Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
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.
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. . .
|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.
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 @ 4:35PM|#
""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 @ 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...
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