The surge is working!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion.

No one said they're incompetent.  And to say that I have that opinion, or that I would even consider that opinion, makes you a bald faced liar.

[iplaw]

MichaelC:



I suggest two before bed tonight.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion.

No one said they're incompetent.  And to say that I have that opinion, or that I would even consider that opinion, makes you a bald faced liar.

Relax dude.  "Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion." is a hypothetical.  I never said you have said that, I said you can say it if you like.  No need to resort to name-calling w/ me.

You talk about "trolls" on here but lately you have been swimming in the same pond.

I figured if anything you'd take issue with me pointing out you are trying to start a "big man" contest with your boast about knowing more about Iraq than anyone here.  Unless you are employed by the government in intel, foreign policy, or at the top of the food chain in the military, your knowledge carries just as much weight as anyone else on here.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Relax dude.  "Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion." is a hypothetical.

It's a character attack, and a bald faced lie.  I've never said that, never hinted at that, at best it's a smear tactic, a lie.  Making you, a liar.

quote:I never said you have said that, I said you can say it if you like.  No need to resort to name-calling w/ me.

You don't like it, you know what to do.

quote:You talk about "trolls" on here but lately you have been swimming in the same pond.

Damn straight.  You're going to smell what you're shoveling.

quote:I figured if anything you'd take issue with me pointing out you are trying to start a "big man" contest with your boast about knowing more about Iraq than anyone here.

Why bother?  You people can't get your facts straight, much less know what they mean.  You're only forte is character attacks.  The same three or four liars, saying the same thing, over and over.

[iplaw]

quote:You people can't get your facts straight

Please point out what we've gotten wrong we're all waiting...

If you're going to call someone a liar at least have the fortitude to tell us what they're lying about.[xx(]

quote:Making you, a liar.

As far as being a liar, are you ever going to explain where your, 20 year contracts for Iraqi oil statement came from?

quote:
Damn straight. You're going to smell what you're shoveling.

[}:)]  

Oh no fellas! He's teachin' us a lesson!

One thing that neither CF, Conan, nor I are the least bit concerned about is you regulatin' round here pardner.  

What's that?  20 year contracts for Iraqi oil...

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
Got it.  Cannon_fodder rule #1: Be a s***head to every elderly person you come in contact with.  Fair enough.

Not even remotely close to what I said.  I said I did not care how old he was.  That statement patently excludes prejudice based on age.  If you hadn't told me he was old, I would not have a clue.  This is a blatant misstatement based on information that you gave me after the fact.

quote:You didnt try very hard

Yes, yes I did try hard.  I explained the nationalization process in Iraq as well as problems other nations have had with stricter regimes of nationalized oil.  I also explained the difficulties Iraq would have attempting to develop oil by themselves.  That is useful information in this discussion.

quote:Hippity dippity do.  Some internet guy calling me anti-corporation on the one hand, while simultaneously preaching the glorious past of corporate influence on peace.   More brilliance from the same guy that thinks Shadows has "lost it", and I have no business here.  

I never said YOU were anti-corporation.  I said that many people in this discussion have express their opinion as such.  Which is a completely true statement.

The information on corporations and international trade fostering peace is not my idea, it is held in great esteem by persons far greater than I.  Adam Smith began the discussion in the Wealth of Nations and economists and philosophers since have pondered that point.  In fact, it still holds true that no trading democracies have ever fought a major war with each other.

Furthermore, recent studies, which I previously linked to on these forums, have concluded that thus far the 2000's are the most peaceful period in modern history.  I do not make things up and I attempt to make my opinions clear from items of support.

Lastly, I never said you have no business here.  For some reason you are taking everything thing I write as if it were directed at you and outside of its face value.  Just like I never said I hate old people, I never said you had business being here.

I SAID people that do not know that three factions are fighting for control of Iraq have no business in this discussion and it was said in jest.  I already went over this so I will simply quote myself as often as required:

quote:I PREVIOUSLY SAID
...if you do not know that the Kurds, Shia (Shiite) and Sunni's are vying for control of Iraq then you are in way over your head. There is no way that someone without this base of knowledge should bother arguing about the geo political atmosphere in Iraq and whether nationalization of oil is the best course of action. It would be akin to my 7 year old arguing theoretical physics with Stephen Hawking. It was a comment made in jest assuming every literate person in the USA knows there are three groups vying for power in Iraq. I suppose if you truly didnt know this then you might be embarrassed to yourself by your own ignorance... but I'm not sure how damaging that would be.

quote:And lastly, again, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against any of you guys, especially the trollish ones, on who knows more about Iraq.

Thanks for the name calling, it is very helpful to the conversation.  Not only name calling, but passive aggressive name calling.  It can be useful to tell someone there statements make it appear they think they are a 'know it all' or 'makes them look like an idiot' but I cant really see a use to passively calling someone trollish.

This is yet another instance in which you apparently took my comments as if they were directed at you.  The only time my comments question anyones intelligence was if someone didnt know three faction were fighting, which I have gone over several times above.  If you fell into this category I'm sorry I offended you, but honestly you should get some background information before attempting to discuss in depth.

If you do not fall into this category then I did not, in any way, insinuate a lack of knowledge on your part.  I do not feel the need to validate my knowledge of Iraq in a quiz show format nor any other method.  I strive to know as much as is practical about a given subject and I feel that I have reached that point.  There is infinitely more information that I could learn about Iraq as there is so about any country (including the one in which we live).  I am not an expert, do not present myself as such, nor do i strive to become one.

If you are an expert, please share your wealth of knowledge with us and support it with sources if you believe it might be difficult for people to believe or you think others might like to know more.

quote:But I just don't think we'll find out.

