What’s the bit about the blind leading the blind?

Beck sounds more like a Baptist preacher than a "news" man.

Media Matters paints Beck as less than credible.



http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/glennbeck

Or consider this take on Beck by James Zogby of The Huffington Post



]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/glenn-beck-a-cause-for-c_b_40310.html



Oh and BTW, net2007, you still haven’t addressed the three questions I repeated here.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=216977

Don't hurry answering what might be difficult questions. I'm retired and I've got loads of time and patience.

Come on, Bof! You accuse Net2007 of not using a credible source, then you proceed to "prove" that with posts from Media Matters and the Huffington Post???? You have to be joking! Those two websites are pretty much as left-wing radical as you can get. (Yeah, I know there are others that are even more wacko, but we reserve those for others to link to here, I won't mention any names beginning with T). Talk about the blind leading the blind, these two websites are a reprise of "Dumb and Dumber".


Aquilla

I did watch the Youtube links.

I don't really have to have Media Matters or Huffington to tell me that man another in a long line of right-wing clowns - not a serious journalist.

Perhaps we shoujld point out that a more objective source like fair.org has also criticized Beck.

A search of their page turns up a couple of unflattering pieces about Beck.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2803

This link loads, but it is a bit slow.

Ok, so now you move on (or is that Moveon as in org) from Media Matters and Ariana's wacko website to FAIR? Like that's an improvement? FAIR is an organization started by some dude from the ACLU who thinks the entire media is right wing biased because they are for profit companies. Sounds like a poster here in this forum. "I" won't mention any names. This is way off topic, I know, and I apologize, but jeez......... I don't have a clue on who Beck is, but it might be helpful to actually quote the guy on the topicat hand instead of depending on what these :::cough::: unbiased organizations have to say about him.


Aquilla

I suppose that is valid if you consider the ACLU the incarnate.

Again the Beck Youtube pieces speak for themselves. Notice the spam on the end of the first one.

Here are a couple of pretty ugly Glenn Beck Youtube pieces. They also speak for themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbg604XqPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtG7-0mKG4c

I would really like to see net2007 come forward with a cogent defense of the Youtube pieces as well as the questions he's avoiding like the plague.

Here they are again.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=216977

As I have repeatedly stated in post after post, you can have all the opinions you want. If your opinion is clearly factually wrong, you provide no evidence whatsoever to support it, and you ignore all evidence to the contrary, you can expect your opinion to be attacked and ridiculed.

You 'can't' tell us your sources? Every single major news outlet repeates its news online. You heard something on CNN? Go to cnn.com and find the story. It's that simple. As for your 'family' and 'school', firstly given that your efforts at listing historical facts have been 100% embarassing failures for you, I'm not sure I would trust your schooling too far... besides, did you take a course in Hisgh school 5 years ago about the current situation in Iraq? I didn't think so.

If you want to be taken seriously, learn to use sources and evidence like the rules of the board dictate. learn to find unbiased infrmation. For heaven's sake, AD even has an area where people LIST resources, all you need to do is click on it and try.





I apologise for being forced to say this, but that is simply a lie. Utter revisionism in an attempt to make your flip-flopping seem less aggregious, and that is easy to prove: all we need to do is take a moment and LOOK at the original context, and see if it matches your revisionism.

So, according to your revisionism, your 'not stretched to the limit' post wasn't talking about troops or the military at all, just about 'America as a whole'?



Oops... that must be really embarassing for you, caught in an outright fib like that?

One wonders why you would try and change your original meaning when we are on a debating board, and your quotes AND their context are all there for people to see.

No, the truth is you believed that the US military had 1.5 million combat troops, and as such was not stretched at all, even though the error of this had been repeatedly pointed out to you, and disproven with sources and cited fact. You repeated it several times before eventually abandoning it, though never admitting your error of course... Sorry to embarass you like that, yet again.




