|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 05/03/2007 : 08:45:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill Scott:
They are catering to their far left base and calling the war lost and trying to force the prez to pull out troops immediately.
Why is it that the Democratic party is catering to its “far left base” anytime it does not agree with the Bush policy of, well, hoping for the best? A majority of Americans would like to see us set time tables and pull out, even if there is some disagreement over how that pullout should be implemented and over how much time. Calling the majority of Americans, including libertarians and some republicans, the “far left base” is nothing but spin and typical of this administrations way of dealing with dissent, no matter where it is coming from. And at this point, that kind of rhetoric is as transparent as glass…
Again, it appears to be that it is in the best interest of the dems to put these time tables under the Bush years, that way all the chaos that will follow a pullout is on Bush's door step. It will be interesting to see what happens to these time tables if a dem is in the WH in 2009. Now a rapid pull out and then the chaos that would follow would be laid (fairly or unfairly) at their doorstep
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 12:16:25 [Permalink]
|
@tomic said:
quote:
That's great but it doesn't mean that when people state the obvious that they are working for Bush. People need to be aware of the fact that when we do leave, it's going to be very, very bad. The CNN analyst is 100% right.
What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?
Such statements are fatuous unless there is some evidence to support them.
Is such a thing a possibility? Sure. But why is it more likely than the possibility that they will negotiate a truce and get on with their lives?
Why is it a given that the worst possible case is what will actually happen?
Far more likely, IMO, is that the countries in the region who have a vested interest in peace will finally be forced to step up and participate in negotiating a lasting peace. Saudi Arabia will be forced to take a role, as well as Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc.
Will there be some fighting between suni and shiite? Until the end of fucking time or until one side wipes the other completely out.
But the idea that they are guaranteed to fall upon one another in a massive bloodbath once we leave the area is nonsense.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 14:09:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
... that way all the chaos that will follow a pullout is on Bush's door step.
There it rightfully belongs.
The invasion of Iraq was a criminal act by International law. It is Bush's duty to take the consequence of his actions.
After the invasion was a fact, Bush violated another international law that states that an invading force is responsible to uphold law and order until such time the invaded country has a police force capable to maintain peace and tranquillity.
It is American obligation to restore order in Iraq. Dude said that would take another 200-300'000 soldiers, and I have no reason to dispute that. Rather, that could be a conservative number.
The civil unrest in Iraq has been bottled up during Saddam's regime, and would have exploded whenever Saddam lost his grip on power. Hadn't Bush decided to get involved, it would have taken a lot more time, and diplomatic efforts could have made a huge difference. Given the right conditions, UN could have helped alleviate the pains of a transition to a non-Saddam secular government. That potential future is all shot to hell now.
Foreign contractors needs to leave Iraq, to be replaced by Iraqi workforce. It's impossible to rebuild an Iraqi economy without Iraqi participation. In that, I agree with Beskeptigal. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 15:45:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic.....
That's great but it doesn't mean that when people state the obvious that they are working for Bush. People need to be aware of the fact that when we do leave, it's going to be very, very bad. The CNN analyst is 100% right. Doesn't mean the CNN analyst is for staying in Iraq. Or did we read different text?
@
If you frame the story as staying or leaving and report leaving will have a bad outcome, you deny any discussion the public might have about what needs to change in order to not have everything fall apart when we leave.
How long can we just go on and on? That is Bush's only discussion of policy change in Iraq. The news media then only discusses leaving or staying, Democrat or Republican. They could put more discussion on the news about the changes that need to occur in Bush's policies. There are educated informed people out there with ideas and information about how the course could be altered.
But you see few to none of these 'experts' on CNN or the other mainstream news outlets.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/03/2007 15:46:32 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 17:16:50 [Permalink]
|
A couple weeks ago in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas had this to say about getting out of Iraq, how it might be a mess when we leave, and how it certainly is a mess while we stay there...
quote:
Texas 14th District Representative Ron Paul, April 17, 2007...
We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying – not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.
Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction- but our leaders offer only hand wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.
[. . .]
Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.
More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 21:30:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you frame the story as staying or leaving and report leaving will have a bad outcome, you deny any discussion the public might have about what needs to change in order to not have everything fall apart when we leave.
No it doesn't. This attitude is about squelching discourse. If someone says that it's their opinion that bad things will happen why does everyone jump on them? It's also been assumed that this analyst is for the war. You see plenty of people talking about changing course. Ignoring that and jumping on anyone pointing out the dangers is sheer foolihness.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 21:32:21 [Permalink]
|
Dude said:
quote:
Will there be some fighting between suni and shiite? Until the end of fucking time or until one side wipes the other completely out.
Where's the support for this nice and objective statement? Why are the skeptics suddenly afraid of contrary opinions? Is there something wrong with an opinion that might interfere with your own perceptions? I saw an immediate attitude of bashing CNN for something that seems very reasonable. The arguments, and I use the word loosely, against the analyst were weak. And I am being kind.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 22:25:16 [Permalink]
|
@tomic said:
quote:
I saw an immediate attitude of bashing CNN for something that seems very reasonable.
So, in your opinion, claiming that the worst case is a given is a reasonable position?
quote:
Where's the support for this nice and objective statement?
The Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been fighting, off and on, for what... 1400 years? You'll just have to pardon my use of hyperbole.
quote:
Why are the skeptics suddenly afraid of contrary opinions? Is there something wrong with an opinion that might interfere with your own perceptions?
