Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

March 30, 2007

Jeff Taylor remembers the good old days when first responders were actually assigned to be the first response to crises, instead of more warm bodies in war zones.

← The Psychedelic Research Frontier | Main | All Hail Supermoms! →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

thoreau|3.30.07 @ 7:29AM|

OK, hawks, let's see some "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" posts.

Come on, I know you dead-enders are capable of this.

|3.30.07 @ 8:18AM|

OK, hawks, let's see some "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" posts.

Come on, I know you dead-enders are capable of this.

Why bother when the only response will be snarky little posts like that. Like anyone here doesn't have an unalterable view of the current military situation as is.

Discussion is generally pointless about this issue.

Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 8:53AM|

It takes more than a little training to convince men with explosives strapped to themselves to jump out of airplanes in the dead of night, land on people who want to kill them, and then proceed to kill those people non-stop until they are relieved or they run out of bad guys.

Um, not sure what Airborn guys he runs into, but the ones I run into don't need convincing, they just need the training to do something they wanted to do anyway.

Oh, and back in my day there was more than one way to properly cross a set of wires. Perhaps they have gone to one method today, but that seems odd. Then again, these new guys are always changing stuff.

|3.30.07 @ 9:04AM|

"Will and wallet, working together, can overcome bad strategy and judgment."

An apt metaphor for backers of all government programs: WOD, WOT, NCLB, SS, Medicare. . .

Dave W.|3.30.07 @ 9:34AM|

US military spending should be cut.

|3.30.07 @ 9:43AM|

John Bolton is not part of "America's strategic brain trust," as his comment pretty aptly demonstrates. He's a political hack arguing from ideology.

You'd think that some four+ years of dismissing complaints as "defeatist," followed by seeing those complaints irrefutable confirmed in the field, would provoke a certain prudent humility. But that's just not how people like John Bolton think.

Once you accept that whatever movement conservatives want to be true must be true, it just becomes a process of figuring out how it is true. Or, if you're feeling lazy, of simply asserting it to be true, and disparaging the motivations of those who disagree.

VM|3.30.07 @ 10:29AM|

"Why bother when the only response will be snarky little posts like that"

whatsamatta, "pain" (if that is your real name)? Why do you hate amurika?

C'mon. You libs wanted CSI level of proof that there were WMDs. Look at Al Caida (of the long island Caida family) - he's there in Irock. What proof do you need? mushroom clouds? let's "do" iran (before canceling subscription and changing minds)!

This was before planes flew into buildings.

can't discuss! can't discuss!

|3.30.07 @ 10:40AM|

Shorter Bolton: We had to destroy the Army in order to save it.

If someone actually wanted to see the goals of PNAC realized, they should do the exact opposite of whatever the people who wrote the damned thing advocate. We need a Bizarro Bolton.

Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 10:42AM|

Still no article about the captured British Sailors and Marines? Paraded around in *ghasp* hoods? Used in propaganda videos!

Guess those guys at Abu Ghraib and Club G'tmo need to take some lessons from Iran on how to treat prisoners and get a free pass from the press.

In other news, minorities in DC should learn from Jim Webb's assistant Mr. Thompson that when they are caught with a concealed weapon the correct answer is "I forgot I had a pistol with me". Reduces dozens of charges down to one! Or does that one only work for whitie?

Dave W.|3.30.07 @ 10:52AM|

For several decades now, the 82nd has been home to the United States' only "division ready brigade." This means that at any time, one of its four combat brigades is ready to deploy 3,300 troops from Ft. Bragg to anywhere in the world within hours.

8:25 a.m.: Boston Center Starts Notifying Chain of Command. Boston flight control begins notifying the chain of command that a suspected hijacking of Flight 11 is in progress. Those notified include the center's own facility manager, the FAA's New England Regional Operations Center (ROC) in Burlington, Massachusetts, and the FAA Command Center in Herndon, Virginia [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/17/2001 pdf file; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 11 pdf file]

10:06 a.m.: Flight 93 Crashes into Filled-in Mine in Pennsylvania Countryside. Flight 93 crashes into an empty field just north of the Somerset County Airport, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, 124 miles or 15 minutes from Washington, D.C. [CNN, 9/12/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; USA Today, 8/13/2002; Associated Press, 8/19/2002; MSNBC, 9/3/2002]

Yeah, I remember the "good old days."

|3.30.07 @ 10:57AM|

"US military spending should be cut." - Dave W.

Actually, I'd say that the military is about the only worthwhile thing the US gov't spends money on. It's the one thing that a free market can't provide, because the purpose of a military force is to break things and kill people, rather than provide goods and services for people to consume... (Yes, I realize that this is going to piss you off.)

To paraphrase joe:

You'd think that some four+ years of dismissing comments as "optimistic," followed by seeing those comments frequently confirmed in the field, would provoke a certain prudent humility. But that's just not how people like joe think.

Once you accept that whatever movement partisans like joe want to be true must be true, it just becomes a process of figuring out how it is true. Or, if you're feeling lazy, of simply asserting it to be true, and disparaging the motivations of those who disagree.

|3.30.07 @ 11:01AM|

Dave W. - What was the point of your 10:52 a.m. post? Are trying to say that the 82d Airborne could have gotten into a C-130, flown over Flight 93, conducted and airborne combat jump over domestic soil onto Flight 93 and forced it to land safely or something? Wow... I'm SERIOUSLY unable to decipher that.

Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 11:06AM|

Are trying to say that the 82d Airborne could have gotten into a C-130, flown over Flight 93, conducted and airborne combat jump over domestic soil onto Flight 93 and forced it to land safely or something? Wow... I'm SERIOUSLY unable to decipher that.