Firstly, the US has been spending money for years trying to increase its troop recruitment: it has nearly tripled the bonuses offered to new recruits and quadrupled them for re-upping in some specialities. It has lowered recruiting standards and increased recruiting ages. It has significantly increased the number of recruiters and engaged in an expensive propaganda campaign on TV and print media. Again., all the 'suggestions' you make are the status quo. And what is the result of the status quo? The US is BARELY meeting recruiting numbers for Amry and Marines, and still not meeting them for reserves and national guard. And lets be clear, curent military recruitment quotas are enough to keep the existing military at existing strength, not significantly increase it. So if all your suggestions have been DONE and the Military is just managing to achieve the status quo... So again, what are your suggestions as to how to increase the available combat troops on the ground?

And let's be very clear. YES, there are candidates and senior officials who wish to increase the size of the US military, but you should READ their plans on how to do this. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has a plan for example, and his plan (which has STILL been criticised as overly ambitious and unrealistic) involves an increase in combat troops over five years. That is NO help to the troop surge which will run out of men by the end of the year.
http://wpherald.com/articles/2994/1/Gates-...-terrorism.html



Of course it was: because for once you managed to ask a question without whinging about how abused you were or throwing personal insults. I explained it to you: do you want covilised conversation? Then converse in a civilised manner. have you not yet realised that the problems you speak of in the discource of this thread are all on you?



And you need to understand that the 'progress' has been minial when compared to the disasterous regress. I agree with BoF about the veracity of your source, but thats not what I am going to deal with, rather I'd like to point out that , biased or not, his error lies in what he had to say.

He talks about 'rebuilding' and 'reconstruction' but then only discusses the rebuilding of schools. Firstly, the original plan was to build 4500 schools, and reconstruction was halted long before that number was reached, though there still were several thousand schools built. he doesn't talk about any of the OTHER efforts of reconstruction, because then he would have to aknowledge what a failure they have been.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6132688.stm

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=9849

http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6123

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7032102418.html

And the utter failure of the Reconstruction was not just 'the opinion of some leftied' but detailed in an extensive report by the US Inspector General. A report by the way, which was released AFTER the 10 month old you-tube clip you posted. Not that Glenn Beck likely aknowledged it...



Firstly, had you READ what I wrote, I clearly said every single one of your historical references (and I mean every single one.) has been PROVEN factually incorrect. Please, please READ what people say before you respond: how many times have you been caught out on a complete misreading of what somebody else said?

Secondly, what in the name of God are you talking about? I have presented REAMS of evidence from a dozen sources that the US military is currently overstretched in Iraq, cannot sustain its current troop surge, and cannot get the recruits to increase numbers. I have backed it up with quotes from senior officials in the Military and civilian administration. "I have not presented a thing"? Are you joking? No, my friend, you have it all mixed up, the person who has never presented a single link, quote or shred of evidence to support their wild assertions is you. All you.



Firstly: well you should. After all, you repeatedly asserting that 16 million Americans died in WWII in the 1950s fighting the communist nazis would be enough to embarass anyone.

Secondly: though you shrunk from actually commenting on it or aknowledging it, I assume you finally understand why your 'research' comment was so funny. Hopefully this will help you understand why it is generally unwise to reference issues you clearly have no understanding or knowledge of.

Thirdly, I also notice you have quietly shrunk away from your other disproven assertions, such as the AQ links with Hussein. I presume that means you have abandoned them as well?

Lastly: I alreagy gave you some detailed advice on how to earn badly needed credibility and how to follow the rules of the board. You posted links to a youtube sources, and disregarding the veracity of the source for the moment, at least you tried to evidence an assertion, so it's a good start. Now, if you feel up to it, perhaps you could start answering the direct questions posed you in various posts, both mine and BoF's listed previously... just a suggestion...

Vermillion, net2007 and others, may I suggest that we post to the topic and not so much to each other? It is meet to answer only that which, in someone's words, addresses the topic. All right, if someone makes an impermissible remark, it's also fine to deliver a succinct rejoinder. But to cavil ad infinitum over who said what and who started it all and who is making impermissible arguments and who is avoiding argument and whatnot is just taking up bandwidth and, if I may be so bold, wasting your own time.

