you're right...he could never have been right about anything, because he's a Republican US president -- or in this case, that he's that evil monster George W. Bush.

I made my case. Simply being against the surge, as the OP himself stated, because the US president advocates it, is downright assinine. "I don't like you, so everything you say, I will oppose." Come now, that's downright absurd.

Of course. I'm sure people can't find it that hard to come up with a reason not to like the plan. It's not that difficult after all... it is not as if the president is getting that much suppport afterall.

Um...yeah. I can. Even you have been right about a thing or two, although you've been wrong about so much. I don't discount ideas offhand because of the person suggesting them. I judge the ideas themselves. I don't just automatically assume that an idea is wrong based on the person throwing it out there. Difference here is between ideas and action. GW's ideas on this will lead to action. Do you believe that action, that decision leading to action, is worthy of support DESPITE the bad decisions he has made before in this regard? Do you support throwing good money after bad...risking more lives in the faint hope he'll get this right?

And "NEVER BEEN RIGHT?" [emphasis mine, obviously] Get real. Oh, wait...you're right...he could never have been right about anything, because he's a Republican US president -- or in this case, that he's that evil monster George W. Bush."On these important issues." I'm referring once again to the OP. The OP focussed on certain issues that are related to this new 'idea'. So no, as much as you want me to, I'm not claiming that he's never done anything right ever.



For all the reasons above, I tried very very hard to give President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt. But now, almost four years later, he hasn’t gotten it right once.

There are no terrorist ties, there are no WMDs, there are no crowds greeting us as liberators, there is no democratic oasis in a sea of Islamic Sharia law. There is a helium balloon truck, there are insurgents, there is a corrupt regime that is quite happily informing us that they’d like us out of their country, now please. There is a quagmire. There is a civil war. There is a body count rising daily.

And he hasn’t gotten it right once.

Every single prediction has been wrong
Every single strategy has failed
Every single decision has been in error.

And he hasn’t gotten it right once.


If you need to, reread the rest of the OP where it is specified which policies the OP is referring to. Note, 'everything George W. Bush has ever decided' is not included.

Ok, i just want to quibble on one piece of evidence that keeps coming up as to Bush as a success story.

Tax Cuts ...

Ok so lets say i concede to you that the economy is doing well by traditional standards of Wealth and such...

So if thats your idea of economic success, the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, a continuance of fuck everyone whos not rich....

if those are your standards then YAY! tax cuts, but those of us with a soul can't seem to follow your reasoning ...

Even if the tax cuts are fantastic, it doesn't mean he is automatically qualified to make military decisions. Being really good at snorting coke doesn't make one a surgeon.

Difference here is between ideas and action. GW's ideas on this will lead to action. Do you believe that action, that decision leading to action, is worthy of support DESPITE the bad decisions he has made before in this regard? Do you support throwing good money after bad...risking more lives in the faint hope he'll get this right?

It's called being president. Ideas lead to action. And bad decisions before don't necessarily mean that decisions made in the now are bad.

Now, two points:

1) The lives being risked are by choice. We have a volunteer military. Nobody's being forced into this. They chose to join.

2) Money? Why the hell do you care? It's not your money.

"On these important issues." I'm referring once again to the OP. The OP focussed on certain issues that are related to this new 'idea'. So no, as much as you want me to, I'm not claiming that he's never done anything right ever.

These important issues? Yes, important, it seems, to a Canadian who likes to rant about the eeevil US. It's extremely important to us, too, but we've got a lot of domestic issues here in our country with which we need to deal as well. What's "important" to you, when it comes to our government, frankly, doesn't matter for shite. Our government doesn't answer to you. It answers to the people here, and that's where its responsibility lies.

So no, as much as you want me to, I'm not claiming that he's never done anything right ever.

That's funny. Never seen anything here from you that said otherwise.

Even if the tax cuts are fantastic, it doesn't mean he is automatically qualified to make military decisions. Being really good at snorting coke doesn't make one a surgeon.