Didn't a variant of that work in a Steven Segall movie?

|3.30.07 @ 11:08AM|

rob,

Funny how that paraphrase doesn't work when the target has been repeatedly right.

Psst - you know what? There really was no WMD threat, Iraq didn't coalesce into a democracy, a civil war did break out, there really was an insurgency, Iraq wasn't working with Al Qaeda, the capture of Saddam didn't end the insurgency, and we didn't turn the corner in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006.

Other than that, that was a real clever snark.

|3.30.07 @ 11:15AM|

John Bolton is not part of "America's strategic brain trust," as his comment pretty aptly demonstrates. He's a political hack arguing from ideology.

Is there a difference between the two?

|3.30.07 @ 11:16AM|

Editor, would you please delete the post at 11:08 from the wicked troll using this name and email address.

Dave W.|3.30.07 @ 11:17AM|

Wow... I'm SERIOUSLY unable to decipher that.

The point is that there is no point spending a lot of money on first responders who can't respond to the crises that actually arise.

Ayn Randian|3.30.07 @ 11:17AM|

Dave W. Thank you...for your head is hollow, and I have touched the ceiling of insanity. Really, you might be the closest thing to a babbling bag lady I will ever meet on the internet. It's a pleasure.

Dave W.|3.30.07 @ 11:18AM|

Actually, I'd say that the military is about the only worthwhile thing the US gov't spends money on.

I agree, to an extent. I also disagree, to an extent.

|3.30.07 @ 11:30AM|

Ah, now I get the Dave logic. It's like this: there was a rash of vandalism here lately. Cars were broken into, and a few homes ended up with broken windows. And the fire department did nothing about it. Clearly, we're wasting money on the fire department.

|3.30.07 @ 11:31AM|

"joe | March 30, 2007, 11:16am | #

Editor, would you please delete the post at 11:08 from the wicked troll using this name and email address."

Not mine. Somebody, probably rob, is getting reaaaalllll bitchy about getting his ass kicked.

|3.30.07 @ 11:33AM|

Heh, how many of you have your own internet stalkers?

Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 11:41AM|

[brief suspension from ignoring joe]

Heh, how many of you have your own internet stalkers?

I had one on Craigs List.

[/brief suspension from ignoring joe]

Dave W.|3.30.07 @ 11:41AM|

Ah, now I get the Dave logic. It's like this: there was a rash of vandalism here lately. Cars were broken into, and a few homes ended up with broken windows. And the fire department did nothing about it. Clearly, we're wasting money on the fire department.

Actually, it is more like:

Let's look at the money and lives actually saved by the fire department over the years and compare that historic, actual value of that with the amount of money we have spent on the fire department over the years.

That is the rational way to determine whether the fire department is cost justified.

btw: in 2002-2003 I lived in a place with no fire department. While I was there they had a special election to see if we wanted to start a fire department. This would have entailed additional local tax (property tax, IIRC). The voters (and I did not vote in this one) decided "no" on the fire department.

|3.30.07 @ 11:49AM|

"Funny how that paraphrase doesn't work when the target has been repeatedly right." - joe

Really? So we didn't successfully overthrow the ruling regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq so fast that most pundits couldn't even form an opinion of the action fast enough to spit out a column? We didn't conclusively defeat those regimes despite claims that it would be a bloodbath, with tens of thousands of our military personnel sent home in bodybags, and that these would be quagmires where there would be no victories?

Yeah, your team has been incredibly accurate in its analysis of the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan... Of course, it makes it tough when you're straining your eyes to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

"There really was no WMD threat?" - joe

So how does this show that it was wrong to invade? The Resolution cites a laundry list of reasons for going in. Claiming that the Bush Admin is the first to mis-read intelligence is kinda cute, tho. Wasn't it Team Blue that came up with the Gulf of Tonkin?

"Iraq didn't coalesce into a democracy" - joe

So? Whether this is a worthwhile effort to U.S. national security is an argument I leave to people who believe in nation-building. Until the current administration got into this business, I always thought that was a Team Blue approach.

"a civil war did break out" - joe

So? This was as inevitable as Yugoslavia's woes. When the dictator dies or is replaced, eventually those factions he brutally repressed will duke it out amongst themselves. Accelerating that process is only hastening the inevitable - the real question of concern is whether this consequence matters to US national security interests or not.

"there really was an insurgency" - joe

So? While I never agreed that everyone in Iraq/Afghanistan would be glad to see the U.S. there, certainly there are a large chunk of Iraqis who were - and are - glad we're there. But that has no bearing on whether or not the U.S. will face an ongoing armed resistance.

"Iraq wasn't working with Al Qaeda" - joe

Doesn't matter. Iraq's dictator tried to assassinate a Bush I, regularly attacked aircraft enforcing the the no-fly zones that the first Gulf War set up, and did support, finance, and harbor known terrorists.

"the capture of Saddam didn't end the insurgency" - joe

Besides attributing that position to other people, was there a lot of claims that Saddam's capture would stop the insurgency? While I'm willing to believe it was said by someone, it's not like a lot of crazy, unrealistic crap hasn't been promulgated by both left & right in pursuance of political gain.

"and we didn't turn the corner in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006." - joe

Remains to be seen - I think this is something for historians to debate, assuming we don't pull a Vietnam-style effort to defeat ourselves.

|3.30.07 @ 11:59AM|

"Not mine. Somebody, probably rob, is getting reaaaalllll bitchy about getting his ass kicked." - joe

Dream on. Beating you like a pinata is what i do. Posting as someone else name is the kind of thing that guys with no intellectual weight do - the sort of thing a guy who beats on straw men would do.