At least, I am sure that no one else is very interested in the details of these essentially personal disputes, and if they must be pursued, best do it in private correspondence.

Vermillion






Right america as a whole, our ability to fight an effective war has not been lost because of this war in other words.





What error, that we have 1.5 million active troops most of whom are obviously not in Iraq, I gave you a link for that so whats the problem? Someone, I think you, then pointed out that they are not all combat troops, some are medics, or lawers, ect ect. I then said that was true but then again its true of all militaries, I never abandon anything I said in regards to that. It takes a grown up to admit when they are wrong about anything so you know what im going to do for you? On the other topic of how many troops were killed in WW2 I just found out from research that the figure I gave was in fact way off, I either read it wrong when I looked it up last year or the site I looked it up at had it listed wrong buts its been a while so I couldn't tell you for sure, I probably read it wrong but in any case I just looked it up again and found out you were right 16 million Americans didn't die in WW2 400 thousand did. 16 million represents the number of Americans who served in WW2 not who died. I have no trouble admitting when i'm wrong about something, but about what I said about us not being stretched When I said I was referring to our countries ability to launch an effective war and not our current troops status I meant just that and I believe it too, This is the most resourceful nation on the planet, with a healthy population and the largest military budget in the world and there is no arguing with that.







If we are doing this already then put more effort into it is all I can say, Of course we have increased recruiting methods and benifets to some extent, we are at war after all, but if its not cutting it, up the effort and think outside of the box there are plenty of people here that would fight for their country. One other example would be to increase the age of troops that can serve as well, why not? You have to consider that in a volunteer war where you don't want to initiate a draft that its going to take extra effort to get a healthy amount of support over seas, war is a time of sacrifice but I believe we can win this if we try. Lets take democratic president JFK as an example to make a relevant point. When he gave his famous moon speech to the American public in the early 60's were we in any way at the time prepared to land on the moon? The answer is absolutely not, but he was a president of big ideas and high ambitions, and he said this nation should commit itself to achieve that goal, so at the time we did what we had to do to make it a reality and thats not what we are doing today in regards to this war, I never have believed this nation has fully committed itself to winning this war because its always been controversial enough to keep half of us in doubt of its importance, in turn those in support of the idea have spent more time trying to appeal to people like you than actually winning the war at all cost. This is not about our inabilities as a county and you darn well know it, its about our lack of will and im not the only one who thnks this obviously, that was the very point of this post and you know what? I agree with it 100%





For once you asked a question without whining about why I don't have enough credit to back my viewpoint when I've told you clearly I don't have many links here in this case, I also don't have a great deal of available time to post because I stay busy, If I have time to go to the news channel web sites like CNN or MSNBC I will, I already posted stuff on Glen Beck only to have someone say he was like a biased baptice preacher for holding his view point when I bet they never watched him enough to know either way, but whats the point anyway? All those on the left will ever do is try and discredit anything I link because it doesn't go hand in hand with what they believe.





No no no now, do you watch Glen Beck???? He is not misleading for the following reason... He said very clearly on the show that its true that things are not all sunshine and lolipops in Iraq and he is under no false impressions that this war has been fought as efficiently as we all would have wanted, this man is a realist, but wants us to know the whole story. An area I refer to as the grey zone because the truth is actually not that everything has gone right, or that everything has gone wrong in Iraq, the truth is however that this war has not lived up to its promise, but that some things have been successful, and this is how I understand things, I see them for what they are and if we've been partially successful here logic dictates that under the right leadership this war could be a success.





The only thing you ever proved I was wrong about was something I just admitted to, a WW2 death toll figure, and that is it, you've proved nothing else. That however was an insignificant technicality, and doesn't make the point I was trying to make with that figure inaccurate in anyway. Remember the point I was trying to make with the figure? Basically that WW2 was a much greater struggle than this war but it was a struggle that we won, does that remain true despite the unfortunate inaccurate figure I gave? Absolutely!