Considering our massive spending increases, you could say that the tax cuts were yet another wrong decision of Bush. Who in their right mind thinks, "earn less and spend more" is a sound economic policy?

Even if the tax cuts are fantastic, it doesn't mean he is automatically qualified to make military decisions. Being really good at snorting coke doesn't make one a surgeon.

Wow...that makes sense. Take your nonsensical Bush hatred elsewhere, please. At least until you can come up with some valid argument other than "I HATE TEH BUSH!!!!1one"

Wow...that makes sense. Take your nonsensical Bush hatred elsewhere, please. At least until you can come up with some valid argument other than "I HATE TEH BUSH!!!!1one"

Bush supporters worried about valid arguments backed by evidence, kinda gives a liberal a glimmer of hope, at least maybe his supporters look for valid arguments if he doens't ....

:headbang:

It's called being president. Ideas lead to action. And bad decisions before don't necessarily mean that decisions made in the now are bad.

Now, two points:

1) The lives being risked are by choice. We have a volunteer military. Nobody's being forced into this. They chose to join.

2) Money? Why the hell do you care? It's not your money.
On your attempt here to say, "I'm not going to answer YOU Canuk, because this is our country and it's not your problem"....

This thread was begun by a US citizen. You are avoiding the questions posed simply because I am restating them? That's pretty sad. I don't care about your money, though I do care about your lives. Why? Because they are human lives...I don't give a shit where those lives ended up beginning, but I do care where they end. But my care, or lackthereof is completely irrelevant to this: If you really don't want to consider the issue at all, admit it and move on. But don't try to use me as an excuse for your lack of analysis.



These important issues? Yes, important, it seems, to a Canadian who likes to rant about the eeevil US.
Shall I remind you of the context? You were attempting to claim that I and/or the OP was supporting the idea that ALL DECISIONS MADE BY GEORGE W. BUSH ARE INHERENTLY BAD. I rerouted you to the OP, where the specific policies referred to were laid out. So deal with that. Go back to the first questions...if he has been wrong, time and time again ON THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES...why on earth would you support him when he makes more decisions ON THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES?


It's extremely important to us, too, but we've got a lot of domestic issues here in our country with which we need to deal as well. What's "important" to you, when it comes to our government, frankly, doesn't matter for shite. Our government doesn't answer to you. It answers to the people here, and that's where its responsibility lies. Total red herring. The question was phrased by a citizen of your country. I've simply called you on your total lack to actually address it.



That's funny. Never seen anything here from you that said otherwise. Not the point. Show me where I've ever stated everything George W. Bush has ever decided was wrong. Just because I've never seen you say you're not a handicapped Somalian doesn't mean I can assume you are.

Wow...that makes sense. Take your nonsensical Bush hatred elsewhere, please. At least until you can come up with some valid argument other than "I HATE TEH BUSH!!!!1one"

Take your nonsensical barrel of red-herring elsewhere. Deal with the OP, as I've asked you to. Or just admit you came here to snipe pointlessly at Arthais without intending to actually address the issues raised.

It makes plenty of sense. Do you go to your mechanic to get your teeth cleaned? Bush quite possibly could be good at certain things...but that doesn't make him good in ALL things.

Bush supporters worried about valid arguments backed by evidence, kinda gives a liberal a glimmer of hope, at least maybe his supporters look for valid arguments if he doens't ....

:headbang:

Never once said I'm a Bush supporter.

On your attempt here to say, "I'm not going to answer YOU Canuk, because this is our country and it's not your problem"....

Didn't put it like that, but I'm sure for the sake of rhetoric, you'd like to think that. Try again.

This thread was begun by a US citizen. You are avoiding the questions posed simply because I am restating them? That's pretty sad.

Please, show me where I avoided the question in the OP...

I don't care about your money, though I do care about your lives.

Hey, you're the one who brought up money.

Why? Because they are human lives...I don't give a shit where those lives ended up beginning, but I do care where they end.

