random comments about nothing in particular

[Weasel]

[quote="Tap":2dgyak4b]You'd be better off sitting back and enjoying your cup of coffee and enjoy the ride. The next 2-4 years will certainly "change" the way you have lived. [/quote:2dgyak4b]
You're not wrong there Tap. Not like we have much choice either.

[Alberich]

dude... you really need to start reading beyond Fox, the drudge report and that crazy malkin chick

[brady]

[quote="Weasel":nvexljxx] Of course the MSM supported her, and a huge amount of the citizens of USA followed along with the spoonfed lies like a bunch of stupid lemmings. [/quote:nvexljxx]

Like grandma always said...when life serves you up a bunch of lemmings, make lemmingaid.

[Weasel]

[quote="Alberich":2xqb0t7p]dude... you really need to start reading beyond Fox, the drudge report and that crazy malkin chick[/quote:2xqb0t7p]
So are you saying that Pelosi never made this statement? Take a listen if you like:
[url:2xqb0t7p]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=26858[/url:2xqb0t7p]
about point -61 minutes.
Are you saying there has been no decrease in violence in Iraq, specifically Basra?
Are you saying Iran has not supplied any weapons to insurgents in Iraq? (and it's not relevant to this discussion which insurgents etc etc).

Nothing I have said is untrue or undocumented, so why are you telling me to stop watching Fox etc (BTW, I don't watch Fox News at all). What was the point of your response? I think it's disgraceful that the Leader of Congress and 3rd in line to the Presidency credits success specifically in Basra to "the goodwill of the Iranians" for stopping fighting, rather than crediting the US military surge, despite evidence (and despite that Iran are actually killing American soldiers by proxy), and she does so based apparently on her overwhelming anti-Bush anti-military sentiment, that has no basis in fact. Remember, this is after swearing black and blue that Iran is not involved in the conflict at all (and probably only denying Iran's involvement because at the time Bush and the military said Iran [i:2xqb0t7p]is[/i:2xqb0t7p] involved - which only further backs up my point).

If someone wants to make an argument for Pelosi, please do so - I can't see that anyone here has, as yet. All I've seen is all I've come to expect to see when anyone dares to question a liberal politician, which is pretty much ad hominem attacks and a complete failure to address the subject itself, which only further backs up my point. If only you could take those blinkers off for just 1 minute.

heh, and I don't read Drudge either.

I just can't fathom how anyone could fall for this cr@p, but clearly here are others that have fallen for it. Admitting there has been military success with the surge does not make you pro-war. Looking at the evidence and reaching a painfully obvious conclusion regarding Pelosi for some reason seems to be a monumental task for some.

[*juggleblood*]

You're short-sighted. Some of your basic assumptions are totally false. And you don't even seem to have a basic grasp of the facts. So, it's not very fun trying to argue with you, but what the hell.

Let me see if I understand your point of view. (Can't fault me for trying):

1. Iran is training troops who occasionally engage in military action against our troops. They get involved in the local politics in the area that we militarily occupy, to our strategic disadvantage. Therefore: you view them as a hostile enemy.

2. Iran is destabilizing Iraq. Either intentionally or unintentionally or both.

3. Violence has decreased since we increased the frequency of troop redeployment, effectively increasing troop levels. Therefore: you view the current 'surge' strategy as a success.

4. Troop fatalities have decreased. Therefore: you think that continuing the current strategy has a chance of success.

5. The stability of Basra can be attributed to Amercan actions.

6. Pelosi should be impeached because she credited the Iranians for the current "stability" in Iraq. You believe this is not only false, but Pelosi has overstepped her position in that her remarks are contrary to the current position of the White House and the State Department. These remarks could even be considered 'traitorous', since Iran is our enemy.

7. From 5 and 6 we can deduce that you think the political situation in Iraq is improving, despite the lack of any political motion in Baghdad or any agreements between the primary actors.

I hope I'm seeing your point of view correctly. Now just let me say that I agree with Pelosi and I think you're wrong.

Now you can't accuse me of changing the subject or painting a straw target.

[Weasel]

[quote="juggleblood":1cymhrvk]You're short-sighted. Some of your basic assumptions are totally false. And you don't even seem to have a basic grasp of the facts. So, it's not very fun trying to argue with you, but what the hell.