OOhhhh I know you just didnt, that was bold my friend, but I never, and I mean Never said there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, but by all means quote me saying this copy it, and past it here_________________________, do it, and back your own accusations i'm dead serious, if you want to talk the talk, walk the walk as they say, find where I said or suggested this and post it in the blank, otherwise I suggest you get a little better at finding reasons to bash someone for their beliefs, because your not as sharp as you think buddy.







Aquilla


Thanks Aquilla, your alright. Anything anybody post will be in favor of their own points of view. Some deny it while others admit it, I admit it. Glenn beck has even on his show admitted to being very right wing, but here is a man who keeps an open mind and has open ended arguments, he even has liberals on his show constantly, people like Rev. Al Sharpton of all people. However if you try and call some liberals for having links that support their specific view points they will often deny it to the fullest, and this is another reason I don't post links as much as I use to because even if they are looked at by a left winger with opposite points of view they are seen as uncreditable so I don't even bother most of the time anymore unless its absolutely worth my time or I was the one making the post. Not only are you right about BOF sources being biased and extremely left wing, the Glenn Beck vid clips I got ironically were actually from a left wingers haven and thats youtube.

Whether right or wrong, at least Aquilla addressed my post. It doesn’t seem you have courage to answer my questions. In fact, you are hiding behind Aquilla.

Try Here

Edited to add:

I don't know about Youtube being left-wing. There is a lot of stuff on there that isn't political. If they are left leaning, maybe there's no irony. Maybe they were making fun of Beck. He is laughable.

You complain about left-wing sources, but you missed responding to my article from Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute found in post #52 …

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20041013.htm

and the U. S. Census Bureau in post # 90

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p25-1132.pdf

Are the Brookings Institute and/or the U. S. Census Bureau left leaning sources, or do you even have a clue?

ohh yea? Well that was a response for you as well BOF, about your lack of understanding of Glenn Beck, Aquilla made a good point, but what were your other three questions I must have missed them I've been busy replying to Vermilion's responses. By the way who just saw the republican debate? It was interesting, the next one in late July will likely include Fred Thomson a well known actor that played in movies like Die Hard 2, right now i'm fixated on Rudy but Fred defiantly looks interesting im going to do some more research on him because I like many of the things he has had to say.

You still haven't answered any of the points I've made, except giving Aquilla a hearty amen.

Please spare me the biography of Fred Thompson. I know who he is.

Thompson is off-topic, but it seems it is easier for you to change the subject than debate points either Vermillion or I have made.

Still, I applaude your resolve to "research" Thompson. It should keep you busy and out of trouble.

At the "risk" of getting this debate back on topic as to whether or not the US can win this war, I came across an article today that does offer a ray of hope. I don't vouch for the website, no clue on who they are, but I have read similar things from other sources. This one ends in a .ir so I assume it's an Iraqi website.....

The article......

Quoting......



Perhaps not what some would like from a "politically correct" perspective, but I'll take it as a sign of progress in Iraq.


Aquilla

Although I like to see news such as this Aquilla. It really doesn't mean we are being any less politically correct unless the two unidentified gunmen were undercover United States military. If we brought back assasinations can you imagine how many conflicts we could circumvent.

I don't read this as progress. Sure, a bad guy has been assassinated. Here in the US, even though organized crime bosses get offed periodically by other organized crime bosses, I doubt we see a net reduction in organized crime -- a consolidation perhaps -- but not a reduction.

Also, Aquilla, have you had a chance to think about and respond to my last questions to you?

