DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Richpo64 on August 02, 2007, 12:25:08 PM
-
What If We Win?
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no "Plan B," which would be success.
Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical "Carousel," who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.
So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. Petraeus could lead 47 moderate to conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass withdrawal legislation. "(It would be) a real problem for us," said Clyburn.
Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat's quest for the White House? Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, "A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years"? Aren't we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats? And don't we all lose if one political "side" wins and it costs others their freedom and puts America in greater peril?
Much of Washington is buzzing over a recent New York Times column by two scholars from the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. In addition to their association with a left-of-center think tank, the two have credibility because they have been harsh critics of the way President Bush has directed the war.
Their column, which was titled "A War We Just Might Win," expresses something we haven't heard in several years: optimism. "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," they write. This surprised them and they saw "the potential to produce not necessarily ?victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."
Testifying last week before the House Armed Services Committee, U.S. Army General John M. Keane said Gen. Petraeus' new offensive has turned the tide against al-Qaida and insurgents alike. "We are on the offensive and have the momentum," said Gen. Keane, citing improved security throughout Baghdad, reduced sectarian violence, and al-Qaida losing ground in Sunni areas.
This is bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat. What would they do; what could they do should pacification, if not unification, set in? It would not be beyond them to ignore the positives and focus only on the negatives. Will the mainstream media support them in such a strategy? Some might, but the "alternative" media, including talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, won't let them get away with it. Democrats may be reduced to asking if the public is going to believe them or their "lying eyes."
On "NBC Nightly News" last week, anchor Brian Williams ignored the column by O'Hanlon and Pollack and instead focused on "a draft U.S. report," saying "there are disturbing new details about corruption at the very top of the Iraqi government." ABC's Terry McCarthy apparently didn't receive, or ignored, the Democratic talking points when he said of the O'Hanlon-Pollack column on "World News Tonight," "the report tracks fairly closely with what we're seeing." David Martin on "CBS Evening News" reported on July 31, "With one day left in the month, American casualties in July are the lowest since the troop surge began in February."
NBC News notwithstanding, these somewhat upbeat assessments on CBS, ABC (and in The New York Times) must be unsettling to a lot of Democrats. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, who flipped on her "favorite" baseball team when it became politically expedient to do so, will have a tough time selling the line, "I believed in victory from the beginning."
Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might.
-
FAR too many Dems have invested in out defeat. Tee's even going around claiming a win over Islamofascist terrorists is a defeat to the entire world because of how we supposedly illegally invaded Iraq. Reid has already proclaimed the war as lost. I don't see any way the left can stand for a win............which translates into the continued effort to proclaim we've lost, continue to undermine both the morale of the troops & bleed the funding to our forces, and to ignore any and all gains made in Iraq, and to substantially minimize whatever report General Patraeus makes, if it dares to demonstrate any progress.
I heard of a recent dialog between the House Majority whip and some reporter asking the Dem policitian what would be the ramifications if we won. The response was something along the lines of "That wouldn't be good". Pretty much says it all
-
Approached from an honest intellectual perspective, this problem is a conundrum. On the one hand, you have diehards arguably invested more in "victory" than vision for the future, and on the other, you have skeptics seemingly undercutting a nation at war. But, as I say, that is the nature of this problem. People can approach it in good faith yet end up blood-smeared or craven, as the case may be, despite their best efforts. That does not, however, excuse any responsible party from engaging in the struggle until the last bit of sanity, prudence and wisdom, if any, can be squeezed from these grapes.
-
Approached from an honest intellectual perspective, this problem is a conundrum. On the one hand, you have diehards arguably invested more in "victory" than vision for the future,
With all due respect Domer, "victory" is pretty clear cut in this matter, from pretty much anyone who's been supportive of our efforts. Victory is the Iraqi people and their democratically elected Government taking care of themselves, and defending themselves from enemies both foreign & domestic, without our overt assistance in the matter. That victory gets closer each day.
The war on Militant Islam is the one you may be trying to reference with your "vision of the future". And that vision should include any and all efforts to take out the threat of militant Islam. You would disagree? A good many Muslims don't support the radicalization of their religion, and the killing of innocents in the name of Allah. At least not rationally minded Muslims.
and on the other, you have skeptics seemingly undercutting a nation at war.
Now, that's an understatement
But, as I say, that is the nature of this problem. People can approach it in good faith yet end up blood-smeared or craven, as the case may be, despite their best efforts. That does not, however, excuse any responsible party from engaging in the struggle until the last bit of sanity, prudence and wisdom, if any, can be squeezed from these grapes.