Wait a second! I've got an idea... Could we get the HNR web gurus to check IP address on joe's posts vs. the IP address he claims is falsely posting with his name and email address? It wouldn't be the first time someone has victimized themselves...

Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 12:12PM|

So? This was as inevitable as Yugoslavia's woes. When the dictator dies or is replaced, eventually those factions he brutally repressed will duke it out amongst themselves. Accelerating that process is only hastening the inevitable - the real question of concern is whether this consequence matters to US national security interests or not.

Wait, wasn't that a perfectly fine civil war to be involved in and continue involvement for more that twice as long as we have been in Iraq?

Not directed at you, just at the partisan surrender monkeys who seem to roost here.

|3.30.07 @ 12:19PM|

"and we didn't turn the corner in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006." - joe

"Remains to be seen - I think this is something for historians to debate, assuming we don't pull a Vietnam-style effort to defeat ourselves." -rob

Most amusing. If rob was driving a car off a cliff and the passenger screamed he was killing them both, rob would no doubt calmly say, "that's for the crash investigators to debate. The important thing is that we stay the course." Is there any point at which you are willing to acknowledge that, as even Hirohito had to admit, "the war situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage?"

Guy: regarding your 11:06 post, the correct answer is yes, that only works for whitey. Think of how many black libertarians there would be if they really understood that the white (and the rich, for that matter) don't have to answer to the law in the same way that the black (and the poor) do.

|3.30.07 @ 12:25PM|

rob,

If I were you, I'd want to change the subject, too. Just in case you forgot, the subject here is your smart-assed insistence that I have been repeatedly proven wrong in my statements about our military actions, sort of like how John Bolton has been repeatedly proven wrong.

Just in case you were hoping no one was going to notice that you're trying to weasel away from that, and talk about "my team," whatever that is, or whether the Iraq War was the greatest idea evah, instead of defending the position you staked out: you're busted, weasel.

"Of course, it makes it tough when you're straining your eyes to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." Oh, is that what the last four years have been in Iraq? "The jaws of victory?" No wonder you have so much trouble defining "victory." You literally don't know what victory is!

"So how does this show that it was wrong to invade?" It shows that I was right (and you and John Bolton wrong) about the threat of Iraqi WMDs. Remember, you started this pissing match by comparing my record of answering controversial questions about the Iraq War with John Bolton's.

"So?" So John Bolton said it would happen, and I said it would not. You remember what this pissing match you started was about, right? Does the phrase "has been repeatedly right" ring a bell?

"So?" So I said a civil war was breaking out, and John Bolton insisted that such observations were "defeatism" by people like me, "straining your eyes to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.:"

"So?" So when I said there was going to be and insurgency before the war started, and John Bolton said there wouldn't, I was right, and he was wrong. When I observed that there was an insurgency going on in 2004, and John Bolton didn't, I was right, and he was wrong.

"Doesn't matter." The complete lack of the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection that John Bolton kept harping on, and that I denied, matters very much to your thesis that I have been repeatedly shown to be wrong, in the way that John Bolton has.

"Besides attributing that position to other people, was there a lot of claims that Saddam's capture would stop the insurgency?" Yes, supporters of the war, like say John Bolton, hailed the capture of Saddam Hussein as a severe blow to the "dead enders" who made upo the Iraqi resistance. Forgotten already? The human mind tends to do that with painful memories.

"Remains to be seen (whether we turned the corner in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006)" No, it doesn't. We know for a fact that we did not turn the corner in any of those years - as John Bolton told us we had.

|3.30.07 @ 12:29PM|

"Could we get the HNR web gurus to check IP address on joe's posts vs. the IP address he claims is falsely posting with his name and email address? It wouldn't be the first time someone has victimized themselves..."

Yes, could we?

Please?

Cavanaugh busted old Jean Bart for posting under another name from the same IP address way back when.

Given how frequently this keeps happening, it would be the decent thing to do to look up the IP address of the person who posted under my name and email address at 11:16 AM, and compare it to that of other users?

I think a banning is in order.

|3.30.07 @ 12:31PM|

One more thing rob,

You think you're "beating me like a Pinata."

You also think Iraq has been a victory for us.

So, whatever.

Dave W.|3.30.07 @ 12:43PM|

I think a banning is in order.

I agree. This is one of those issues where they don't listen when you ask nice. Then when you ask not-nice they go after you instead.

Really, they should listen to spoofed regular posters who ask nice. that would be fair and just.

Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 12:45PM|

Guy: regarding your 11:06 post, the correct answer is yes, that only works for whitey. Think of how many black libertarians there would be if they really understood that the white (and the rich, for that matter) don't have to answer to the law in the same way that the black (and the poor) do.

So, do the "long vowel name" and easy tanning skin make me a rare libertarian? Or does being a "small l" exclude me anyway?

|3.30.07 @ 1:14PM|

"Wait, wasn't that a perfectly fine civil war to be involved in and continue involvement for more that twice as long as we have been in Iraq?"

...without a single casualty, in a manner that has enhanced our reputation, causing the replacement of a dictatorship with a stable liberal democracy, ending the widespread slaughter there, increasing our allies' willingness to cooperate with us, and checking the power of our major regional rival.

When the Iraq war accomplishes even one of these, you let us know, Guy.

|3.30.07 @ 1:18PM|

"Most amusing. If rob was driving a car off a cliff and the passenger screamed he was killing them both, rob would no doubt calmly say, 'that's for the crash investigators to debate. The important thing is that we stay the course.'" - James

Your command of hyperbole is most amusing, James. Too bad you haven't got any stronger argument than that.