I welcomed you to ask anything, you said there were 3 questions I ignored, I said If I did it was because I was busy replying to Vermillion. Then you just said again I haven't answered any of your questions, or have been avoiding them, so what are the questions for the second time? I addressed what you thought of Glenn Beck and everything you posted shows you don't watch the show anyway, but if there is something more distant you asked I must have missed it. Glenn Beck is fair, and the quotes stating he is an unreliable fascist that bears similarity to a babtice preacher are just not true, The only reason I brought him up is because the things he said that I linked everyone to are in support of the war and so was this post in a sense. Perhaps the post isn't in support of the war as its been fought, but it indicates that fought without being in the shadows of political correctness and overwhelming doubt that it can be won. I agree, Glenn Beck agrees, 9 out of 10 of the republican candidates agree, and so do the majority of republicans in general. Don't try to discredit us simply because 80% of the left wing is in denial, just as former mayor of New York Rudy Guliani often says, you are welcome to your opinion as are we. My opinion is that this war is being lost due to bad policy, political correctness, and because we as a nation are divided, so I express it. You spend your time pulling links in an attempt to discredit the point many of us are trying to make here instead of simply disagreeing with the point and I call that immature.

Okay Net- let me ask you the same question-

1) what do you mean by "politically correct"- DTOM has already said "we can kill bad guys in mosques"- do you think he is lying?

2) What would your politically incorrect solution be- killing entire cities, going all "Saddam" on them?

3) Do you believe we DON'T have to be as brutal as Saddam to "win" this war?

Bonus question:

How would you define a "win"- be specific here please?

In light of the mod note net2007, I withdraw the questions. Just answer those CruisingRam has asked instead.

For the record, I did not call Beck a “fascist.” The Media Matters links talked about him being "inflammatory" and a "flamethrower," among other things, but they did not use the word "fascist." They did talk about our need for journalists in the mold of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, etc. See link.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=217021



I must, however, ask you a final question. What is a “babtice” preacher?

I find it interesting that when one of our people is jumped and killed it's called "an ambush", yet when that happens to one of the bad guys it's called "an assassination". Perhaps that is what Sleeper meant when he first posed the question for this thread. For the record I read the article I cited as meaning a local Iraqi group took out this Al Qaeda guy, not an American black ops unit. And that I would claim as progress in Iraq. At least in this case they weren't killing an American, but rather an Al Qaeda leader, and they were bragging a bit about it. It seems to me that when the Iraqis start realizing that we aren't the enemy and start realizing that the terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda operating in Iraq are, THAT is progress. Perhaps they are beginning to understand that we really don't want to be there and that the sooner that they demonstrate they can secure their own country without our help, the sooner we can leave. Progress to me means the Iraqis start killing terrorists and stop killing Americans. To some that may mean they stop "ambushes" and start "assassinations" and that goes to the heart of the original question posed for debate. I guess it's all in the verbage.

Note to Logo: I tried to respond the other day to your questions and hit the wrong button and blew out my post three times. Thank you for re-posting the link to them and I'll address them tomorrow morning, hopefully only once.


Edited to add a reponse to Logo's questions........

Ok, I understand the reference to "civil", but I disagree with the premise that there is no functioning civil society in Iraq. They have a functioning society, but they don't at the present time have a functioning government and I would argue that the two are not one in the same.



The "final solution" in Iraq is a political solution, not a military one. Military action there is a ways to the means and surrender, or genocide is not the correct way.



True and they probably also reside in a number of other countries including Iraq as well. Your point?


This is a rather incredible statement. You would rather fight them in the streets of Los Angeles than the streets of Baghdad? You would prefer that they blow up a school here with a car bomb instead of them doing that in Iraq? You claim that this isn't "Iraq's fight" yet many on your side (I'm not sure if this includes you or not) claim that the majority of the attacks being carried out in Iraq against Iraqis are perpetrated by Iraqis. If this is true, and it very well may be, how does that make it not Iraq's fight? Keep in mind that just prior to the war, Saddam released thousands of prisoners, many of them convicted of very serious crimes. Here is a link to one article about that. I wonder how many of the kidnappings and other violence against Iraqis are being conducted by some of these people?


Aquilla

While I am also pleased with the news report, I am afraid I must disagree with your assessment of it. This is not progress in Iraq, nor is it anything new.