You are correct.  I do not purport to be an intellectual giant on the subject of Iraq.  Nor, for that matter, do I make a habit of partaking in 'I'll show you!' oriented competitions. For that matter, over the internet it would seem a bit ridiculous as the competition would be a test of researching skills as opposed to knowledge.  The entire notion is a bit silly.

quote:Of the three or four people that act like you CF, you're the least offensive.  And I'm beginning to simply not care whether or not you guys drive this forum towards becoming a wasteland.

I am happy that there are 3 or 4 educated and rational people that contribute to these boards.  However, I would argue that there are more than the handful that you imply.  Many members contribute well thought out arguments in the political section and passionately discuss topics closer to home.

As far as your fear of wasteland is concerned, it should be noted that nearly all of my heated discussion is reserved for the political forum.  If, for some reason, intense debate with referenced facts and structure argument is offensive or frustrating for you I invite you to either skip my posts or avoid the forum on politics all together.  Clearly this forum was created to segregate such discussions.
- - - - -

As far as fact checking is concerned I will reiterate my point:  I make every attempt to check my facts before stating them.  I am willing to be that I reference more facts on this board than anyone else. And I try to differentiate between opinion and fact.

If, at any point, you think I have facts wrong.  PLEASE POINT IT OUT TO ME.  I enjoy being PROVEN WRONG.  That is how we learn.   However, simply saying "you're wrong" or "you cant get your facts straight" is not beneficial unless you tell me 1) what I am wrong about 2)  what the correct answer is and 3) where I can better education myself.

That is how you discuss issues and attempt to enlighten people.  I welcome you to do so and hope we can engage in actual discussion as it is apparent you disagree with me on many point. If this is the case, please tell me what and how you disagree - I'm interested to know.  However, if you simply do not like me or do not want to put forth the effort required to educate me - just tell me that instead of posturing.

Thanks you.

[Conan71]

MC, your hypersensitivity to a few members here is clouding your reading skills.

Re-read my post, all I was qualifying is who, in my opinion, has the most accurate view on Iraq these days.  It's not anyone here on this board, including myself.  

Care to point out where I can't get my facts straight?  Or do I need to stoop to your level and resort to calling you a bald-face liar?

So go ahead and blow us away with your superior knowledge of Iraq.  I'm all ears.

[cannon_fodder]

MichaelC:  

I'm not trying to triple team you. You engaged me in this discussion so I hope you don't feel like I'm accosting you. I understand it is a bit frustrating carrying on a conversation with three people and may seem like we are trying to overwhelm you.  Such is not my intention.  

I would be happy to communicate via PM if you would prefer.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

MichaelC:

I'm not trying to triple team you. You engaged me in this discussion so I hope you don't feel like I'm accosting you. I understand it is a bit frustrating carrying on a conversation with three people and may seem like we are trying to overwhelm you. Such is not my intention.

I would be happy to communicate via PM if you would prefer.

[]

Thanks for the offer.

But I don't think I have anything else to say.  I believe I found everything I was looking for on this thread.

[iplaw]

What, you can't manage to get the word liar typed out one last time?

[Conan71]

I think I'll have a Coca-Cola.

[swake]

You see, the little surge we have done is only calming the capital a little bit, and all the terrorist have to do is leave town and wait.

And do this while they are on vacation:

http://www.newsok.com/article/1434712

U.S. Announces 8 Troop Deaths in Iraq

Associated Press

BAGHDAD (AP) -- A car bomb exploded Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala as the streets were packed with people heading for evening prayers, killing at least 58 and wounding scores near some of the country's most sacred shrines. Separately, the U.S. military announced the deaths of eight American troops, including three killed Saturday in a single roadside bombing outside Baghdad.





You neocons were wrong, are wrong and have taken us on a terrible voyage with no good way home. You are completely discredited and it's time for you and yours to go. Bush has killed Reagan, good riddance.

[MH2010]

According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News' survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and "the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people" (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America's reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).

A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the "country remains unstable" (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that "insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq" starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats' plan for withdrawal, Congress should still "allow funding for the war" even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).

A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose "denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq," and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).

69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).

Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).

50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq "hurts" the troops, while only 27% believe it "helps" the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).

62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News' survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and "the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people" (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America's reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).

A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the "country remains unstable" (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that "insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq" starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats' plan for withdrawal, Congress should still "allow funding for the war" even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).

A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose "denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq," and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).

69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).

Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).

50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq "hurts" the troops, while only 27% believe it "helps" the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).

62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).

well, I don't want an immediate withdrawal either, but the current plan is assinine and is accomplishing nothing. It's as bad as just pulling out now.

We need a plan to pull out and we need to talk to Iran and Syria about how to do it.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

You see, the little surge we have done is only calming the capital a little bit, and all the terrorist have to do is leave town and wait.

And do this while they are on vacation:

http://www.newsok.com/article/1434712

U.S. Announces 8 Troop Deaths in Iraq

Associated Press

BAGHDAD (AP) -- A car bomb exploded Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala as the streets were packed with people heading for evening prayers, killing at least 58 and wounding scores near some of the country's most sacred shrines. Separately, the U.S. military announced the deaths of eight American troops, including three killed Saturday in a single roadside bombing outside Baghdad.





You neocons were wrong, are wrong and have taken us on a terrible voyage with no good way home. You are completely discredited and it's time for you and yours to go.

Yeah!  More links to news stories.  Thanks Captain Obvious!  What would we do without you, other than read the news on our own...

quote:
Bush has killed Reagan, good riddance.

And to think this whole time I thought it was Alzheimers; silly me.