Let me see if I understand your point of view. (Can't fault me for trying):

1. Iran is training troops who occasionally engage in military action against our troops. They get involved in the local politics in the area that we militarily occupy, to our strategic disadvantage. Therefore: you view them as a hostile enemy.

2. Iran is destabilizing Iraq. Either intentionally or unintentionally or both.

3. Violence has decreased since we increased the frequency of troop redeployment, effectively increasing troop levels. Therefore: you view the current 'surge' strategy as a success.

4. Troop fatalities have decreased. Therefore: you think that continuing the current strategy has a chance of success.

5. The stability of Basra can be attributed to Amercan actions.

6. Pelosi should be impeached because she credited the Iranians for the current "stability" in Iraq. You believe this is not only false, but Pelosi has overstepped her position in that her remarks are contrary to the current position of the White House and the State Department. These remarks could even be considered 'traitorous', since Iran is our enemy.

7. From 5 and 6 we can deduce that you think the political situation in Iraq is improving, despite the lack of any political motion in Baghdad or any agreements between the primary actors.

I hope I'm seeing your point of view correctly. Now just let me say that I agree with Pelosi and I think you're wrong.

Now you can't accuse me of changing the subject or painting a straw target.[/quote:1cymhrvk]

Wow. For a start you are claiming I said some things which I never did. However, that was completely expected. Cutting to the chase, you say you agree with Pelosi and that I'm wrong, without giving one single reason or argument to support your opinion, and somehow think you've justified your stance??? Cutting it down, this is apparently what you believe:

(1) That Iran are not and were not involved in the fighting in Iraq in any way whatsoever, either by physical presence, or by supplying weapons or IEDs and EFPs, or by training, or any other way.

(2) That Iran, who are not involved in the fighting in Iraq in any way whatsoever as mentioned in point 1, should be credited for the dramatic decrease in fighting in Basra, the reason being because ..wait for it.. Iran have now decided to [i:1cymhrvk]stop[/i:1cymhrvk] fighting in Basra (either by proxy or otherwise) - that's Basra, which is in Iraq, which is, according to you and Pelosi, where Iran is not fighting in the first place. Except they are. But they never were. But they've stopped now.

Please explain, and stop diverting away from the subject.

Might as well credit the decrease in fighting in Basra to a small uncontacted tribe in the Amazon. Just as logical.

Again, just to remind you, even Pelosi agrees there has been a dramatic decrease in fighting in the area since the surge, she just refuses to credit it to the surge. For some reason you seem to be insinuating there hasn't even been a decrease now? Again you repeatedly try to divert away from the point of my original post. What a surprise.

You're either being intentionally obtuse to wind me up, or you just can't stand a liberal politician being shown to be a fool, or you have cognitive problems that are way beyond anything that can be helped on a forum.

[*juggleblood*]

Actually I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. I didn't nail it? I haven't tarred you or diverged from the topic. Quite the opposite in fact.

1. I don't disagree that Iran is seriously involved in Iraq. I don't disagree that they're training and arming hostile elements. I think we agree on that point.

2. Basra has always been a fairly homogenous shiite bastion with historical religious ties to Iran. This is why the British were able to leave Basra without it totally unravelling. In case you didn't know, it was British troops in the south and one of the reasons for the surge was fear of anarchy when the British pulled out. When the British left, the supply lines were temporarily vulnerable. This led to problems until the US was able to fill the vacant British positions. I don't see this as some great military victory.

3. Reduction in fighting != success. See Vietnam. You don't measure success by body count or number of bullets fired. Success means accomplishing your objectives. At this late stage of our dramatic failure, success means getting out with some form of power sharing agreement between the factions that leads to some semblance of government. I hope we do succeed in this regard, but I'm not optimistic.

So how could I agree with Pelosi? Because Iraq is a lot more complicated than good guys and bad guys. If you forced me to say who the bad guys are, I'd have to say that we are. It's a hard thing to admit. It's also hard to admit that the Shiites appreciate Tehran's help more than ours. It's hard to admit that so many people have died for nothing, that our experiment with democracy by gunpoint has failed. It's hard to admit that we have provoked a civil war in Lebanon and that where the country of Iraq used to be, is now a region torn by religious and ethnic conflict with no effective government whatsoever. Iran is trying to pick up the mess because they're best suited for the task and they have the most interest in a peaceful outcome. You can safely ignore the ridiculous bellicose statements from the Iranian president. He is a moronic puppet engaging in political theatre; much like our own.