It has been known for years now that many, if not most of the insurgent groups loathe Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Sadr for example, on of the strongest militia leaders in Iraq, loathes AQ as much as he loathes the United States. There has been internescine struggle between the insurgencies and AQ for several years now. There are a few of these groups that have allied themselves with the US, such as the Anbar salvation Council, but most others are vehement enemies of the United States. The ability of the Insurgents to hate both AQ and the US is not new, it is after all long suspected that the location of al-Zarqawi was given to Americans by local insurgents.

While this has long spelled bad news for AQ, it does not mean good news for the US and the West, as the insurgencies still oppose the US presence violently, and still engage in sectarian killing.


All this new killing does is further evidence what many in the US have been saying for years: Al Qaeda is not the threat in Iraq, they are too isolated and too hated by the Iraq people to ever be a serious contender for a takeover of power. They are small, operate with a few foreign fighters and a few local Iraqis and only make the news at all because of their preference for suicide attacks, thus allowing them to punch slightly above their weight. If the US were to leave Iraq, the spectre of an Al Qaeda takeover in Iraq is simply not a possibility.


The death of this AQ leader is certainly not BAD news, but it takes a bit of a stretch to call it promising or a ray of hope for the Americans, as it alters the situation for the US not at all. Attacks by sectarian insurgents are still on the increase again, even inside Baghdad, the surge's ability to quell violence even a little has essentially failed and attacks per day is on the rise inside baghdad again, and it never diminished outside the city. In the meantime, the Iraqi government continues to be completely unable to govern. In fact, worse than not governing: it seems to be responding to pressure from its internal strong-men such as al-sadr MORE than pressure from the US or pressure to govern. Two of its very few actions in the past few months have been compelling the US to leave Sadr City and abandon one of their marines, at the demand of sadr, and demanding the US release Iranian agents found in the compound of one of his coalition partners.

In february the US authorities placed benchmarks on the progress of the government of Iraq, they needed maliki's government to establish new laws governing the sharing of Iraq's oil resources, allowing many former members of the banned Baath Party to return to their jobs, and amendments to Iraq's constitution. So far, 4 months later, neither of the latter two of these processes has even been STARTED, while the first (the oil sharing law) was drafted but is stuck in the House facing critical opposition. All their self-imposed deadlined for passing these bills have been missed. And what is the response of the Iraqi government to this crisis? They have deided to condense their two-month summer break to just one month. Probably... though many are still in favour of two months. Either way, starting in a couple weeks while US forces are dying to give the Iraqi more time to govern, the Iraqi government having failed to pass a single piece of legislation, will go on vacation.

Yet in january, Bush Jr announced in his speech " We will hold the Iraq government to the benchmarks they have announced". So why isn't he? If the Iraqi government is completely unwilling and unable to govern their cuntry... how many more American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars will be wasted? This has nothing to do with fighting a PC war, and everything to do with fighting a war that even Bush Jr and his administration admit CANNOT be won without the Iraqi government starting to govern: and that is simply not happening.

Come on BoF 10,000 to their “deaths” – are you joking???? – so you feel we will now lose 3X the men we have in 4 years? How will that happen?

The counter argument for this is it makes no sense sir and has no backup.

If we just run out of Iraq as Teddy K wants to do are you really naive enough to think that will be the end of it in the region?
.
The question is can we will and still be politically correct – and I maintain we can as long as we do not go overboard.

Yeah.... Ted, I regret to say this is one of those cases where you really should have looked before you lept. Reading the thread would help prevent you making mistakes like this.

Bof was not predictin 10,000 dead in Iraq, he was responding directly to an earlier comment:






What was the point of that little shot? It isn't your favourite whipping boy 'Teddy K' that wants to withdraw from Iraq, its 63% of all Americans, including a large percentage of Republicans. Not to mention a majority of US troops currently in Iraq, not to mention a majority of Iraqis.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

You are welcome to your opinion of Edward Kennedy, perhaps more than most of us, simply because he is the senior United States Senator from your state. Edit: I do get a little sadistic pleasure in the notion that you are stuck with him and John Kerry. Regardless of how far off the mark I might think you are on a particular issue, I’m not bothered by that.