No one has a problem with contrary positions, as long as they can be supported by a reasoned argument.
The idea that the worst case is guaranteed to happen, as the CNN analysis suggests, is blatantly fatuous.
There are dozens of likely outcomes to an immediate US troop withdrawal, and no one can say with certainty what will actually happen.
If the right wing (and CNN) would phrase their analysis in terms of probability, rather than certainty, and refrain from insisting that the worst case is a given, then there might be some room for rational debate on the issue.
With the language used by CNN: quote:
A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a "paper tiger," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said.
"It would also play into their strategy, which is to create a mini-state somewhere in the Middle East where they can reorganize along the lines of what they did in Afghanistan in the late '90s," Bergen told CNN.com.
And that used by the president and others in the right wing, there is no possibility of meaningfull debate.
They know what will happen, everyone else is wrong (and stupid, and a traitor, and unpatriotic) if they don't agree.
So I ask again. Why is the worst case a given? What evidence is there that this is what will definitely happen if we leave Iraq?
All I hear from the politicos is the rhetoric, never accompanied by a line of reasoning that can support the conclusion, or a shred of evidence.
Besides, EVERY prediction made by Bush and company has turned out wrong. They have been dead wrong on every single prediction they have made with regard to Iraq, to date.
quote:
The arguments, and I use the word loosely, against the analyst were weak. And I am being kind.
Because there is nothing to actually argue against. No evidence, no line of reasoning, no explanation of why the worst case is more likely than some middle ground case or a best case.
How do they know that the worst case is a given, or even more probable, than anything else?
How can I accept what they are saying as "reasonable" (as you have) just because they say it is so?
Let history inform us for a minute. What was the end result of the US withdrawal from Vietnam? The same kinds of warnings were issued, predictions of doom and dire consequences... Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we have normalized trade relations with Vietnam right now.
So no, the skeptics aren't "afraid" of contrary opinions. We just want the people making the predictions to be able to back them up with reason and evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 01:11:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
If you frame the story as staying or leaving and report leaving will have a bad outcome, you deny any discussion the public might have about what needs to change in order to not have everything fall apart when we leave.
No it doesn't. This attitude is about squelching discourse. If someone says that it's their opinion that bad things will happen why does everyone jump on them? It's also been assumed that this analyst is for the war. You see plenty of people talking about changing course. Ignoring that and jumping on anyone pointing out the dangers is sheer foolihness.
@
You've lost me here. Half the people think it's worse to stay and half think it's worse to leave. Some think the violence will increase whether we are there or not, and a few people have expressed the opinion maybe if we leave the violence will actually decrease.
But nowhere in any of that discussion have I heard anyone say you can't discuss any of it. I have, however, seen a serious lack of any other discourse though.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/04/2007 01:13:27 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 17:28:29 [Permalink]
|
@tomic said:
quote:
It's also been assumed that this analyst is for the war.
I haven't seen anyone here make that assumption.
I certainly didn't. The CNN analysts position on the war is not relevant.
If he were stating that anything else was a given with regard to withdrawal from Iraq (like saying the violence would suddenly end) I'd be just as critical. With no evidence to support the position and no line of reasoning to explain the conclusion.... it can only be called BS.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 17:53:27 [Permalink]
|
Why do I feel that if the analyst had said there wouldn't be an issues in Iraq that this topic wouldn't even exist...
Also note that the title of this topic is CNN warns against Iraq pullout when they did no such thing. An analyst said that a pullout might have certain costs that no one has really addressed. The moral of this story seems to be "Shame on CNN for employing analysts that don't paint rosy picture of Iraq pullout". No one wants the US out of Iraq more than I do but even I see a number of pitfalls.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 17:56:09 [Permalink]
|
@tomic asked:
quote:
Why do I feel that if the analyst had said there wouldn't be an issues in Iraq that this topic wouldn't even exist...
Because you are reading into what people are saying?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 18:08:10 [Permalink]
|
I just want to add that I hope everyone that's bitched about Bush rushing into war is willing to be patient as we withdraw. At least as long as we aren't presented with another Nixon withrawl where we're still in Iraq 8 years from now. A plan that amounts to all the troops gathering up their shit and marching back to Kuwait in 3 days wouldn't do anyone any good.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 20:50:03 [Permalink]
|
@tomic said:
quote:
A plan that amounts to all the troops gathering up their shit and marching back to Kuwait in 3 days wouldn't do anyone any good.
Not to mention logistically impossible. An orderly withdrawal from Iraq will take months to complete.
Not that we are leaving anytime soon.
quote:
Because you are reading into what people are saying?
quote:
No, I don't think so.
Upon reconsideration, your point may have some miniscule merit. I'd like to think that everyone here is capable of examining the issue rationally however.
As I have stated; I personally would not accept statements of such certainty, without evidence and a compelling argument, regardless of what part of the spectrum the statement fell in.
Also, as previously stated, the Bush admin has been absolutely wrong on every prediction they have made about Iraq. So they, and anyone saying the same thing they say, will be held to a high standard of evidence.
I have yet to hear or read any evidence or compelling argument that the worst case is a given if we withdraw from Iraq. The claim is BS.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/04/2007 20:52:18 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
CNN warns against Iraq pullout
