|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 17:20:26 GMT -4
So your argument is "Democrats: bad." Well argued. I never would have guessed that would be your position. It certainly allows you to dismiss any evidence that disagrees with you. Don't consider the source or his experience - just attach him to the Democrats and dismiss him. That's just hopelessly partisan on your part, Jason.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 17:26:08 GMT -4
Actually my argument is "Democrats: Heavily invested in failure in Iraq."
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 18:02:46 GMT -4
As we approach 4,000 dead and a total cost of more than a trillion dollars, I guess I'd say that George Bush has the whole country heavily invested in the failure that is Iraq.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 18:27:02 GMT -4
No, heavily invested in failure in Iraq means the political consequences for the Democrats will actually be more serious if things turn around in Iraq, since their leaders have built their political futures on a failure there.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 18:38:18 GMT -4
Iraq was a failure from the start. We invaded a country that was not a threat to us. We've turned it into a breeding ground for terrorists. Our continued presence there will stoke the same fires we should have been concentrating our efforts on elsewhere. It is a simplistic view to think that a lower body count makes the endeavor less of a failure.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 18:55:21 GMT -4
It would be simplistic if the news coming out of Iraq was just a lower body count. But in fact many Iraqis are also returning, markets are re-opening, and more and more Iraqis are willing to work with the US in re-establishing security.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 26, 2007 19:43:12 GMT -4
What does anyone think of this cover: Now he's going to save the rest of the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 27, 2007 16:22:34 GMT -4
So basically, Sanchez was spouting the Democratic talking points about Iraq.
How do you know that it's not the Democrats spouting Sanchez's talking points?
Did the election play as a referrendum on Bush down under, or were there some other issues at play there?
While I'm over the ditch... it was very much on other things. Just like the 2004 US election when on internal stuff rather than Iraq, the Auissie election was decided on things like Interest rate hikes over the past few years and hugely by the "Fair Jobs" act, basically a work contracts act that was designed to destroy unions and place workers on individual contracts with their employers. We did it over here in the 90's and are still struggling to get some sense back into working conditions, as well as having wages that have falling about 20k a year below Aussie since that time. The Aussies saw the writting on the wall and voted to get rid of the darn thing before it destroyed their working conditions as well.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2007 16:50:43 GMT -4
So basically, Sanchez was spouting the Democratic talking points about Iraq.How do you know that it's not the Democrats spouting Sanchez's talking points? Could be. Either way I don't consider him a source of unbiased opinion.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 27, 2007 17:47:41 GMT -4
So if:
Sanchez agrees with the democratic candidates, he is biased.
And if the Democratic candidates agree with him, he is biased.
You'd get to your point more quickly if you just stated that you hate Democrats and anything associated with them. That would have the same argumentative weight: none.
Sanchez was the commander of coalition forces in Iraq; that is a good reason to listen to him. He has vast experience on the ground. He is now free to speak his mind. What reason do you have for dismissing his opinion, other than your dislike of Democrats?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2007 18:40:39 GMT -4
The reasons I have for dismissing them are: 1) He no longer has an up-to-date undestanding of what currently is happening. The situtation in Iraq has in fact changed since his removal and the beginning of the Surge, and by some reports changed drastically. 2) He is a former military officer making an opinion on the political situation. His area of expertise when he did have up-to-date information was the military, not the civilian government. 3) He may be attempting to justify his own failure to improve the situation in Iraq. 4) He may be adopting the talking points of the current administration's political opponents rather than forming his own opinion. 5) His opinions conflict with that of the General currently in charge, who has up-to-date information, has not yet failed in Iraq, has not adopted the talking points of political opponents of the President, etc.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 27, 2007 19:28:45 GMT -4
It is conjecture on your part to say that his understanding is not up to date.
Conjecture. If not, show your source for claiming that Sanchez is not knowledgeable about the civilian government.
Conjecture.
Conjecture.
The current general in charge is required to do as the president directs. We will not know his personal opinions until after he has left the military.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2007 19:34:00 GMT -4
In this case my conjecture that he's not an unbiased source is as fair as the General's own conjecture on what the Iraqis may or may not be willing to do.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 27, 2007 19:39:53 GMT -4
More conjecture.
|
|