PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Lies, Misunderstandings, and Misconceptions About Iraq



Teetop
08-19-2008, 02:20 PM
From; The Provocateur. (http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberal-lies-misunderstandings-and.html)

Monday, June 16, 2008
Liberal Lies, Misunderstandings, and Misconceptions About Iraq
Over the weekend, I wrote this piece about common liberal misconceptions about some of the most controversial GWOT techniques. Since that was received relatively well, I have decided to do a follow up about similar misconceptions that liberals have specifically toward Iraq.

1) No one knows what victory is so we can't tell if we are doing well because we won't know if we ever win.

This is a misconception on many levels. First, as long as violence is down and the trajectory on violence continues downward we are winning. In other words as long as everyday brings less and less violence that means we are winning. Furthermore, the reduction in violence has been combined with significant political progress. This progress has not only been seen in many of the so called benchmarks (slowly more than half have been reached), but it also includes significant progress locally in many parts of the country. Locals in places like Ramadi have taken the bull by the horn. They have turned on AQI and other militias and they have restored order mainly on their own. Folks that used to be allied with the enemy are now allied with us and they are now patrolling local streets as part of newly minted police forces.

Furthermore, victory has always been defined as an Iraq, at peace with itself and its neighbors, a stable, self functioning government, capable of defending itself, and an ally in the GWOT. While this maybe a broad and vague form of victory, and one that was demeaned as impossible as late as last year, it is one that is now very close to being achieved. The simple fact of the matter is that the central government has recently not only taken on AQI but the Sadr militias. Maliki's government has shown leadership in taking on the terrorist elements within its borders, furthermore it has begun to function in every way as a representative government of all the people of Iraq.

2) Sunnis and Shias have been fighting for more than a millennial and we are only getting in the middle centuries of bad blood. When things were at their darkest in the war in Iraq, this certainly seemed to be the case. In fact, in the last year and a half this simply is not true. For the most part, Iraqis have chosen peace. We have simply not seen the sort of retribution that we used to see for ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, the central government has begun to function as a coalition of all factions. The military and the police have all begun to function professionally with mixes of each sect.

The reality is that liberals simply saw the Iraqis, and Middle Easterners in general, as some sort of savages that had no understanding of humanity. They saw these folks not as human beings, but as blood thirsty savages that only want to kill and torture those that they view as different. They saw Iraq as some sort of a place where the only motivation for most is the bloodthirsty revenge of prior wrongs perpetrated upon their brethren. That's the way my liberal friend described the situation last August as violence was just beginning to subside and the continued decrease in violence has proven him, and everyone else that holds this opinion, WRONG.
(snip)

:) Lots of links at the URL.

LogansPapa
08-19-2008, 02:36 PM
So let me try to understand this. Violence is down in Iraq because of the Surge and a more massive presence by our folks, right? The bad guys are being tamed (or turned in - for cash, I would presume) by their neighbors that are sick of all of the killing in their various towns and settlements?

Thereís no way in Hell the thugs arenít watching CNN and seeing the distaste for this war building within the Untied States and simply holding their fire until withdraw begins? If everyoneís being fed, the lights are on for a couple of hours every day, and your crap doesnít crawl back up out the toilet - wouldnít you just bury your weapons and wait until the White folk leave?

:confused:

Sonnabend
08-19-2008, 04:12 PM
And LP gets the brass razoo for not understanding a single thing. I'm not going to waste time educating you....you just dont get it.

Liberals....waste of space.

LogansPapa
08-19-2008, 04:16 PM
I'm not going to waste time educating you....you just dont get it.

I that a promise? :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
08-19-2008, 04:31 PM
I that a promise? :rolleyes:

Sadly in your case, yes. You are beyond help.

LogansPapa
08-19-2008, 04:33 PM
Sadly in your case, yes. You are beyond help.

And yet you didnít bother to address the points about the bad guys saving their ammo - guess that means Iím right.:p

Sonnabend
08-19-2008, 05:10 PM
And yet you didnít bother to address the points about the bad guys saving their ammo - guess that means Iím right

..no, it means I have given up trying to drive facts through that slab of concrete you laughingly call a brain.

You and Eyelids are the same..neither one of you will listen.

LogansPapa
08-19-2008, 05:16 PM
You and Eyelids are the same..neither one of you will listen.

You know what I think? You just donít know and are embarrassed to say so. :D

LogansPapa
08-19-2008, 07:13 PM
And there you have it, folks: Nada! :D:D:D

GenYConservative
08-19-2008, 08:39 PM
Say hello to my little friend.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/LPG/50014%7EFinger-Posters.jpg

Sonnabend
08-20-2008, 04:31 AM
And there you have it, folks: Nada!

I went to to work, you fool.

John
08-20-2008, 07:12 AM
Wow, what a total wash of BS!




1) No one knows what victory is so we can't tell if we are doing well because we won't know if we ever win.


