Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (54584)	1/22/2007 2:38:52 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"The first sentence is a fact" The implication that his "chance" has been vitiated is NOT, however, a fact. "And President Bush often says he is doing what he thinks necessary "to succeed in the mission", logically implying that we haven't succeeded" President Bush has always qualified that the successful democratization of Iraq is ongoing--not complete. Your tone in "he has had his chances for three years" implies a quite different message. If somebody quotes me two quotes from two people, to wit: "I am doing what I think is necessary to succeed in the mission" and "he has had his chances for three years" and if that somebody told me that it was either you or the President paired with one or the other statement irrespective of the personal pronouns (which were blinds)--I am damn sure I would know whom said what--because your statements strike me as quite dissimilar. President Bush is saying: We have succeeded in many of our goals in Iraq but the process is ongoing and incomplete. Is that what you are saying? Fine. Then you really are saying the same as the President. Nice to witness such respect for the President and support for the effort and for the troops. You're a good guy. "Nothing in these posts or ANY of my posts supports your claim that I have said ad nauseum that the coalition involvement in Iraq is a complete failure" We have gone over this. You cannot challenge the fact that your assertions were made to the point that I experienced nausea, so repeating the ad nauseum part is irrelevant. And I have already conceded you did not use the actual word "failure" in the three posts that I was referencing. I explained that I considered "not succeed" and such to be equivalent to suggesting failure. Suggesting that you were just speaking for the view of President Bush when you said "The whole idea that 140k troops couldn't succeed in 3 years, but 161k troops probably WILL succeed, and that is striking fear into the hearts of the Dems sounds like your paranoid cynical fantasy to me." seems odd to me--but you have spoken so lets move on. "the above qualitative things arent really measurable milestones" You did not ask me what was "measurable". You asked me if there were "some method of "determining progress". The ends referenced are indeed subject to assessment and evaluation. Nor are they difficult to evaluate in most countries. And the assessment of these variables truly show whether and to what degree progress is being made. "I would say if the new policy is "clear and hold", then the public should be made aware of which districts or blocks have been cleared and when, and then we should be made aware of the murder rates in those "cleared and held" locations." Fine--but I doubt if the Government will take the time or trouble to collate the information for public consumption. What does the public know about the streets and blocks of Iraq? And what are the security implications of informing the enemy of holdings and strengths and movements of troops and so forth. No...I wouldn't hold my breath for those sorts of details for a public whom has never been in the military, has never been to Iraq, doesn't speak Arabic, is not Muslim, and has never managed much more than their own family. "What would be the chances of Congressional approval if Bush had proposed a 15 year occupation of Iraq in 2002" How do you get "15 years" from MY statement of "a long process winning out over time." I have not heard President Bush say 15 years, and I am surprised you inferred that specific number. One thing is certain. President Bush is not a soothsayer and neither is anybody else in Congress. I don't think anyone estimated how difficult dealing with fanatics would be. Lack of prognostic precision hardly invalidates efforts to move forward. "we may pull the plug on his proposed long process" For Congress to remove funding would be quite mad and irresponsible. "What?! This is something the average person CAN understand. Announcement - This section of Bagdhad has been cleared." The average person has never been in the military, has never been to Iraq, doesn't speak Arabic, is not Muslim, and has never managed much more than their own family. They probably couldn't even distinguish between whether a question such as: "Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? means "do you want the plan to succeed," or whether it means "do you want the plan to fail?" They may not even see that "fail" is an antonym to "succeed". They may even think that for a plan not to succeed does not mean that it will fail. One could ask a segment of the public voting a certain way: "Do you want the American troops (following the directives of their Commander in Chief) to succeed in clearing xyz block of sector 7, Baghdad. But would they understand the question?? Would they say "NO" without really meaning that they want it to fail?? Or would they genuinely want to sabotage American success simply because they don't like the architect of that success?? And these "average people" are going to better inform the decision as to what measures support American interests?? Hmmmm...