"Quagmire" morphs into "A Very Sucessful Effort"

[Grammatron]

I don't think Dem's are backing terrorists, but I am very dissapointed with their description of the war as a failure and unwinable at every chance they get.

 

[rikzilla]

Okey Dokey.

Out of context.

Look, be honest. Can't we have an honest debate? Must you attempt to warp my meaning when I've been quite clear? How does that help your side of the argument?

Failure is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easier than making a meaningful effort, or offering better ideas for victory. The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.[

In purposefully ignoring context you have proven yourself intellectually dishonest. Is that the kind of thing you wish to be known for?

-z

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Out of context.

Look, be honest. Can't we have an honest debate? Must you attempt to warp my meaning when I've been quite clear? How does that help your side of the argument?



In purposefully ignoring context you have proven yourself intellectually dishonest. Is that the kind of thing you wish to be known for?

-z

Ah the old 'I was taken out of context' card.

Look, if you say that the 'democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq', and that they 'Backed the wrong horse...the terrorists', how many ways can that be taken?

 

[rikzilla]

Ah the old 'I was taken out of context' card.

You did; do you deny it? If so you are a liar. But then again you are already a liar. Deliberately taking something out of context is itself a form of lie.

Look, if you say that the 'democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq', and that they 'Backed the wrong horse...the terrorists', how many ways can that be taken?

Why don't you simply look at my real argument; that the democrats have placed themselves to profit politically from defeat in Iraq; and then refute it? Is is so hard to do that you would rather play the dishonest pedant?

If so we have nothing further to talk about. The paucity of your defense of the democratic leadership's vile political manuevering is noted.

-z

 

[LW]

Look, if you say that the 'democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq', and that they 'Backed the wrong horse...the terrorists', how many ways can that be taken?

Two.

The first one is to read "backed" as "supported". I think this is the reading that you use.

I found the second one by looking through a phrase dictionary:

back the wrong horse make a wrong or inappropriate choice

This seems to be Rik's intended meaning.

 

[shecky]

I don't think Dem's are backing terrorists, but I am very dissapointed with their description of the war as a failure and unwinable at every chance they get.

By reasonable measures, it has been a failure. It's still a sh|thole, just different. And we own that failure.

This doesn't mean the situation can't be rectified. But i have a feeling the US will never rectify it to my satisfaction. Why? Because my criteria for US nationbuilding is that the resulting nation has to, at the very least, be a place where I wouldn't mind living with my family. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Uwinnable? Perhaps. The US could have reasonably declared victory any time after Saddam was caught. But it's effort so far has been poor and self sabatoging. Unless the US cleans up it's act and starts acting like a moral authority, it certainly risks being in a unwinnable situation.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

You did; do you deny it? If so you are a liar. But then again you are already a liar. Deliberately taking something out of context is itself a form of lie.


Why don't you simply look at my real argument; that the democrats have placed themselves to profit politically from defeat in Iraq; and then refute it? Is is so hard to do that you would rather play the dishonest pedant?

If so we have nothing further to talk about. The paucity of your defense of the democratic leadership's vile political manuevering is noted.

-z

Yes I do deny it. Had you said something like 'People say the Democrats are backing the terrorists, but I don't think so' and I purposefuly cut out the words 'The Democrats are backing the terrorists' and quoted only that part, THEN I would be taking your words out of context. As it stands, if you meant something other than the way it came out, then it is a mistake on your part, not dishonesty on mine. And if you mean it in some way other than the way it came out, then you really should explain what you originally meant.

Would the Democrats profit politically from a US loss in Iraq. Very likely. Did they put themselves in that position intentionally (as opposed to merely profiting from not being the party that is perceived to have put us there in the first place) then it is up to the person making that claim (i.e. you) to prove, not for me or anyone else to disprove.

 

[Melendwyr]

Hey, it's a sign of great maturity and intelligence to change one's position, right? Just like Bush moving from "we aren't interested in nation-building" to "we will establish a democracy that will revolutionize the entire Middle East". Just look how well that turned out.

How glorious it is that Pres. Carter will join such luminaries as George W. Bush!

 

[rikzilla]

By reasonable measures, it has been a failure. It's still a sh|thole, just different. And we own that failure.

Well I don't believe anyone promised to turn Baghdad into Rome. If we did I swear I must have missed it.

Actually if one were to use "reasonable measures" the entire military operation was a success with the destruction of Saddam's army. Nation building is an entirely different thing.

This doesn't mean the situation can't be rectified. But i have a feeling the US will never rectify it to my satisfaction. Why?

Because you have re-set your goalposts to a ridiculous and unreasonable height. Another form of intellectual dishonesty. Gee, is this what you guys are down to? How sad.

Because my criteria for US nationbuilding is that the resulting nation has to, at the very least, be a place where I wouldn't mind living with my family. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Your "criteria" seems a bit unquantifiable, subjective, and ambiguous. Care to expand on it?

Uwinnable? Perhaps. The US could have reasonably declared victory any time after Saddam was caught. But it's effort so far has been poor and self sabatoging. Unless the US cleans up it's act and starts acting like a moral authority, it certainly risks being in a unwinnable situation.

The "self sabotage" is just what I created this thread to highlight. Political sabotage during time of war. We should expect more from our political "loyal opposition" than crass self interest.