What really makes me angry is when someone presents misinformation as fact.



Thanks for catching this Vermillion. The original statement about 10,000 or more deaths being acceptable in Iraq was made by net2007. My response to him was dual, that is, how he supports sending an interminable number of soldiers to their deaths, while he foregos military service in favor of twiddling away his days designing video games.

For the record, Ted, I don’t think we’ll have 10,000 military deaths. I am optimistic enough to think that someone, after Bush, will have enough sense to figure some way to get us out of this mess. On the other hand, I've been around long enough to realize my optimism isn't always warrented.

Now let’s look at some statistics and do a little projection.

There were 126 U. S. soldiers (sounds a little more personal than troops, doesn’t it) killed in Iraq in May.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

At that rate we would have 1512 military deaths per year. If we remain there under these conditions, that’s another 6048 deaths.

Add that to the 3497, as Country Joe put it, "boys [and girls][already] brought home in a box" listed in nighttimer’s sig line and we have a projection of 9545. That's getting close.

Again, I don’t think this is going to happen, but it seems death rates are increasing, so it could become a matter of how long we stay there.
How long do you want to stay Ted? Net2007, while not wanting to go fight, seems to advocate leaving ‘em (as Bush would say it) there long enough for that to happen.

I’m reminded of what Adlai E. Stevenson once said:


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/..._stevenson.html

Ted, it’s retraction time.

Note: It really would be nice if this thread could get back on track and stay there, but damn it I'm going to defend myself against misinformation.

I suppose one problem that we’re having staying on topic is that the question for debate seems rather vague to most of us.

Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?

What exactly is meant by that? So we don’t destroy mosques……..we enter and clear them if acting on tips or intelligence (most of the time). We fire back at mosques if we are being fired at from them. But what purpose would be served by destroying an Islamic house of worship in a nation that is essentially ruled (mob-ruled) by Islam? Mosques are frequently used for caches, IED factories and general bases of operation, but the harm of demolishing them, would be greater than the good, in the long run.
Unless it is our intent to utterly subjugate and enslave the Iraqi people, our overall strategy must include a transition from US forces bearing the brunt of security to Iraqi forces. It must include conditioning or persuading the Iraqi people that a quasi-democratic form of government is the right path and the Iraqi Security Forces are qualified to secure that government from radical elements.
So where does the line get drawn between common sense practices and ‘political correctness’? Is using Iraqi names for Operations politically correct? Is increasing the numbers of joint US-Iraqi patrols politically correct?
The military puts more effort into public relations than political correctness. And to be quite honest, PR is half the battle, and in many cases, it cripples our efforts here. Somehow, when NP’s shoot randomly into a neighborhood, or an IED kills or injures local nationals, we get blamed. This is pure speculation, but after spending half a year on the ground so far, I would place bets that more than half of the much ballyhooed 100,000+ Iraqi casualties were killed by their own countrymen.
As far as sensitivity training goes, speaking for the Army, it is not as bad as a few years ago. The Army, the military for that matter, is reactionary. When a sex or an abuse scandal hits the media, the military goes into damage control mode. A few years ago, we were made to endure ‘Consideration of Others’ training on a regular basis. But that has essentially gone away. We still have sexual harassment prevention and EO training that is mandatory, but after a quick refresher class, we are back to business. It doesn’t take up much time.

Somebody will always find fault with the military, depending on their point of view. Some will say it is political correctness, some will say heavy handedness. You can’t satisfy all critics at the same time.

If the person jumped and killed had been a senior official of something AND had been targeted specifically for death, then it would be an assassination. This is not evidence of PC-ness but rather evidence of the correct usage of the term "assassination".


I read it as the killing of a militant leader and not an AQ leader. Perhaps, I read this wrong?


I think Iraqis realize that Al Qaeda is the enemy. Some also believe the US is the enemy. Some Sunnis believe Shias are the enemy and vice versa. Armed factions, i.e. warlords, believe anyone encroaching on their territory is the enemy. There are many enemies in Iraq.