"Is there any point at which you are willing to acknowledge that, as even Hirohito had to admit, "the war situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage?" - James

When we're losing like the Japanese were, give me a shout.

"If I were you, I'd want to change the subject, too. Just in case you forgot, the subject here is your smart-assed insistence that I have been repeatedly proven wrong in my statements about our military actions, sort of like how John Bolton has been repeatedly proven wrong." - joe

My complaint is with your statements, not with the assessment that Bolton is not much of an analyst. My problem is with your assessments, not Bolton's. I think both of you are wrong, and that the truth lies somewhere in between your whining and his trumpeting. But Bolton isn't here, so I'm arguing with you.

"Just in case you were hoping no one was going to notice that you're trying to weasel away from that, and talk about 'my team,' whatever that is, or whether the Iraq War was the greatest idea evah, instead of defending the position you staked out: you're busted, weasel." - joe

joe has called me a weasel. That certainly settles everything in his favor. Pretending you don't toe Team Blue's line, no matter how much self-delusion you have to pull on yourself to make it look non-contradictory doesn't change the fact that you are a true, Blue partisan.

"Oh, is that what the last four years have been in Iraq? 'The jaws of victory?' No wonder you have so much trouble defining 'victory.' You literally don't know what victory is!"- joe

I know what victory is, and I know what accomplishing it looks like. I'm pretty sure you've never experienced it in the real world outside of board games, video games, and sporting events. (In fact, check any thread you've argued with me and I've clobbered you on to see that I understand the definition of victory.)

"It shows that I was right (and you and John Bolton wrong) about the threat of Iraqi WMDs." - joe

No, it shows you managed to guess right, based on far less information than the people who guessed wrong. That means that you got lucky, not that you're better at intelligence analysis.

"Remember, you started this pissing match by comparing my record of answering controversial questions about the Iraq War with John Bolton's." - joe

No, I showed up to the pissing match you were already engaged in, and pointed where you are full of BS.

" So John Bolton said it would happen, and I said it would not. You remember what this pissing match you started was about, right? Does the phrase 'has been repeatedly right' ring a bell?" - joe

Even a broken clock, like you or Bolton, is right 2x a day.

"So I said a civil war was breaking out, and John Bolton insisted that such observations were 'defeatism' by people like me" -joe

I think you're both right. Crying about civil war before it is actually happening is defeatism. Something you are clearly good at. The fact that it turned into civil war - which is still something of a hyperbole at this point though I tend to agree with it as a description of what concept is happening - to be fairly accurate.

"So when I said there was going to be and insurgency before the war started, and John Bolton said there wouldn't, I was right, and he was wrong. When I observed that there was an insurgency going on in 2004, and John Bolton didn't, I was right, and he was wrong." - joe

You and I both predicted the insurgency and neither of us agreed with Bolton. That doesn't change the fact that both of us were right, but that you're still bad at analysis of military operations and whether they have succeeded. You confuse building Iraq into a Middle Eastern Disneyland of Freedom with military success.

"The complete lack of the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection that John Bolton kept harping on, and that I denied, matters very much to your thesis that I have been repeatedly shown to be wrong, in the way that John Bolton has." - joe

Complaining that the Middle East can be fixed fast enough to suit you is always a winning position. It doesn't make you a brilliant analyst.

"Yes, supporters of the war, like say John Bolton, hailed the capture of Saddam Hussein as a severe blow to the 'dead enders' who made upo the Iraqi resistance." - joe

Sure, the pro-Saddam guys took a beating. Bolton was right about that. But assuming that means the insurgency will end is not the same as that claim. He was right about the pro-Saddam forces, but not about the insurgency. I made a similar call, except I didn't confuse "pro-Saddam dead-enders" with "insurgency as a whole.

"No, it doesn't. We know for a fact that we did not turn the corner in any of those years - as John Bolton told us we had." - joe

Really? Because I'm sure you'd be claiming the same crap about every engagement in every other war ever fought. Actual historians are capable of realizing that analysis at later dates may shed light on what was or was not a "turning point" and will even run entire counter-factual arguments based on that. Even the consensus around a generally accepted major turning point such as Barbarossa during WW2 is subject to ongoing revision:
http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/barbaros.htm

To claim you are omniscient enough to know how it will all end is hubris of the grandest sort. I guess you and Bolton have a LOT in common, in that respect. Do you also share grooming habits? I'd guess you have some wicked facial hair…

"You think you're 'beating me like a Pinata.'" - joe

It happens frequently enough around here, that's for sure.

"You also think Iraq has been a victory for us." - joe

I do, actually. I also think we should've left at the end of major combat operations. But I don't pretend to have enough information to know what we should have done in advance - I just don't hold the kind of clearance that would enable me to make that kind of analysis prior to events. The fact that you do is just plain laughable - like a lot of the Team Blue points you regurgitate on HNR threads. Anyone who claims that we lost in Iraq or Afghanistan is simply chasing defeat for political points. Much like those who claim U.S. forces were "defeated" in Vietnam.

|3.30.07 @ 1:20PM|

"I agree. This is one of those issues where they don't listen when you ask nice. Then when you ask not-nice they go after you instead.

Really, they should listen to spoofed regular posters who ask nice. that would be fair and just." - Dave W.

What Dave W. said. Is there a requirement for a petition before HNR web gurus drop the hammer? Put my name on it if there is.

|3.30.07 @ 1:28PM|

"My complaint is with your statements, not with the assessment that Bolton is not much of an analyst. My problem is with your assessments, not Bolton's. I think both of you are wrong, and that the truth lies somewhere in between your whining and his trumpeting."