I have a pretty good idea where you get your info from. Let me give you mine: [url:chffs4q3]http://www.juancole.com[/url:chffs4q3] . This guy was one of my favorite mentors when I was doing my masters in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. I'm also a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, an honorary society of political scientists. I know a little bit more about the region than you're likely to learn from Fox news or the 700 club.

Here's one more link in case you don't believe me. It's a delegation in Riyadh to the Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz. I'm the nerdy white guy aide in the blue shirt who appears briefly x2. [url:chffs4q3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTXuq3hzyE[/url:chffs4q3]

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
--Albert Einstein

[Weasel]

[quote="juggleblood":2h90vder]Actually I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. I didn't nail it? I haven't tarred you or diverged from the topic. Quite the opposite in fact.

1. I don't disagree that Iran is seriously involved in Iraq. I don't disagree that they're training and arming hostile elements. I think we agree on that point.

2. Basra has always been a fairly homogenous shiite bastion with historical religious ties to Iran. This is why the British were able to leave Basra without it totally unravelling. In case you didn't know, it was British troops in the south and one of the reasons for the surge was fear of anarchy when the British pulled out. When the British left, the supply lines were temporarily vulnerable. This led to problems until the US was able to fill the vacant British positions. I don't see this as some great military victory.

3. Reduction in fighting != success. See Vietnam. You don't measure success by body count or number of bullets fired. Success means accomplishing your objectives. At this late stage of our dramatic failure, success means getting out with some form of power sharing agreement between the factions that leads to some semblance of government. I hope we do succeed in this regard, but I'm not optimistic.

So how could I agree with Pelosi? Because Iraq is a lot more complicated than good guys and bad guys. If you forced me to say who the bad guys are, I'd have to say that we are. It's a hard thing to admit. It's also hard to admit that the Shiites appreciate Tehran's help more than ours. It's hard to admit that so many people have died for nothing, that our experiment with democracy by gunpoint has failed. It's hard to admit that we have provoked a civil war in Lebanon and that where the country of Iraq used to be, is now a region torn by religious and ethnic conflict with no effective government whatsoever. Iran is trying to pick up the mess because they're best suited for the task and they have the most interest in a peaceful outcome. You can safely ignore the ridiculous bellicose statements from the Iranian president. He is a moronic puppet engaging in political theatre; much like our own.

I have a pretty good idea where you get your info from. Let me give you mine: [url:2h90vder]http://www.juancole.com[/url:2h90vder] . This guy was one of my favorite mentors when I was doing my masters in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. I'm also a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, an honorary society of political scientists. I know a little bit more about the region than you're likely to learn from Fox news or the 700 club.

Here's one more link in case you don't believe me. It's a delegation in Riyadh to the Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz. I'm the nerdy white guy aide in the blue shirt who appears briefly x2. [url:2h90vder]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTXuq3hzyE[/url:2h90vder]

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
--Albert Einstein[/quote:2h90vder]

Ok, I'll bow to your clearly advanced knowledge in the socio-political arena. I'm an inductee of 2 honor societies if that helps - one international, one American only, but neither for political science, and that's definitely not my major, and never has been.

Pelosi's position was that Iran was not involved in Iraq - at least that [i:2h90vder]was[/i:2h90vder] her position. The fact that you have just said that you agree that Iran [i:2h90vder]is[/i:2h90vder] seriously involved in Iraq means you do not actually agree 100% with what Pelosi has been saying in the past regarding Iran's involvement.. which means that you do not actually agree with Pelosi after all, in which case we appear to be arguing the same point.

Ok, I guess I need to clarify. I'm not arguing about the wrong or the right of the war. I'm not arguing that Basra was previously under the thumb of the Brits. One of the reasons for the surge may well have been a reaction to the fear of anarchy after the Brit withdrawal, as you stated (probably more accurate to say [i:2h90vder]increased[/i:2h90vder] anarchy though, heh), however that is not the sole reason. One of the other reasons, or so I am led to believe, was to create a 'buffer' of peace to allow conditions to stabilize and thus to allow room for political discourse by the Iraqis themselves. I'm fairly confident that you would agree with me that this is also one of the reasons for the surge.