If the Congress of the United States had the balls to formally declare this nation to be at war, then this would be a non-issue. Considering that never before has the U.S. declared war without an absolute definition of victory, then the 'victory' in this war is destined to go the way of the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and the War on Iilliteracy. It's just common sense, if one is to 'win' a war, than one must meet objectives. In order to meet objectives, the objectives must be defined. The whole 'It looks good right now, so far' idea of war fighting is exactly how nations lose.




This is a misconception on many levels. First, as long as violence is down and the trajectory on violence continues downward we are winning.


I'm sorry. Since when has it been the responsibility of the U.S. employee, much less, the U.S. taxpayer to keep the peace, on foreign soil? You are saying that so long as our soldiers, sailors and Marines are doing a bang up job at playing Sheriff, we are winning? Dealing with inner turmoil and violence on foreign soil is not a function of the U.S. government. We, the U.S. taxpayers (remember us), aren't responsible for the safety foreign streets. You can call it a 'win', but at 600 billion a year for very low benefits to the U.S. citizen, I'll just drop that debt in the loss column.



In other words as long as everyday brings less and less violence that means we are winning. Furthermore, the reduction in violence has been combined with significant political progress. This progress has not only been seen in many of the so called benchmarks (slowly more than half have been reached), but it also includes significant progress locally in many parts of the country. Locals in places like Ramadi have taken the bull by the horn. They have turned on AQI and other militias and they have restored order mainly on their own. Folks that used to be allied with the enemy are now allied with us and they are now patrolling local streets as part of newly minted police forces.


Oh! Wow! So now "Nation Building" in 'un-enlightened' lands is considered a goal the U.S. should achieve?! So, now the U.S. Federal Government is spending the wealth of future U.S. citizens, and sacrificing the defensive capability of the States in order to secure the fledgling government of a foreign land? This is a good and noble thing?

No, we The People, are not winning. Iraqis are winning on our labor and our blood. The U.S. isn't going to see a 'win' out of this. We The People are going to see debt and loss. Not exactly peak ROI.



Furthermore, victory has always been defined as an Iraq, at peace with itself and its neighbors, a stable, self functioning government, capable of defending itself, and an ally in the GWOT.


Gee! I've always thought victory in Iraq revolved around a safe haven where unicorns danced under cellophane skies. You know, a place where fraggles could get along with the smurfs and they could garden rainbows and prosperity.

Seriously, are you retarded? Look at what we, as an unwilling nation, are trying to do. We are trying to institute, mandate by force, a secular democratic government in the heart of hard core sharia country. It's kind of like preaching Aithism to the bible belt. It's pretty close to trying to push a logging chain up the street, its just stupid and futile, and a complete waste of resources.




While this maybe a broad and vague form of victory, and one that was demeaned as impossible as late as last year, it is one that is now very close to being achieved.


Oh yeah, because the troops really benefit from broad and vague forms of victory. Two thumbs up there Einstein. Your idea of victory, which differs from your neighbors and their neighbors is absolutely unacceptable. If you want to build a little America out of Iraq I have a few suggestions for you.

Stick to what made America American in the first place. The Constitution stupid. If America followed the letter and spirit of the Constitution, we wouldn't have troops in Iraq. That kind of leads to a conundrum..something along the lines of "do what I say, not what I do."

Second, if you want to preach peace, you do so by trade dependence. This whole retardation around peace through 'peacekeeping forces' is insignificant compared to the power of trade. The founders saw this, hell even Penn and Teller's retarded asses saw the potential of trade as a peacekeeping force. Peace through moving troops into a nation to play cop is an absolute inefficient use of resources. Peace through financial independence is a given. Just look at the U.S. and China.




The simple fact of the matter is snip**.

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans are now indentured into decades of debt for very little gain, and whatever gain is accomplished has not been agreed upon. The Constitution is a contract between the citizen and the government. It's binding, yet the government now expects the citizen to labor to fulfill his end of the contract while the government outright ignores their end of the bargain.

Your whole idea revolves around 'victory' in Iraq. Go ahead and claim 'victory' when a foreign government achieves their goals upon the backs of U.S. citizens. You can call it a win all day long. I call it slavery.

LogansPapa
08-20-2008, 10:36 AM
I find it amazing that John can come up with a quite coherent analysis of this subject, but our Australian participant is flummoxed. ;)

Teetop
08-20-2008, 02:00 PM
Seriously, are you retarded?

Obviously, you are. You made it seem like you were quoting me. I didn't write it. Want to discuss it with the author? The URL is provided, retard.

Sonnabend
08-20-2008, 04:56 PM
I find it amazing that John can come up with a quite coherent analysis of this subject, but our Australian participant is flummoxed.

..about what?

You are, as usual, making less than whatever sense it was you had last week.