And anytime you'd care to discuss an analysis I've gotten wrong, you can just throw it out there.

Because every single statement I made, you've admitted that I was right.

"Because I'm sure you'd be claiming the same crap about every engagement in every other war ever fought.":

You're sure about a lot of things. Like, for example, that I've spent "four+ years of dismissing comments as "optimistic," followed by seeing those comments frequently confirmed in the field." But like most of what you're sure about, that statement doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

Would you care to mention any examples of when I've dismissed comments about Iraq as "too optimistic," and then been proven wrong? Even one?

I didn't think so.

|3.30.07 @ 1:32PM|

"Anyone who claims that we lost in Iraq or Afghanistan is simply chasing defeat for political points."

This is exactly the response the people running this war had back in 03, 04, 05, and most of 06, when defeatists like myself were saying things weren't going well. It's too bad, becasue it they'd been willing to face reality during that period, there might have been the chance to turn things around.

Sadly, winning PR battles in the United States has always been more important than winning actual battles in Iraq, so they decided just to call the complainers names instead.

|3.30.07 @ 1:38PM|

"Beating you like a pinata is what i do."

Shouldn't you be wearing a flight suit, so we can see your bulge?

|3.30.07 @ 1:41PM|

"And anytime you'd care to discuss an analysis I've gotten wrong, you can just throw it out there." - joe

Have you ever known someone who took a math test where they got the answer right, but all of the math in between the question and the answer was wrong, so they actually failed the test because they were unable to show the work they used to get there? You're that guy.

"Because every single statement I made, you've admitted that I was right." - joe

No. You're claiming that victory is impossible. I'm saying we achieved it and should have left long ago. But I'm not so arrogant as to claim that I knew it before-hand, because I realize that I really don't have access to the type of intelligence that a sane person would require before making those calls.

The difference is that you think you're actually a brilliant analyst for guessing right a few times on things that are pretty elementary. (Predicting that Middle Eastern involvement will be a debacle? You're an oracle, man!) I'm the guy pulling the rug out from under the self-congratulatory BS. It takes a special kind of guy to root against his own country. That special short bus obviously has you on it.

"But like most of what you're sure about, that statement doesn't bear any resemblance to reality." - joe

You can't even tell when things are backward and upside anymore, can you?

"Would you care to mention any examples of when I've dismissed comments about Iraq as 'too optimistic,' and then been proven wrong? Even one?" - joe

See quagmire, Afghanistan, body-bags, Iraq. There's two, bud.

"I didn't think so." - joe

No, you don't think, and believe that is the same as making an accurate analysis from information even more limited than what a guy with a piddly Secret clearance can see.

|3.30.07 @ 1:42PM|

At the risk of getting involved in the Iraq round and round, I know there are those who interpret this move as more evidence of we're "stretched to thin" argument, I would also add there may be other reasons for this move.

While the 82nd can technically get to the front faster, for the most part when deployed they get off the plane like everyone else: and a truck takes them to the problem area from the airport. This is how they came into Saudi Arabia in 1990 the last time they were the first resonding unit.

Paradrops are risky, chaotic, and messy things. If possible you want to avoid them. They can only happen under certain weather conditions and certain places. They are also limited by what they can carry on their backs or what they can safely toss out of a plane. And once they are on the ground they have to walk like everybody else.

What makes the 101st the 101st isn't just helicopters. All army units use helicopters. What makes the 101st different is it can essentially pickup the whole division, logistics and all, and move it somewhere else. Then do it all over again when needed. It carries a heavier weapons load out and generally has more assets at it's disposal. So it generally has more flexibility. Of course as a former puking chicken, I'm probably bias.

Also don't discount promotion hungry officers lobbying for their unit to be deployed. I would imagine most officers don't wish for war, but from what I've seen when there's one on they want to be their to make sure they get the required medals and glory.

|3.30.07 @ 1:47PM|

"This is exactly the response the people running this war had back in 03, 04, 05, and most of 06, when defeatists like myself were saying things weren't going well." - joe

There's a difference between admitting that in war things rarely go well and being willing to deny when they do for political gain.

"It's too bad, becasue it they'd been willing to face reality during that period, there might have been the chance to turn things around." - joe

Here's where's joe gets clobbered...

What were your grand solutions to the Iraq situation, oh brilliant, omniscient, political and military savant? Please show us where you were able to draw upon your decades of military and diplomatic experience to show us poor dullards the light and the way to Peace On Earth. (Like I said, failure to show the analysis, rather than making guesses that things go badly in the Middle East or during wars is not the same as being right in your analysis.)

"Sadly, winning PR battles in the United States has always been more important than winning actual battles in Iraq, so they decided just to call the complainers names instead." - joe

You must be looking in the mirror again, joe...

"Shouldn't you be wearing a flight suit, so we can see your bulge?" - joe

Nah. Right branch of service, but I don't wear a bag.

Guy Montag|3.30.07 @ 1:56PM|

Nah. Right branch of service, but I don't wear a bag.

You can borrow one of my flight suits if you fit in a 44L.

Dave W.|3.30.07 @ 2:05PM|

Amazing how many "pro-war libertarians" have a financial interest cooking.

|3.30.07 @ 2:33PM|

Guy Montag - I've had occasion to wear a bag - tho not since my Navy days, and I'm probably more of a 46R kind of guy. But thanks, I consider it a compliment!

Dave W. - Either someone is spoofing your handle like they're doing to joe, or you win the thread for biggest douche-bag, hands down. How long did it take you to go from making totally incomprehensible references to the 82d Airborne to claiming that military service equals financial interest in what you refer to as a "pro-war" position?