-z

 

[toddjh]

I have to agree that the Democrats are taking the wrong approach.

During the debates last year, I kept hoping and hoping that Kerry would just come out and say something clear and sensible, like, "President Bush took us to war for poorly-thought-out and misleading reasons, but we're there now, and we can't cut the Iraqi people loose. We have a responsibility to them, as our future allies and free people, and, for the sake of all our futures, we need to try to make the best of this situation and make lemonade. The first step is to get rid of the people who keep handing out lemons."

Saying the war is unwinnable or a quagmire is not constructive. Saying "we can get out of this, but first let's dump the people who got us into it" is much better.

Jeremy

 

[rikzilla]

Yes I do deny it. Had you said something like 'People say the Democrats are backing the terrorists, but I don't think so' and I purposefuly cut out the words 'The Democrats are backing the terrorists' and quoted only that part, THEN I would be taking your words out of context. As it stands, if you meant something other than the way it came out, then it is a mistake on your part, not dishonesty on mine. And if you mean it in some way other than the way it came out, then you really should explain what you originally meant.

Would the Democrats profit politically from a US loss in Iraq. Very likely. Did they put themselves in that position intentionally (as opposed to merely profiting from not being the party that is perceived to have put us there in the first place) then it is up to the person making that claim (i.e. you) to prove, not for me or anyone else to disprove.

No one here but you seems to be having trouble understanding my meaning. Perhaps you are from a country where english is not regularly spoken? If so then I shall strive to parse my words more carefully; if not then you are simply playing dumb. (yet another form of game-playing and dishonesty)

JREF is not the right place to play dumb Nyarlathotep. It is generally frowned upon and often ridiculed. You need to stop.

-z

 

[Tony]

"Poison Well"?? Shouldn't you be disputing the validity of the claim rather than the media reporting it?

Not when the media in question acts as a mouth peice for a cult.

 

[Melendwyr]

The "self sabotage" is just what I created this thread to highlight. Political sabotage during time of war. We should expect more from our political "loyal opposition" than crass self interest.

So Democrats and honest Republicans should say and do nothing that goes against the interests of the people currently in charge, as we're at war.

Sweet merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, you're a few ballots short of an election.

 

[Grammatron]

By reasonable measures, it has been a failure. It's still a sh|thole, just different. And we own that failure.

Which reasonable measures?

This doesn't mean the situation can't be rectified. But i have a feeling the US will never rectify it to my satisfaction. Why? Because my criteria for US nationbuilding is that the resulting nation has to, at the very least, be a place where I wouldn't mind living with my family. I don't see that happening any time soon.

So it's based stricktly on your opinion.

Uwinnable? Perhaps. The US could have reasonably declared victory any time after Saddam was caught. But it's effort so far has been poor and self sabatoging. Unless the US cleans up it's act and starts acting like a moral authority, it certainly risks being in a unwinnable situation.

I'm not saying it was a flawless operations and we didn't mess up in some areas. But a failure it is not, and certainly it's not unwinnable as some have called.

 

[rikzilla]

So Democrats and honest Republicans should say and do nothing that goes against the interests of the people currently in charge, as we're at war.

Sweet merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, you're a few ballots short of an election.

How much straw is left? There can't be much (hopefully)

-z

 

[jj]

Is American leftist defeatism finally defeated??

Yet another false portrayal of someone who dares to disagree with the 'Might makes right' crowd.

It's a lie. "leftist defeatism" is no more a fair statement than "right wing naziism". (Well, we'll leave Buchanan, Duke, and that bunch out for now.)

So, why is the "might makes right" crowd using it? Could it be that they simply wish to force people to their position? Could it be another attempt to falsely tar their opponents with FUD? News at 11!

 

[Melendwyr]

No one here but you seems to be having trouble understanding my meaning.

On the contrary, we know precisely what you're attempting to convey.

Perhaps you are from a country where english is not regularly spoken?

Texas?

JREF is not the right place to play dumb Nyarlathotep. It is generally frowned upon and often ridiculed.

That explains a great deal about your history on these forums, doesn't it?

 

[rikzilla]

Not when the media in question acts as a mouth peice for a cult.

Is the Guardian more to your liking?

President Carter Nov 20, 2005
Another disturbing realisation is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq.

Next time remember to argue the evidence...not the outlet you recieved it from...

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Yet another false portrayal of someone who dares to disagree with the 'Might makes right' crowd.

It's a lie. "leftist defeatism" is no more a fair statement than "right wing naziism". (Well, we'll leave Buchanan, Duke, and that bunch out for now.)

So, why is the "might makes right" crowd using it? Could it be that they simply wish to force people to their position? Could it be another attempt to falsely tar their opponents with FUD? News at 11!

It's just my attempt to help you pull your head out and appreciate reality...not to mention fresh air... Feel free to resume your unnatural position...

You know...I didn't tell the head of the US Democratic party to say what he did, nor am I in a position to place words into Murtha's mouth. They have done it...I'm just recognising obvious fact....
-z

 

[Tony]

That explains a great deal about your history on these forums, doesn't it?

Remember, we're talking to the guy who didn't know what "deist" meant. And who claimed US law is based on the 10 commandments.