I don't believe the surge was about 'victory' at all, it was about achieving a goal in order to (hopefully) enable a chance at stability in the region, because what we had been doing previously was clearly not working. In this light, yes, a reduction in fighting does equate to success - the surge has achieved what it was intended to do, and recent stats regarding fighting (particularly in Basra) clearly support that. How this relative peace is used and how [i:2h90vder]successfully[/i:2h90vder] it is used is yet to be seen, but in terms of the immediate reason (or one of the reasons) for the surge itself, it [i:2h90vder]has[/i:2h90vder] been a success. It is a step, and hopefully in the right direction.

The motives for Iran's involvement are dubious at best, in terms of the interests of the US at least. I'm pleased we at least agree on President Ahmadinejad, and it looks like he now has a serious challenger in Ali Larijani come the next presidential elections in Iran. Here's hoping.

But to the Pelosi issue, I think we're actually on the same page. You [i:2h90vder]do[/i:2h90vder] agree that Iran is involved, which means you in fact [i:2h90vder]disagree[/i:2h90vder] with Pelosi (or at least Pelosi's original claim). What angered me is that Pelosi, after making that claim loudly and repeatedly, now completely contradicts herself by stating that the decrease in fighting in Basra was thanks (at least in part) to the goodwill of Iran, who, Pelosi claims, decided when the fighting in Basrah would stop. Now clearly for Iran to be able to decide when the fighting stops means they are involved in it in some way, which is the polar opposite of what she previously claimed. It appears to me that she said this because she did not want to be proved wrong about her prior claims that the surge would also be a failure, which, as I believe I have explained above, it was not. (note: if you are saying that the surge had nothing whatsoever to do with the decrease in fighting, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, but stats would argue the surge and the decrease in fighting are strongly linked). What this all melts down to is that Pelosi appears to be motivated not by facts, not by logic, not by evidence, not even by patriotism, but by some kind of blind rage against Bush, to the point she will deny any relative success being credited to Bush / military, even if it means completely contradicting herself and praising what is technically an enemy of the US, regardless of whether you or I think the US is right or wrong as far as the 'big' picture goes.

So.. you agree with me. At least indirectly. If you follow my reasoning.

[Tap]

[quote:2koi29lb]If you forced me to say who the bad guys are, I'd have to say that we are.[/quote:2koi29lb]

Yeah, we are a country who cut off the heads of those who don't follow our religion. We refuse our women rights and force them to cover themselves from head to toe. We also, without doubt, deny the Jewish Holocaust and in fact, can't wait to kill every last Jewish man,woman and child. We also believe in socialism and have forced 98% of our population to do what 2% of use want.For 100 bucks, who am I?

[quote:2koi29lb] Iran is trying to pick up the mess because they're best suited for the task and they have the most interest in a peaceful outcome.[/quote:2koi29lb]

I can't wait till America withdraws so i can invade and extend our government and it's laws. Capitalism sucks! For 200 bucks, who am I?

[quote:2koi29lb]You can safely ignore the ridiculous bellicose statements from the Iranian president. He is a moronic puppet engaging in political theatre; much like our own. [/quote:2koi29lb]

Well, that's a given. Just shows when you sleep with the enemy, don't be surprised when they stab you in your sleep.

[quote:2koi29lb]I'm also a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, an honorary society of political scientists. I know a little bit more about the region than you're likely to learn from Fox news or the 700 club. [/quote:2koi29lb]

Well, just having more book smarts doesn't really mean squat. You might know where something is or who is there, but if you don't know what the deal is, then what good is it? I do watch Fox News as well as CNN and Headline and BBC World just to get several different angles. Having said that, you can spin it anyway you want, but when Pelosi,Barrack,Hillary or McCain say/do something, how can you argue for them? Even though Furball didn't stray from Pelosi, he might agree it doesn't really matter who did/say what, they are all in bed together and just different shades of grey. In other words, we are pretty much f*cked.