Wouldn't you say that being in the military generally gives you the most incentive to keep your nation out of wars? Self-preservation being a common trait among all people, even guys who like to jump out of airplanes?

|3.30.07 @ 3:46PM|

"Have you ever known someone who took a math test where they got the answer right, but all of the math in between the question and the answer was wrong, so they actually failed the test because they were unable to show the work they used to get there?"

Yes. Their luck inevitably runs out, and if they don't know what they're doing, they end up getting a lot of the answers wrong, and failing the test.

So, once again, do you have any examples of me being factually or analytically wrong about the Iraq War? I gave you all kinds of examples of Bolton being wrong.

"The difference is that you think you're actually a brilliant analyst for guessing right a few times on things that are pretty elementary."

"It takes a special kind of guy to root against his own country." Oh, rob, you poor dear. If I wanted to see my country lose, I'd just keep my mouth shut and let you war supporters keep staying the course. That's proven to be the best possible way to ensure that lose this war. I'm trying to SAVE my country from the defeat that you keep insisting we speed towards headlong.

It takes a special kind of person to put his wounded pride ahead of his nation's well being. That's not a problem with your intelligence, rob. Just your character.

"See quagmire, Afghanistan," I never predicted a quagmire in Afghanistan. Please stop confusing me with the liberal in your head.

"body-bags, Iraq." We're up to 3400 of 'em, and averaging 80 more each month.

"There's two, bud." No, that's zero.

"There's a difference between admitting that in war things rarely go well and being willing to deny when they do for political gain." There's also a difference between things actually going well, and pretending they are for political gain. This argument is over, rob. Back in 2004 and 2005, when you were saying that things were going great in Iraq, and complaining that the liberal media was refusing to cover our brilliant success, you were wrong, and I was right.

"What were your grand solutions to the Iraq situation, oh brilliant, omniscient, political and military savant?" I didn't offer any, because I didn't think anything we could do would result in success, so it says nothing about my brilliance that I didn't attempt to formulate a strategy to achieve the impossible.

You deluded hawks, on the other hand, did think victory was possible, and you did offer a strategy for it; stay the course, we don't need to change anything, because we're winning. Well, you were wrong. And not only were you wrong about strategy, you couldn't even see the truth about the strategic environment for which your strategy was supposed to be formulated.

Paul|3.30.07 @ 3:50PM|

Bolton continued. "It is just flat wrong to say that we're so bogged down in Iraq that we can't deal elsewhere. That's a mistake. It's a counsel of defeatism by people who fundamentally don't want us to do it anyway."

Apropos of nothing, in all my years of a corporate slave I've worked for my share of highly paid, and highly inept workaholic executives who could run a thriving company into the ground in eighteen months who had this exact same kind of swaggering attitude as Mr. Bolton displays. I'm not impressed with his 'can do' attitude. The damage caused by the ubiquitous "can do" attitude has probably caused more damage to peoples lives than can be calculated.

|3.30.07 @ 4:27PM|

Best_Thread_Ever

|3.30.07 @ 4:35PM|

""C'mon. You libs wanted CSI level of proof that there were WMDs.""

I'm not a lib but ANYTHING that was actually proof would have been good. Just because some questionable guy in Germany said so, does not amount to proof. Just because the Bush camp sez it's so does not make it so either. Nor does misconstruing facts. Like claiming decades old chemical artey shells still qualify as "mass" destruction.


"""Didn't a variant of that work in a Steven Segall movie?"""

Didn't he die in that?

""The point is that there is no point spending a lot of money on first responders who can't respond to the crises that actually arise."""

Your original analogy was flawed. You have to have a destination to respond. What did you expect them to do, board a plane just to chase another around? Besides, the air is the Air force's job, not the Army's. That would be like calling the Police to put out a fire, or calling the Fire dept. to catch a criminal.

Rob if takes you as long to beat a pinata as you are "beating" Joe, you'll never get the candy.

""""It's too bad, becasue it they'd been willing to face reality during that period, there might have been the chance to turn things around." - joe

Rob said -
Here's where's joe gets clobbered...

What were your grand solutions to the Iraq situation, oh brilliant, omniscient, political and military savant? Please show us where you were able to draw upon your decades of military and diplomatic experience to show us poor dullards the light and the way to Peace On Earth. (Like I said, failure to show the analysis, rather than making guesses that things go badly in the Middle East or during wars is not the same as being right in your analysis.)""""

Rob, appeal to personal attack is a fallacy and does not promote your side of the argument. As far as I know, Joe is not in charge nor is he paid by the taxpayers. Therefore, he is not responsible to have a "grand solution". If the "grand solution" was a requirement to debate the issue, the Whitehouse, Pentagon, and Congress would have to keep their mouths shut.

|3.30.07 @ 4:36PM|

The last time I was told that being right too early demonstrates my intellectual incapacity, was in a global warming thread.

Hey, rob. Hey, conservatives. You want liberals like me to be less smug? Stop assuming your own infallability.

Maybe, just maybe, you can't actually divine the truth by assuming that your political ideology means you're always right.

|3.30.07 @ 4:40PM|

Maybe, just maybe, you can't actually divine the truth by assuming that your political ideology means you're always right.

You should tape that on your mirror so you can read it every morning.

|3.30.07 @ 5:11PM|

"The damage caused by the ubiquitous "can do" attitude has probably caused more damage to peoples lives than can be calculated." - Paul

Word. Bolton's a buffoon. Of course, joe may be only second best, but he tries harder …

"Yes. Their luck inevitably runs out, and if they don't know what they're doing, they end up getting a lot of the answers wrong, and failing the test." - joe

Actually, they could get ALL of the answers right, and still fail the test because they failed to show the work. Nice dodging, tho.