LogansPapa
08-20-2008, 05:48 PM
..about what?

http://www.garmentdistrict.com/store/popculture/southpark/collectibles/stupid_stick.jpg :p

Goldwater
08-20-2008, 10:47 PM
Furthermore, victory has always been defined as an Iraq, at peace with itself and its neighbors, a stable, self functioning government, capable of defending itself, and an ally in the GWOT. While this maybe a broad and vague form of victory, and one that was demeaned as impossible as late as last year, it is one that is now very close to being achieved. The simple fact of the matter is that the central government has recently not only taken on AQI but the Sadr militias. Maliki's government has shown leadership in taking on the terrorist elements within its borders, furthermore it has begun to function in every way as a representative government of all the people of Iraq.

I thought it was defined as removing Hussein and then installing a democratic government that would inspire the region to follow suit?

John
08-21-2008, 06:43 AM
Obviously, you are. You made it seem like you were quoting me. I didn't write it. Want to discuss it with the author? The URL is provided, retard.

Yes, I am retarded. I wear a fluffy red helmet and ride the short bus to work while licking the windows and picking my nose. Being retarded is great fun, no one expects too much out of you and cute girls always treat you like a puppy. It's not a bad life.

My replies were directed at the Author employing the 2nd person (i.e I called the author "You" because he was the speaker I was addressing). Your name was in the "Originally Posted By" header, along with the ">" link to the original post because it's just proper forum etiquette. I'll go back and fix it so it so it doesn't appear as though I'm refuting your ideas..

John
08-21-2008, 06:51 AM
I find it amazing that John can come up with a quite coherent analysis of this subject, but our Australian participant is flummoxed. ;)

I find it amazing that you find it amazing that I delivered a coherent analysis. I was under the impression that my arguments are at least rooted in well established libertarian philosophies if not supported by outright verifiable fact. :D

Sonnabend
08-21-2008, 08:24 AM
I find it amazing that John can come up with a quite coherent analysis of this subject, but our Australian participant is flummoxed

No, just disinterested in another pissing match with a twerp who wont listen.

Pearls = swine = You.

Nuff said.

LogansPapa
08-21-2008, 10:41 AM
Let's try to connect the dots for you, Sonnabend.

∑ Story Highlights

* NEW: Condoleezza Rice says deal outlines Iraqi sovereignty, U.S.-Iraq relationship
* NEW: Rice speaks after meeting with Iraqi prime minister on unannounced visit
* Trip comes amid reports of preliminary deal on the future of U.S. troops in Iraq
* Iraqi official says U.S. troops to be out of cities June 30, 2009

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Washington and Baghdad are close to completing the terms of a bilateral pact that, among other things, might outline how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, the top U.S. and Iraqi envoys said Thursday.

The United States and Iraq "are working together as partners to make certain we cover the concerns of both parties," including Iraqi sovereignty and the nature of the war-ravaged nation's relationship with the U.S., Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said hours after arriving in Iraq on an unannounced visit.

Speaking alongside Rice at a news conference, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that "there has been a great deal of progress" in formulating a U.S.-Iraqi strategic framework agreement and both sides are "very close to finalizing" the pact.

Rice met earlier with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Shortly after arriving in Baghdad, Rice said she planned to meet with top Iraqi officials on the status of negotiations to keep U.S. forces in Iraq after the expiration of a U.N. Security Council resolution later this year.

Rice said she thought it "might be useful to come out at this stage and get an update and be able to go back and brief the president" on what remains to be done.

"It's a very gratifying time because we're in a position where we believe we're going to be able to hand most security functions to the Iraqis," Rice said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/21/rice.iraq/index.html

If you’re one of the bad guys in Iraq - hearing this - are you going to waste you ammo now, or are you going to wait until June? Or maybe even 2011? Do you remember when it was "a vile betrayal of our troops" and the mission to set a ‘withdrawal deadline.’

Guess that time has passed.:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
08-21-2008, 10:50 AM
I could write a very detailed rebuttal...despite the fact its 0043, and I am tired after a very long day. There is a lot wrong with your position..but as not one word would get through, and I would be using up valuable sleep time to do so...I wont bother.

Pearls - swine = you.

Suffice it to say, that I will not waste time on you, you will not listen even to reasoned arguments, you are a waste of time and space, and you and Eyelids are two sides of the same coin.

Both of you stupid, liberal, narrowminded defeatists.

Now before you do an Eyelids, and jump up and down and say "he didn't reply, he ran away"..I'll say this again.

I am going to bed.

LP, btw...connect this

http://twothirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/middle_finger.jpg

LogansPapa
08-21-2008, 11:14 AM
* notice how he canít help himself and ends up saying something anyway?

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov would be fascinated. :p

Molon Labe
08-21-2008, 11:40 AM
* notice how he canít help himself and ends up saying something anyway?

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov would be fascinated. :p

So much for mods being the models of good behavior. :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
08-21-2008, 04:17 PM
So much for mods being the models of good behavior.

Patience has limits.

LogansPapa
08-21-2008, 04:49 PM
http://blogs.menupages.com/mt/boston/dunce.gif

If you donít know, Sonnabend, then you just donít know.

Molon Labe
08-21-2008, 05:11 PM
Patience has limits.

:p True.