I can't imagine why you would believe there is a functioning civil society in Iraq. First, let's look at the refugee count. From the January 2007, BBC article:
Second, let's look at the civilian death count in Iraq. From the October 2006, Washington Post article Note if you disagree with these numbers, then please show evidence to the contrary. The IBC estimates ~70,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Even if this lower number is correct (which I doubt), it still means everyone in Iraq knows someone who has died due to the invasion/occupation of Iraq by the US.

Third, let's look at the infrastructure. From a January 2007, BBC article:
Fourth, Iraqi security is a farce. I don't even need to provide links for this. Perhaps, you have a different way of looking at this? If so, please provide evidence that Iraq is in fact a "civil" society.


I'm asking if you have even entertained the idea that there is no solution involving military action in Iraq. Or rather, the only military solution is the complete destruction of Iraq. That's all I'm asking.


If you recall, you wrote the following:

Your premise is if we don't fight them there, then we will fight them here. Please, please, please provide evidence for this assertion.


I think you're intentionally confusing the insurgency and civil war in Iraq with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq. But, assuming you are only focusing on terrorist organizations... To prefer fighting terrorists in Iraq rather than in the US is inherently racist. It is also cowardly.

Excuse me???? A racist AND a coward? Care to heat up the rhetoric any more here, logophage? We can most certainly do that. Taking the fight to the enemy isn't the act of a coward. Hiding in a corner, shaking in fear and hoping the enemy doesn't see you and attacks your neighbor..... well, that's something else, perhaps the act of a liberal. You want "proof" that they'll come here? Do a Google Earth on the WTC and see what you see. Now I suppose me not wanting something like that to happen again makes me a "racist". You'd rather they attack us here. If that happens, are you going to take to the streets and fight back, or are you going to hide in the shadows and hope it's my kids that get blown up and not yours.

Aquilla

Even if you are right (and I do not think you are), only a fool does that which is not beneficial to himself over that which is beneficial to his enemy. Call me a racist, call me a troglodyte---do I care? I'd much rather fight al Qaeda in the Middle East then in the US....

I have a question quick. Does fighting al Qaeda in the Middle East necessrily mean we might not have to fight them here, too?

I think the days of WW I and II, Korea and Vietnam may be a thing of the past. We may not be able to choose our military theater in the future.

Taking the fight to the enemy is a reasonable course of action. Preferring Iraqis to die rather than Americans for a fight that is America's and not Iraq's is...well...unreasonable.


If our "neighbor" is Iraq and the "corner [we're] shaking in fear" in is the US, then I agree. I think this is exactly what's happening now. All these hawks would have Iraq and Iraqis be attacked rather than those whose fight this actually involves. Whether this is a "liberal" thing or a "conservative" thing, I'll leave it to you to label to your heart's content.


I'd rather our fight with terrorism not involve innocents (like Iraqi civilians) any more than necessary. I certainly don't prefer it. It is the preference to have Iraq be the center of the fight against terrorism that I find...well...less than brave. Moreover, I am intentionally making politically incorrect statements by referring to this preference the way I have.

You missed that one. Its not proof they will 'come here', but rather proof that their 'coming here' has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the presence of troops in Iraq. Your example shows exactly the opposite: as I recall the US was NOT involved in Iraq when 9/11 occurred, and 9/11 had no link to Iraq whatsoever.

The entire fallacious assertion that 'fight them there or fight them here' presumes there is ANY link between the strength of AQ international and the presence of US roops in Iraq, which is completely wrong. In fact, the US is fully embroiled in Iraq and yet US security just foiled a huge bomb plot against New York Airports. Guess 'fighting them over there' isn't having the desired effect, is it?


In fact, (reality time) it is having the OPPOSITE effect. According to the NIA, the CIA, the IISS and the Pentagon, in seperate independent reports, the US is less safe because of Iraq, and AQ international is MUCH stronger because of Iraq.

It's not 'fight them over there or fight them over here' at all. It is actually 'fight them over here BECAUSE we are fighting them over there'.