"So, once again, do you have any examples of me being factually or analytically wrong about the Iraq War? I gave you all kinds of examples of Bolton being wrong."

Read my previous post where I give you two examples: Afghanistan quagmire and Iraq body-bag claims.

How was your analysis of how things were going in Afghanistan and Iraq during the invasions again?

"If I wanted to see my country lose, I'd just keep my mouth shut and let you war supporters keep staying the course. That's proven to be the best possible way to ensure that lose this war. I'm trying to SAVE my country from the defeat that you keep insisting we speed towards headlong." - joe

The war was won a long time ago. Remember the end of "major combat operations?" The rest has just been nation-building, which rarely goes well.

"It takes a special kind of person to put his wounded pride ahead of his nation's well being. That's not a problem with your intelligence, rob. Just your character." - joe

I couldn't have said it better, joe. Unfortunately, you accidentally typed "rob" instead of "joe." That happened to me once, so I'll give you a pass on it.

"I never predicted a quagmire in Afghanistan. Please stop confusing me with the liberal in your head." - joe
Oh, joe, your self-contradiction and denial of claims you made only a year ago just makes me sad for you:
joe | April 24, 2006, 3:40pm | #
Yup, we sure did clean up those Taliban. Nice and easy.

As easy as winning in Iraq and a nice clean exit in short order. No quagmire there!

I'll grant you that those who predicted that staging a vote and getting a majority of delegates to vote in favor of a Constitution would be impossible - both of those productions were carried out, and it is only the insurgency-ending, democracy-bringing outcomes that have proven impossible.

Given the mass murders of Sunni by Shia that are occurring throughout Iraq, the Shia revolt and Civil War have pretty clearly come to pass, too.

From: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113598.html

"We're up to 3400 of 'em, and averaging 80 more each month." - joe

Why do you say that so gleefully? Like you think that it's a winning strategy for you to point it out in your effort to convince people that 3,400 casualties is a good enough reason to give up and go home?

" No, that's zero." - joe

Learn to count.

"There's also a difference between things actually going well, and pretending they are for political gain." - joe

And I've never claimed that the team you hate so much doesn't indulge in the same thing. My beef is with your hypocrisy, though.

"This argument is over, rob. Back in 2004 and 2005, when you were saying that things were going great in Iraq, and complaining that the liberal media was refusing to cover our brilliant success, you were wrong, and I was right." - joe

Frankly, I'm still right on that point. Every success is played as a failure, every minor set-back is a tragedy. 3,400 casualties is utter defeat, an insurgency is an utter defeat, a civil war is utter defeat, yet we can continue to fight and win if we choose and have thus far. While I might think that what we are staying there for (nation-building) is a pointless waste of money and resources, and wish that we'd left at the end of major combat operations, the reality is that the U.S. can stay in Iraq indefinitely, suffering minor damage, and the only way the U.S. can be forced out is if we convince ourselves it's for the best.

"I didn't offer any, because I didn't think anything we could do would result in success, so it says nothing about my brilliance that I didn't attempt to formulate a strategy to achieve the impossible." - joe

You get an "F-" for "strategery" then, joe. The reality is that you don't have anything substantive to say other than "I guessed a few things right, ignore the things it's been pointed out that I was wrong about" and the delusional belief that you can make better decisions than the National Command Authority based on far less intelligence than they have access to.

"You deluded hawks," - joe

I'm no hawk, joe. I would rather no one I know have seen Iraq or Afghanistan. But violence requires a violent response.

"on the other hand, did think victory was possible, and you did offer a strategy for it; stay the course, we don't need to change anything, because we're winning." - joe

Actually, we've won everything worth winning there. My strategy now would be to put up a big sign that says "Don't Make Us Come Back" and leave. Of course, I think that way about Afghanistan as well. But you think that it's OK to be there forever, but Iraq is ideologically different somehow, and that the fact that you feel differently about it makes it worth "staying the course" there.

"Well, you were wrong." - joe

Keep telling yourself that, pal. Maybe you'll convince yourself.

" And not only were you wrong about strategy, you couldn't even see the truth about the strategic environment for which your strategy was supposed to be formulated." - joe

Please discuss, using quotes from my posts and an in-depth analysis of how 1) you knew better and 2) your omniscience, and lengthy political, military, and diplomatic experience can show us all the way forward. Of course, you can't show the work and you obviously know that as you said, eventually a guy who doesn't know how to do the analysis will stop guessing right.

|3.30.07 @ 5:17PM|

"appeal to personal attack is a fallacy and does not promote your side of the argument. As far as I know, Joe is not in charge nor is he paid by the taxpayers. Therefore, he is not responsible to have a "grand solution". If the "grand solution" was a requirement to debate the issue, the Whitehouse, Pentagon, and Congress would have to keep their mouths shut.' - TrickyVic

Actually, since he's claiming he was right at every turn and that he knows better than people with political, military and diplomatic credentials and experience, I'd say that joe DOES owe us his analysis for how he came to those conclusions.

I'd also say it would be a god-send, if he actually had been right on all of these subjects (he wasn't, despite his claims and as shown), for someone as brilliant as he is to step up and offer his solutions to the current situation. It's not an attack to point out that selectively choosing your issues with 20/20 hindsight can give you a perfect score. It's also not a personal attack to point this out.