They "can", but most chose not to. Most chose the asanine false premise that Bush lied us into war, that this is all about oil, yada, blah, etc. Then perpetuate commentary and "conclusions" based on that pre-disposed mindset :-\
-
Cal Thomas.
Was Hans Fritzsche unavailable?
-
Was Hans Fritzsche unavailable?
More Nazi references?
How disappointing!
-
Was Hans Fritzsche unavailable?
More Nazi references?
How disappointing!
But in this case I absolutely mean it.
Cal Thomas has been published in newspapers in the South for years. Unlike Limbaugh, O'Reilley, Hannity, Franken, Rall, etc Thomas is actually taken somewhat seriously by people with a modicum of intelligence. That makes him dangerous, because he lies, distorts, bullies, demonizes, hates, and is an all around ass.
He passes his hogwash out as the Gospel of Cal and a lot of people who should know better buy right into it.
So yeah, Hans Fritzsche must have been unavailable.
Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.
Perhaps I was being harsh on Fritzsche.
-
Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.
Correct me if i am wrong but doesn't Thomas write independently of the government, which was not the case with Fritzsche.
Your analogy is flawed.
-
What If We Win?
it would be bad for democrats if america wins
-
Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.
Ummm, could that be because it's the Democrat party fighting tooth and nail to lose this war, by way of rhetoric that minimizing any and all gains made, the 24/7 demeaning of the President and most of our actions in Iraq, demoralizing our troops by proclaiming how "the war is lost", minus their consitutional ability to defund it IF they believe its so wrong & lost, and not what the American people want?? Of course it's "attacking Dems", since they're the ones so invested in our losing. At least most of them it seems
-
<<What If We Win?
it would be bad for democrats if america wins>>
Source?
-
<<What If We Win? it would be bad for democrats if america wins>>
Source?
I already referenced that Lanya (minus the link, since I simply heard about it on the radio). It was the Democrat Majority whip, when asked the question about what if America wins. His response was along the lines "It would be bad for us" (us as in Democrats)
-
>>But in this case I absolutely mean it.<<
Which nullifies anything you have to say.
-
Lanya: it would be bad for democrats if america wins>>Source?
Demorcat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
source - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html)
-
It isn't the winning that would be so bad , it's anticipateing so much gloating.
-
It isn't the winning that would be so bad , it's anticipateing so much gloating.
which ever side "wins" i doubt there will be a shortage of "told-ya-so's"
-
Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.
Correct me if i am wrong but doesn't Thomas write independently of the government, which was not the case with Fritzsche.
Your analogy is flawed.
No, it has nothing to do with the government or the war. It has to do with the individuals. So dedicated are they (or were they) to their own causes that facts and rational thinking become obstacles. History itself can be altered to suit the needs of their world view. In that sense Thomas is exactly like Hitler's or Stalin's propagandists.
As an example, not all that long ago Thomas used a Muslim prayer from the Koran to attack all of Islam. The problem? The prayer doesn't exist in the Koran. Did that prevent him from using it to wage his ideological war? Of course not. His readers would never bother researching it and on Thomas marches towards whatever goal he has.
Your view is too narrow and mine is not based on government employment.
-
Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.
Ummm, could that be because it's the Democrat party fighting tooth and nail to lose this war, by way of rhetoric that minimizing any and all gains made, the 24/7 demeaning of the President and most of our actions in Iraq, demoralizing our troops by proclaiming how "the war is lost", minus their consitutional ability to defund it IF they believe its so wrong & lost, and not what the American people want?? Of course it's "attacking Dems", since they're the ones so invested in our losing. At least most of them it seems
The president demeans himself and the public view of him is not going to get much lower (how can it?).
I don't buy the "demoralizing our troops" garbage. You talk with both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say "these guys are heroes and the toughest military in the world" and then on the other you say "our poor fragile troops cannot handle any criticism of the war." You cannot have it both ways. Personally, I don't think they are as fragile as you claim. If you ever see a professional infantry platoon in action, you'll see an amazing team of soldiers working together in unison. You'll also note that they aren't likely thinking about politics, constitutional squabbles, and whether sales are up at Wally-world.
-
Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.
Ummm, could that be because it's the Democrat party fighting tooth and nail to lose this war, by way of rhetoric that minimizing any and all gains made, the 24/7 demeaning of the President and most of our actions in Iraq, demoralizing our troops by proclaiming how "the war is lost", minus their consitutional ability to defund it IF they believe its so wrong & lost, and not what the American people want?? Of course it's "attacking Dems", since they're the ones so invested in our losing. At least most of them it seems
The president demeans himself and the public view of him is not going to get much lower (how can it?).