How very caring of you...

But my care, or lackthereof is completely irrelevant to this: If you really don't want to consider the issue at all, admit it and move on. But don't try to use me as an excuse for your lack of analysis.

My lack? That's funny.


Shall I remind you of the context? You were attempting to claim that I was supporting the idea that ALL DECISIONS MADE BY GEORGE W. BUSH ARE INHERENTLY BAD.

Your posting history says otherwise, whether under this brand spankin' new name or under Sinuhue. You've spent quite a bit of time here bashing the Bush administration. Not once have I seen you post anything that said, "Hey! Bush got it right!" So...what are we to conclude here?

I rerouted you to the OP, where the specific policies referred to were laid out. So deal with that. Go back to the first questions...if he has been wrong, time and time again ON THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES...why on earth would you support him when he makes more decisions ON THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES?

Hmmm...went back to them. Seems you personal hatred of the man himself has clouded your judgment. Apparently, all of his decisions on these issues are going to be wrong automatically to you.

Total red herring. The question was phrased by a citizen of your country. I've simply called you on your total lack to actually address it.

I've addressed it, and you don't really know what a red herring is, do you?

I'm done here. You can continue your anti-Bush/anti-US rantings (really, they're the same thing with you) all you like. It's clear that getting anything actually resembling reason out of you on anything regarding the US is out of the question, at least as long as G. W. Bush is our president. Tell ya what...you and I can chat again in 2009.

Never once said I'm a Bush supporter.

:D More Hope!

:D More Hope!

I'm a libertarian, so I've got some HUGE problems with the Bush administration. I just get tired of all the hatred tossed at both Bush and the US in general on this forum by self-righteous hacks.

*snip*Nice Cluich. Totally back out of the thread, pretending that the thread is actually about MY opinions. So I think we can safely say, your only purpose here was to snipe. You stated the OP was wrong. I asked you to support yourself. Your reply was "OMG SINUHUE HATES THE US".

Of course, this outcome was exactly what I've come to expect from your past performance. My intuition helped me predict how you'd act here. Weird how that works, no?

I'm a libertarian, so I've got some HUGE problems with the Bush administration. I just get tired of all the hatred tossed at both Bush and the US in general on this forum by self-righteous hacks.

You are projecting. Go back and search me as Neesika and Sinuhue. I've had quite a lot of good things to say about the US, albeit mostly about the people living there. You won't find many anti-US rants, despite your mistaken belief that this is the bulk of what I engage in here on NS.

You're making assumptions about me because you want to, and it helps you avoid actually supporting the position you've taken here (the OP is wrong).

I know why: it's a very bad idea.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW011707.jpg

God Bless Tom Tomorrow!

my only wonder is do we leave now since its lost anyway or limp along for another 2 years losing thousand of our soldiers and tens of thousands of iraqis and elect someone who might have a chance at sorting it out.

In my view its basicaly like this: If u found some asshole had broken into your home and trashed the whole place. Would u let them stay and help clean up? I know I wouldn't, I would want them to PAY for the repair and clean up etc. but I certainly wouldn't trust them to help clean up

and by that i mean they should pay for a third party to clean it up, not get a third party to pay for buddies of theirs to clean it up (Europe pays for Haliburton?)

I made my case. Simply being against the surge, as the OP himself stated, because the US president advocates it, is downright assinine. "I don't like you, so everything you say, I will oppose." Come now, that's downright absurd.

and had you bothered to read my point and attempted to comprehend you'd understand that this wasn't my rationale in the slightest.

In my view its basicaly like this: If u found some asshole had broken into your home and trashed the whole place. Would u let them stay and help clean up? I know I wouldn't, I would want them to PAY for the repair and clean up etc. but I certainly wouldn't trust them to help clean up

and by that i mean they should pay for a third party to clean it up, not get a third party to pay for buddies of theirs to clean it up (Europe pays for Haliburton?)