"Rob if takes you as long to beat a pinata as you are 'beating' Joe, you'll never get the candy. " - TrickyVic

Yeah, I should quit when I'm ahead, I know. But beating the pinata was always more fun than the candy. Like the anticipation of Christmas presents is almost always better than the presents themselves...

|3.30.07 @ 5:41PM|

Actually, it's Friday... I'm outta here.

|3.30.07 @ 7:44PM|

rob,

No one gives a damn if discredited Iraq hawks think the other side has "shown their work" enough. We were right, you were wrong, and those of us credibility left will draw the appropriate conclusions without suffering you fools.

I refuted both of your examples of supposed false predictions, in case you didn't notice.

That quote doesn't contract my statement that I didn't predict a quagmire in Afghanistan - it neither indicates such a prediction, nor demonstrates that I think there is a quagmire.

"Why do you say that so gleefully?" Why do you so dependly fall back on RNC talking points?

"The war was won a long time ago. Remember the end of "major combat operations?" The rest has just been nation-building, which rarely goes well." Not according to the people, on both sides, fighting it.

"The reality is that you don't have anything substantive to say other than "I guessed a few things right, ignore the things it's been pointed out that I was wrong about" and the delusional belief that you can make better decisions than the National Command Authority based on far less intelligence than they have access to." I did get the questions right - the ones you got wrong - whatever verb you choose to use. Also, nice cowering behind the so-called experts. You know, the ones who came up the strategy that's losing the war. Worst. Appeal to Authority. Ever. And when did you become so beholden to experts?

"3,400 casualties is utter defeat, an insurgency is an utter defeat, a civil war is utter defeat, yet we can continue to fight and win if we choose and have thus far." Straw man again? Wow are you getting beaten up! Did you miss the part where I said I was trying to avoid defeat? I know you don't do well with basic logic, but I wouldn't have thought verb tense was beyond you.

"I'm no hawk, joe. I would rather no one I know have seen Iraq or Afghanistan. But violence requires a violent response." Look up "hawk," dope.

"Please discuss, using quotes from my posts and an in-depth analysis of how 1) you knew better and 2) your omniscience, and lengthy political, military, and diplomatic experience can show us all the way forward. Of course, you can't show the work and you obviously know that as you said, eventually a guy who doesn't know how to do the analysis will stop guessing right."

Tongue my hole, asswipe. Why should I do all the work? Why would I bother trying to discuss ideas with you?

|3.30.07 @ 8:05PM|

bill,

I know that, intellectually, simply assuming the truth is the opposite of what Republicans say it is cannot be a healthy habit, and I try to avoid it.

But it's hard, because for years now - years - it has proven to be an extremely reliable method of discerning the truth.

It would be good to see my side lose an argument on the merits. At this point, we could probably use a corrective.

|3.31.07 @ 1:42PM|

"Tongue my hole, asswipe." - joe

This pretty much sums up your whole personality, joe.

Why would I bother trying to discuss ideas with you? I don't bother. I just show the multiple ways that you are the guy you are. Holding up a mirror to the pustulent nastiness of your soul is all it takes, and pointing out that your partisanship has blinded you to how nasty a person you really have become.

|4.1.07 @ 11:29AM|

"Why would I bother trying to discuss ideas with you?"

Because, like numerous other regulars, you find the exchange of ideas with people you disagree with, but who have interesting and well-developed ideas, to be interesting, and an effective way to sharpen your own understanding? But, of course, you don't.

"...how nasty a person you really have become."

Since this comes from a person who's entire contribution to these threads in an average week amounts to repeatedly interrupting other people's conversations to post long treatises devoted to insulting me, I'm not terribly interested in what you think about my personality.

|4.2.07 @ 11:27AM|

"Because, like numerous other regulars, you find the exchange of ideas with people you disagree with, but who have interesting and well-developed ideas, to be interesting, and an effective way to sharpen your own understanding? But, of course, you don't." - joe

Actually, I do enjoy the exchange of ideas. I particularly enjoy those exchanges with people who don't share my viewpoint, because it gives me an opportunity to test my ideas. But it's only enjoyable when the person I'm discussing the issues with can do so in a rationale manner. You occasionally rise to this level, but for the most part you stick to flinging crap at people who disagree with you, like an angry monkey. (In other words: spirited debate - good; non-rational poo-flinging - bad.)

But on those occasions when we agree I point it out. There are also those rare occassions when you disagree with someone here and yet manage to do so in a civil manner without resorting to ad hominem attacks that reveal your twisted authoritarianism and latent racism, sexism, and classism.

It's really your hypocritical, partisan nonsense and foul, intellectually dishonest tactics that grate on my nerves.

"Since this comes from a person who's entire contribution to these threads in an average week amounts to repeatedly interrupting other people's conversations to post long treatises devoted to insulting me, I'm not terribly interested in what you think about my personality." - joe

"Since this comes from a person who's entire contribution to these threads..." has been to end a discussion with "Tongue my hole, asswipe," exactly who do you think believes you when you claim to be interested in a civil, non-acrimonious discussion of ideas? Who do you think reads your subsequent post, following your profane insult - and gives credibility to your complaints about "interrupting other people's conversations?"

Leaving exactly how you would define an interruption on an open thread, and how that could possibly be worse than your comments, as an intellectual exercise for anyone willing to waste their time conducting it still leaves one question: Why do your insults reek of misogynism and self-hatred over repressed homosexual tendencies? Why is it that you think that sort of profanity is clever, the same way that you think that equating weakness with being female or gay - the infamous "nancy" comment - is a witty insult?

Man, you've got a head chock FULL of bad wiring!

"in an average week amounts to repeatedly interrupting other people's conversations to post long treatises devoted to insulting me, I'm not terribly interested in what you think about my personality." - joe

Oh, joe, if only the world really did revolve around you...

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com