How the hell does he demean himself?? Nice deflection effort Js, but it isn't Bush going around to every microphone claiming how the war is lost, claiming how our forces don't have the equipment to fight, how it's a quagmire of Vietnam level proportions, that he purposely lied us into war, etc., etc., etc. No, that's ALL Dems. And no, Bush's poll #'s still aren't as low as the Democrat led Congress
I don't buy the "demoralizing our troops" garbage.
Well of course, since that would invalidate your current position. Good thing that level of morale has been improving as of late, no thanks to the Dems and 23/7 doom & gloom reporting of the MSM
You talk with both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say "these guys are heroes and the toughest military in the world" and then on the other you say "our poor fragile troops cannot handle any criticism of the war."
I appreciate you making my point. Let's see, where's that criticism coming from again?.........................oh yea, that'd be the Dems
You cannot have it both ways.
I'm not seeking "both ways", that's simply your deflection effort. I'm accurately pointing out, minus the hyperbolic claim that I supposedly made that our troops are impervious to 24/7 demoralizing rhetoric, that the article is accurate in the sense that it does attack Dems for precisely the reasons already outlined. There is a vested interest that we lose the war in Iraq. Reid, Pelosi, and the Democrat Majority Whip can't have made that any clearer.
Personally, I don't think they are as fragile as you claim.
And just as personally, I never made such a claim
-
How the hell does he demean himself??
One does not dip into the 20%'s approval ratings because he is doing such a wonderful job as the President of the United States. Much of the lack of respect Bush receives from Americans and foreign leaders has been well-earned.
And no, Bush's poll #'s still aren't as low as the Democrat led Congress
But it is probably lower than the vast majority of individual Congressmen rated by their own constituents, which would be the equivalent parallel. The problem here is that you are looking at and comparing polls and reading a lot of unscholarly media both from your nutters and their nutters, Sirs. In this case Cal Thomas is right down your alley.
Well of course, since that would invalidate your current position. Good thing that level of morale has been improving as of late, no thanks to the Dems and 23/7 doom & gloom reporting of the MSM
1. You don't know my "position."
2. Your knowledge of morale in Iraq is in all probability absolutely useless.
3. Your crackpot theories on Democrats and "MSM" (whatever that is supposed to mean) add further credence to my point that this article is rubbish.
I appreciate you making my point. Let's see, where's that criticism coming from again?.........................oh yea, that'd be the Dems
That wasn't even intelligble.
There is a vested interest that we lose the war in Iraq.
And therein lies your problem. Simplistic, manichaen thinking strikes again. This is not a situation of "win" and "lose." It is a situation of doing what is in the best interest for all of the people involved. There are numerous ways in which intellectual arguments to answer that can be developed that go far beyond "win" and "lose." Yet, as always you've (actually Cal Thomas whom you simply parrot) have boiled it down to one simplistic and rather stupid Machiavellian political viewpoint where "Dems" have a sinister plot to have the United States "lose" (whatever that means) and the Republicans have a wholesome attitude towards "winning" (which is implied).
The troops need to remain in Iraq, so long as we aren't engaged in propping up some minority anti-democratic regime (some Saudi Sunni satallite). I think we have a moral obligation to keep the Iraqi people safe from violence that our actions allowed to take place. Yet, simply demonizing those who argue other facets of the war by saying they are "demoralising our troops" is - well, propaganda.
minus the hyperbolic claim that I supposedly made that our troops are impervious to 24/7 demoralizing rhetoric
Do you even read the posts? Seriously? I never made that claim. Do I need to bring it down to USA Today standards or something?
And just as personally, I never made such a claim
Of course you did. You said, "demoralizing our troops by proclaiming how 'the war is lost' ". That implies that our troops are somehow fragile.
-
How the hell does he demean himself??
One does not dip into the 20%'s approval ratings because he is doing such a wonderful job as the President of the United States. Much of the lack of respect Bush receives from Americans and foreign leaders has been well-earned.
Well, as I said, the 23/7 reporting of every percevied failure and verbal gaffe goes along way in prompting his current #'s, though I've conceded long ago, he's no real Conservative, and his policies on immigration and lack of spending restraint have significantly helped those #'s dive
And no, Bush's poll #'s still aren't as low as the Democrat led Congress
But it is probably lower than the vast majority of individual Congressmen rated by their own constituents, which would be the equivalent parallel.