[quote:2koi29lb]So which ones are the insurgents Weasel? The Shiites in the south, moktada al-sadr and his mahdi army in baghdad, the secular sunni's in baghdad, the sunni tribesmen in the northwest, the al-qaeda aligned sunni elements (tiny in number), the kurdish separationists, or the oppressed turkmen in the north? [/quote:2koi29lb]

H)all of the above

and to follow up, we are probably supporting who we think we can have more sway with. yeah it sucks.

[quote:2koi29lb]Iran hasn't attacked another country in modern history[/quote:2koi29lb]

Maybe, why attack when you can stand in the shadows and dupe suicide killers to do your dirty work?

[*juggleblood*]

[quote="Weasel":1wy0prek] Pelosi appears to be motivated not by facts, not by logic, not by evidence, not even by patriotism, but by some kind of blind rage against Bush, to the point she will deny any relative success being credited to Bush / military, even if it means completely contradicting herself and praising what is technically an enemy of the US,
[/quote:1wy0prek]

I wonder what could have driven her to this behavior? And yeah I have no idea wtf she said really.

[alias]

Facts are not used in politics for the most part. I also have a blind rage towards Bu$h- I'm biased and I know it, so don't bother pointing it out.

Most "western politicians" that are put in power by elections don't rely on facts but on perceptions. Who cares if your right as long as you do what people think is right (to get re-elected).

We made the taliban, we made Osama Bin Laden, we made Saddam Hussien. Why is it no one remembers the Oliver North trials.

And on the Pelosi thing, last I knew people were allowed to get more information and change their minds.

I once said I would never mud again, and yet I have changed my mind and returned to mudding after 5 yrs of no mud. So for this should I be persecuted for changing my mind and returning to mud or should I be welcomed that I saw the light.

In closing please vote in the coming election, no matter how you vote- just vote.

btw nice duds in the video Jon, could u make a few calls and get the price of gas down for me?

[Tap]

[quote:3alj0alf]And on the Pelosi thing, last I knew people were allowed to get more information and change their minds. [/quote:3alj0alf]

Unfortunately, she hasn't changed her mind. She is a Socialist and is bound and determined to throw out the Constitution of the United States. I'm sure we will begin to see the beginnings of the end in the 3-4 months of 2009.

[quote:3alj0alf]In closing please vote in the coming election, no matter how you vote- just vote. [/quote:3alj0alf]
I',m only speaking for myself, yet I hear the same reflection from people I don't even know. Conclusion, being that there isn't anyone worth voting for. I'd not going to vote so I can complain about whose screwing the country over. I don't want to be the guy who voted for the man/woman in that is going to destroy this country.

[Weasel]

Nods. I will be voting, but only at local / Congress level so at least we have a chance of getting a few intelligent people in Congress, and perhaps some hope after 2012, and I encourage all disenchanted voters to make the same effort. As far as the presidential position goes, I can see no viable option there, so it'll just be left blank. I might have considered a write-in, but the one-arm bandit voting machines in use where I live don't allow for that option.

[alias]

[quote:5yqvlvyz]In closing please vote in the coming election, no matter how you vote- just vote. [/quote:5yqvlvyz]
I',m only speaking for myself, yet I hear the same reflection from people I don't even know. Conclusion, being that there isn't anyone worth voting for. I'd not going to vote so I can complain about whose screwing the country over. I don't want to be the guy who voted for the man/woman in that is going to destroy this country.[/quote]

Imho If you don't vote then you have no right to bitch and complain. even if the one you vote for is the one screwing the country you still have the right to complain they did not live up to what you hoped. not voting because there is no viable candidate is a copout for pussies.

[Weasel]

Have to agree to disagree. I don't want to vote for someone that I think is definitely not fit for the job just because the alternative candidate is even worse. If I want to bitch about how badly they're f***ing up the country later, I will do so because they are f***ing up the country badly, not because I was forced into voting for them when I didn't believe they were right for the job.. I mean.. duh. As far as having the "right to complain they did not live up to what you hoped", that would be true if I had any expectation of them to do a reasonable job, but at this moment, I do not. If Hitler and Idi Amin were the choices, would you vote for one of them just for the sake of voting?

Voting just for the sake of voting is ignorant.

Do vote though - there are many other positions besides President that can have a direct effect on your life. Remember, the presidency is not an autonomous position, there is a Congress to approve things, and that is really where your vote can count, even if you don't have any faith in the presidential candidates.