You forgot some elements to your analogy. There were already two kids who wanted to kill each other. The dad was abusive but he kept them from fighting. They had already "robbed" many of their neigbhors. Once the robber came in the dad attacked him but was then killed. Then the two kids started fighting each other. They also wanted to kick the robber out so that there wouldn't be anything to stop them from fighting. The robber had gone in thinking he could just leave after he had taken what he had wanted. His ended up having to stay to keep the kids from killing each other.


Just sayin.

In my view its basicaly like this: If u found some asshole had broken into your home and trashed the whole place. Would u let them stay and help clean up? I know I wouldn't, I would want them to PAY for the repair and clean up etc. but I certainly wouldn't trust them to help clean up

and by that i mean they should pay for a third party to clean it up, not get a third party to pay for buddies of theirs to clean it up (Europe pays for Haliburton?)

im with ya, ganja.

im coming to the conclusion that we cant fix this. in the beginning of course i thought that we should fix what we broke. its only right. as time goes on, im forced to the conclusion that george bush is so bad at this and so incapable of taking good advice that our best option is to leave but continue doing what we can with money, advisors, technical support, whatever else might be of actual help.

You forgot some elements to your analogy. There were already two kids who wanted to kill each other. The dad was abusive but he kept them from fighting. They had already "robbed" many of their neigbhors. Once the robber came in the dad attacked him but was then killed. Then the two kids started fighting each other. They also wanted to kick the robber out so that there wouldn't be anything to stop them from fighting. The robber had gone in thinking he could just leave after he had taken what he had wanted. His ended up having to stay to keep the kids from killing each other.

remember that when the robber came in, he killed a shitload of of the to little kids' brothers and sisters while killing their abusive dad, sou can see why alot of people mite have a problem with him being the one to keep them apart, or the kid who he likes so he sets up to keep the other two appart.
also keep in mind that this robber is more of a made man, or underboss, if not godfather, and he was paying this disfunctional family to rob iran when is criminal buddies in iran got overthrown by a revolution so deperate that it was willing to rally behind ayatollah khomehni (not sure if thats spelled right).

oh and the buissnes that IS being paid to clean up this house is closely tied to the godfather's family and although alot of the godfather's nations public funds are going down the tubes to keep it up, alot of the funding from those public funds as well as other countries country funds are going into this buddies buissnes so he might have a TEENY bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to decideing when to stop makeing a mess.

jast sayin

Cluich really did turn tail and run from this thread, didn't he?

For anyone who thinks that a withdrawal from Iraq will make things "all right", fro all those who think that ":there is no terrorist threat"..I remind you that Iraq was not invaded on Sept 11 2001, nor was Kuta, nor was Jakarta, we were no in Iraq when the Khobar towers were hit.

Troops and veterans of Iraq SUPPORT the surge and believe its about time the gloves came off.

So...I can sit and listen to a lot of "hate bush" sympathisers..or I can listen to the people who are there and know far more than you do.

Guess which one has more credibility.

And yes, I support PRESIDENT Bush, I support the surge, i support the troops, I support the war..and no there is not one thing you can do to make me change my mind.

Thatisall.:D :D :D

For anyone who thinks that a withdrawal from Iraq will make things "all right", fro all those who think that ":there is no terrorist threat"..I remind you that Iraq was not invaded on Sept 11 2001, nor was Kuta, nor was Jakarta, we were no in Iraq when the Khobar towers were hit.

Troops and veterans of Iraq SUPPORT the surge and believe its about time the gloves came off.

So...I can sit and listen to a lot of "hate bush" sympathisers..or I can listen to the people who are there and know far more than you do.

Guess which one has more credibility.

And yes, I support PRESIDENT Bush, I support the surge, i support the troops, I support the war..and no there is not one thing you can do to make me change my mind.

Thatisall.:D :D :D

i support the troops too, bring them home, they dont have anything against the people they're shooting at and the people they're shooting at have nothing against them, it's not their fight, bring them home before they get killed