Oh, now this is priceless. Now, in order to deflect Congress's even worse #'s than Bush, we judge Bush specifically against each and every politician and their specific district. How convenient. You'll let me know when you've come across those poll #'s, right? ::)
The problem here is that you are looking at and comparing polls and reading a lot of unscholarly media both from your nutters and their nutters, Sirs.
No, the problem here, and as I've said all along, polls mean very little to me. At one time Slavery had a majority support. Polls are simply a snapshot of some public opinion, at that specific time. I only reference them onj occasion after Dems and the left pound people over the head with them, as to how bad Bush is supposed to be
1. You don't know my "position."
2. Your knowledge of morale in Iraq is in all probability absolutely useless.
3. Your crackpot theories on Democrats and "MSM" (whatever that is supposed to mean) add further credence to my point that this article is rubbish.
1) so you support the war, and Bush's efforts to take on militant Islam?? You support how we went into Iraq, and that Bush was completely sincere & honest in how he reported why we went in? My apologies if that's the case
2) Only what's reported, and what can equally be deduced based on the reporting
3) Theories supported by their own words and repetition, and your anger towards it helps validate how precisely on target the piece is
I appreciate you making my point. Let's see, where's that criticism coming from again?.........................oh yea, that'd be the Dems
That wasn't even intelligble.
Head -----> sand
There is a vested interest that we lose the war in Iraq.
And therein lies your problem. Simplistic, manichaen thinking strikes again. This is not a situation of "win" and "lose."
And there in lies your problem....YES, it IS. Just that simple. The effort to try and "intellectualize" the debate, thus reinforcing one of my earlier theads on how apparently "critical thinking" = "liberal thinking", and helps point out the biggest weapon the left thinks they have in taking down Bush, and his so called "war on terror". Throw "nuance" all over the debate, claim how complex and involved any resolutions are going to be. Which of course, no one is denying. But at the end of the day (debate), it comes down to precisely winning this war vs losing this war. I personally want this war won. I know Bush wants this war won. Dems "may" want to win this war, but hate Bush too much to allow that to happen, thus their current line of rhetoric and complete disbanding of their constitutional mandate to defund to war if they believe it's lost, immoral, wrong, "the will of the people", etc.
And just as personally, I never made such a claim
Of course you did. You said, "demoralizing our troops by proclaiming how 'the war is lost' ". That implies that our troops are somehow fragile.
No, it directly states that that listening to such rot can and does demoralize the troops. You're the one trying to equate that to being some fragile flower, ready to cry tears at the next showing of Old Yeller.
-
Oh, now this is priceless. Now, in order to deflect Congress's even worse #'s than Bush, we judge Bush specifically against each and every politician and their specific district. How convenient.
Sure, anyobody can hate a faceless institution. That's easy. Compare apples to apples. But honestly, I could care less. Keep up the petty battle of my president's abysmal poll numbers can beat up your congress' absymal poll numbers. The more flagrantly partisan folks with agendas it keeps occupied, the better.
1) so you support the war, and Bush's efforts to take on militant Islam?? You support how we went into Iraq, and that Bush was completely sincere & honest in how he reported why we went in? My apologies if that's the case
2) Only what's reported, and what can equally be deduced based on the reporting
3) Theories supported by their own words and repetition, and your anger towards it helps validate how precisely on target the piece is
1. Who set those prerequisites? You?
2. Right...
3. LOL - You have no idea if I'm angry or not. Secondly, one's "anger" or other emotions do not prove or validate anything. If a Company Commander at an Army base gets angry at morons who constantly barrage his people with questions of UFO's, that doesn't "validate" their crackpot theories on UFO's. Sometimes people just get tired of crackpot theories Sirs. It is cute when it comes from young children; it is annoying when it comes from adults and is a central thesis to all of their thoughts.
And there in lies your problem....YES, it IS. Just that simple. The effort to try and "intellectualize" the debate, thus reinforcing one of my earlier theads on how apparently "critical thinking" = "liberal thinking", and helps point out the biggest weapon the left thinks they have in taking down Bush, and his so called "war on terror". Throw "nuance" all over the debate, claim how complex and involved any resolutions are going to be. Which of course, no one is denying. But at the end of the day (debate), it comes down to precisely winning this war vs losing this war.
And that is how it starts.
Intellectual movement + hated political groups = anti-intellectualism
That is the standard formula Sirs and you are doing your part very well. All the simpletons get together and loathe the hated intellectuals. It happens in nearly every intellectual movement - modernism & postmodernism are no exceptions.
