Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JollyRoger, Jan 30, 2015.
Behind the Green Door?
Reduced fatalities amongst occupying forces is an interesting metric.
And then Iran brokered a sectarian ceasefire.
Oddly enough, other than for people who were there "the security of allied forces was greatly enhanced" is not the sum total definition of "it worked."
Did it promote long term stability in the region? No.
Did it improve the long term viability of Iraq maintaining a 'friendly' government? No.
In the aggregate, did the resulting delay in the troop withdrawal increase the risks as much or more than they were reduced? Probably, since a longer stay even at a lower risk level tends to increase the chances of getting caught on the wrong side of fortune.
Did it reduce the world wide perception that the US has 'gone rogue' and is interested in Imperial dominion over Iraq? No, quite the opposite.
I'm glad it made things safer in an immediate sense for you and everyone else who was there, but I still think that saying "it worked" is a whopper of the first order. Once Bush got his invasion there was nothing good to be made of it, no matter what. The surge may have been less bad than some other alternatives, but that is all that can be said for it.
So, you have a statistics degree and you've served abroad in the US Army?
Why should I "believe" anybody who just repeats such utter nonsense?
"The surge worked" is nothing but authoritarian conservative propaganda.
Formy that linked post is too long... and that's saying a lot, coming from me.
However, the idea that the US was bribing the enemy to stop fighting is news to me... although I think a shorter post would have gotten the message across with less of a TL;DR effect, ya know?
Anyway, and more importantly, that post was really good information and TBH, information that I was unaware of. Thanks for posting that, it gives me a great new perspective on one aspect of the war... of course I'm going to research this some more, but still, thanks for this great info.
Election 2016: The Clown versus The Criminal.
The surge didn't hurt, but it probably wouldn't have worked at all except for the Sunni Awakening, in which the Sunni Arabs switched sides and began fighting against al Qaeda rather than fighting for them.
And why did they do that? Because we funded their current and future terrorism efforts by bribing them all.
I love how he cites himself as an authority.
He saw it in a video, so he IS the authority!
Not to pick on anyone in particular, but claims such as "I was there" or "because I wrote it" are essentially citing yourself as an authority, aren't they?
Is that what you call merely referring to another post?
So what is your response? Or are you just going to continue to ignore the facts that contradict your own personal opinions?
Yes, they are. But don't let facts get in the way of obvious personal attacks.
However, it does raise an interesting point. Many servicemen seem to think of themselves as authorities in regard to matters where they have personal experience themselves. But the facts frequently don't seem to bear this out. They merely share the same personal opinions with many authoritarian conservatives who continue to spread the same absurdities about the war in Iraq to try to rationalize and defend it.
"The surge worked" is now the rallying cry of Jeb Bush himself. And like so many other Americans, he refuses to acknowledge the facts that clearly show it was primarily the bribing of "terrorists" which actually turned the tide, not the addition of 20,000 more troops. That the US government under GWB actually provided those who are now fighting for ISIL with vast sums of money so they would no longer fight Shia and American troops. Their huge success was really nothing more than a payoff of those they labeled to be "terrorists".
I read earlier that Jeb has had to climb down from claiming that Obama was resposible for the withdrawal. Apparently he was unaware of the fact that his brother's signature was on the document in which the US and Iraqi goverment agreed a date.
I'm surprised he didn't claim that Obama forced his brother to sign that document.
Those have to be the funniest back-to-back posts in the history of this forum.
GWBush was not far right (we haven't had a far right president in ages), govt kept right on growing and wasting money.
And then there's Reagan, I dont understand why any conservative would look at him as someone to be emulated. I voted for that scumbag and he ballooned the debt after criticizing Carter for not being frugal enough, stole our weapons and sold them to Iran and sent the $$$ to more terrorists in Central America and called them freedom fighters. And he had his drug war to help ruin this country too.
The difference between right and left is where they spend. The left spends money on stuff that puts money in circulation, because Keynesian capitalism requires it. The right does as well, but since they have to pretend they aren't they do it in "black budgets" and "crisis" spending (as in budgeting an amount that will never in a million years be enough so that the budget looks balanced, and then throwing emergency appropriations at it after the fact). Since the economy requires the spending either way, the main difference is that the "off the books" methods allow insiders to skim off a good thick layer of cream that never gets into circulation.
This is why we see the supporters of the right spouting about balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, while deficits actually grow more under "right" administrations than left. With all the cream skimming, the spending is so much less efficient at maintaining the economy that it really could not work out any other way.
Awwww What happened to the sig about the videos and life experience?
It was inflammatory, so I dropped it. I think the point was made though.
Separate names with a comma.