That tends to be the problem with intellectual movements. They tend to underestimate the simpletons, politics, and how quickly backlash can occur. People don't want to think. It is unnatural for most. They want easy answers. They want dualism - an evil and a good battling for supremacy. They want manichaen thought - black and white. They want to read Cal Thomas or Ted Rall and believe it all without applying any real thought to it (i.e. critical thinking).
New modes of thought are uncomfortable or even frightening. Reality has to conform to the individual, not the individual to reality.
Lord have mercy on us for such a pathetic humanity.
-
Your view is too narrow and mine is not based on government employment.
If my view is too narrow, yours is too broad.
Who does Thomas work for? We know Fritzsche worked for the Hitler Government.
Using the same type of logic would Keith Olbermann be considered a propagandist in your book?
-
Your view is too narrow and mine is not based on government employment.
If my view is too narrow, yours is too broad.
Who does Thomas work for? We know Fritzsche worked for the Hitler Government.
Using the same type of logic would Keith Olbermann be considered a propagandist in your book?
You are perhaps correct that my definition is too broad, but I've read enough of Cal Thomas to know that he is a manipulative and reprehensible columnist.
-
You are perhaps correct that my definition is too broad, but I've read enough of Cal Thomas to know that he is a manipulative and reprehensible columnist.
That may be so , subjective as it is. My beef was with teh inacccurate use of the term prpagandist and the linkage to the nazi's.
Last i heard diversity of opinion was encouraged with the values of those opinions vetted by the back and forth of the marketplace.
-
Oh, now this is priceless. Now, in order to deflect Congress's even worse #'s than Bush, we judge Bush specifically against each and every politician and their specific district. How convenient.
Sure, anyobody can hate a faceless institution. That's easy. Compare apples to apples. But honestly, I could care less. Keep up the petty battle of my president's abysmal poll numbers can beat up your congress' absymal poll numbers.
Not my battle. Simply comparing poll #'s to poll #'s since certain folk want to keep piping in about Bush's poll #'s.
1) so you support the war, and Bush's efforts to take on militant Islam?? You support how we went into Iraq, and that Bush was completely sincere & honest in how he reported why we went in? My apologies if that's the case
2) Only what's reported, and what can equally be deduced based on the reporting
3) Theories supported by their own words and repetition, and your anger towards it helps validate how precisely on target the piece is
1. Who set those prerequisites? You?
2. Right...
3. LOL - You have no idea if I'm angry or not. Secondly, one's "anger" or other emotions do not prove or validate anything. If a Company Commander at an Army base gets angry at morons who constantly barrage his people with questions of UFO's, that doesn't "validate" their crackpot theories on UFO's. Sometimes people just get tired of crackpot theories Sirs. It is cute when it comes from young children; it is annoying when it comes from adults and is a central thesis to all of their thoughts.
1) You claimed I'm ignorant of your "position" on the war in Iraq. I referenced specifics on such.
2) Yea
3) Yea, your tone is oh soo pleasant. ::) Oh, and again nice deflection effort. At this point, I think it's safe to say no one has a clue of what position you're trying to defend or hard left critique of the President, you're attempting to rationalize now
And there in lies your problem....YES, it IS. Just that simple (What's needed to win the war against militant Islam & in Iraq, vs losing both).
And that is how it starts. Intellectual movement + hated political groups = anti-intellectualism
No, not even the same ballpark. I'm not into "intellectualism", so I have no reason to be anti-it. I'll leave that to elitists who believe they're so much smarter than everyone else. I'll focus on reality and logistics, on stabilizing Iraq for a free & democratically run country in the heart of the middle east vs not, on winning the war against militant Islam vs not. I'll leave the ponderous and overt egos of needing to intellectualize the debate, to those who have a much greater grasp of how much smarter they are to the rest of those who simply can't or won't
-
Last i heard diversity of opinion was encouraged with the values of those opinions vetted by the back and forth of the marketplace.
I don't much care about the marketplace and I think the people's ability to vet opinions is vastly overrated (see my point on anti-intellectualism above).
I do agree on diversity of opinion needing to be encouraged though.
-
1) You claimed I'm ignorant of your "position" on the war in Iraq. I referenced specifics on such.
2) Yea
3) Yea, your tone is oh soo pleasant. ::) Oh, and again nice deflection effort. At this point, I think it's safe to say no one has a clue of what position you're trying to defend or hard left critique of the President, you're attempting to rationalize now
My tone? Regardless, the critique in #3 is very specific to your viewpoint from which you frame this debate as "MSM" and "Dems" making demoralising statements about the war. As for #1 you didn't reference specifics, you gave me prerequisites, look at the questions you ask. Hardly open-ended.
No, not even the same ballpark. I'm not into "intellectualism", so I have no reason to be anti-it. I'll leave that to elitists who believe they're so much smarter than everyone else. I'll focus on reality and logistics, on stabilizing Iraq for a free & democratically run country in the heart of the middle east vs not, on winning the war against militant Islam vs not. I'll leave the ponderous and overt egos of needing to intellectualize the debate, to those who have a much greater grasp of how much smarter they are to the rest of those who simply can't or won't
argumentum ad populum mixed with ad hominem attack. Nice.
There's no need to "intellectualize the debate" Sirs. You focus on "reality and logistics" (what you have to do with the logistics of this war is questionable) because there's nothing complex about warfare, international diplomacy, and global economics.
Just keep it black & white and let those egg heads make it too complicated...
-
I don't much care about the marketplace and I think the people's ability to vet opinions is vastly overrated (see my point on anti-intellectualism above).
That sounds almost elitist. Is the failure on behalf of the presenter of the idea by not knowing their targets or is it always on the behalf of consumers who are too simplistic to under stand the nuances of the "intellectual" ?
-
I don't much care about the marketplace and I think the people's ability to vet opinions is vastly overrated (see my point on anti-intellectualism above).
That sounds almost elitist. Is the failure on behalf of the presenter of the idea by not knowing their targets or is it always on the behalf of consumers who are too simplistic to under stand the nuances of the "intellectual" ?
It can be both or something else entirely. Manipulating people is not something new or unprecedented in history, is it?
-
Manipulating people is not something new or unprecedented in history, is it?
Of course not. Portraying your position in its most favorable light is a time honored tradition.
Calling bullshit on that portrayal is also time honored.
And isn't that the give and take we are looking for?
-
1) You claimed I'm ignorant of your "position" on the war in Iraq. I referenced specifics on such.
2) Yea
3) Yea, your tone is oh soo pleasant. ::) Oh, and again nice deflection effort. At this point, I think it's safe to say no one has a clue of what position you're trying to defend or hard left critique of the President, you're attempting to rationalize now
My tone? Regardless, the critique in #3 is very specific to your viewpoint from which you frame this debate as "MSM" and "Dems" making demoralising statements about the war. As for #1 you didn't reference specifics, you gave me prerequisites, look at the questions you ask. Hardly open-ended.
Deducing a position on "X" generally requires a sample of examples to clarify "X" Yet, you continue to plead how I'm ignorant of your position, while you continue to demonstrate your position on "X"
No, not even the same ballpark. I'm not into "intellectualism", so I have no reason to be anti-it. I'll leave that to elitists who believe they're so much smarter than everyone else. I'll focus on reality and logistics, on stabilizing Iraq for a free & democratically run country in the heart of the middle east vs not, on winning the war against militant Islam vs not. I'll leave the ponderous and overt egos of needing to intellectualize the debate, to those who have a much greater grasp of how much smarter they are to the rest of those who simply can't or won't
argumentum ad populum mixed with ad hominem attack. Nice.
"Attack"? You'll of course point out where I personally attacked you, right? vs the criticisms I have regarding elitism, and the mindset that most often accompanies it
There's no need to "intellectualize the debate" Sirs. You focus on "reality and logistics" (what you have to do with the logistics of this war is questionable) because there's nothing complex about warfare, international diplomacy, and global economics. Just keep it black & white and let those egg heads make it too complicated...
Apparently Js is quick to disregard my reference to how there are absolutely complex issues to address in trying to win freedom from insurgents & terrorists in Iraq, and win the war against militant Islam, which *surprise* would include international diplomacy & global economics. Yet the idea of winning vs losing is indeed a black and white concept. Not surprising in the least, I'm afraid. So much easier to deflect such support for the war against militant Islam and those trying to throttle democracy in Iraq as simply those not intellectual enough & unable to grasp the complexities (& of course the nuances) of the situation in the middle east. We is just too dum :-\
-
Last i heard diversity of opinion was encouraged with the values of those opinions vetted by the back and forth of the marketplace.
I don't much care about the marketplace and I think the people's ability to vet opinions is vastly overrated (see my point on anti-intellectualism above).
I do agree on diversity of opinion needing to be encouraged though.
"I think the people's ability to vet opinions is vastly overrated "
What is the alternative?