Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 327







Post#8151 at 04-30-2004 05:32 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 05:32 PM #8151
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Just look at Afghanistan for an example: the US "defeated" the Taliban, despite the fact that currently the nominal Afghan government controls little more than Kabul. Afghanistan is now responsible for 80% of the world's opium poppy production. Oh well, who cares -- "we won!"
I defy anyone with any sense of history and the nature of Afghanistan to find fault with the Afghanistan operation.

Afghanistan has never been a real nation. It is a land of warring tribes. It is this way because of its geography. Every attempt to change that has met with failure.

The U.S. made no attempt to change that, at least in the short term.

Instead of making the same mistakes that the British and the Russians made, putting a huge force on the ground that would have to be supplied by air (due to the geography), we simply gave one of the factions opposed to the Taliban an air force. We sent small numbers of special forces guys to mingle with them and call in what the Afghans have dubbed "the bombs that never miss".

During the whole operation, the average Afghan never saw an American, and thus the natural tendency for Afghans to oppose any foreign invaders was not triggered. As far as the "Northern Alliance" is concerned, they won the war, not us. (Thus, we were kind of like the French in the American Revolution.)

The Taliban were not wiped out to the last man, but they are out of power. Every time they get together in large numbers, we just wipe them out again. They are as likely to take power again as moose are to take over the city of Vancouver.

All of this occurred with fewer than fifty American deaths.

To this day, we have special forces guys in Afghanistan making allies of various tribes.

The government in charge of Kabul is not in charge of the country at large. This is the natural state of affairs for Afghanistan. It doesn't matter to us. Why do you care, Rick?

However, on general principle, we are helping the central government to get the kind of army that might, over the long term of a generation or two, actually manage to establish authority over what the world's maps pretend is a nation called "Afghanistan". Whether this effort succeeds or not over 40 years doesn't really matter to us, as long as terrorist groups are unable to use Afghanistan as a base.

Osama Bin Laden probably perished in one of the thousands of caves that was wiped out from the air. We may never know, because it's hard to find his DNA. All of the so-called Bin Laden recordings which the CIA has said was "probably" him based on vocal analysis are iffy. In each case, experts from other nations and other intelligence agencies have questioned the accuracy of the CIA's conclusions that the recordings are of Bin Laden. We will probably never knwo for sure what happened to him. Who cares? Al Qaeda's power and reach has steadily decreased since 2001.

YES, RICK. WE DID WIN.

Everything about the whole approach was brilliant. What would you have done differently in Afghanistan, Rick, if you were President? Huh? Whatever you could come up with would have resulted in more U.S. casualties and no significant change in Afghanistan.

We were able to achieve this brilliance where the Russians and the British failed because the U.S. is not an empire. We had no ambitions to rule Afghanistan or change it's fundamental nature.

Opium, smopium. Is that the best you can come up with?







Post#8152 at 04-30-2004 05:52 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 05:52 PM #8152
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
Clearly the insurgents are deciding the terms of these battles. And I think they will win in the end.
Do you think Al Qaeda will win in the end?
Osama bin Laden had two stated goals in attacking the WTC: 1) Drive the US troops out of Saudi Arabia, and 2) goad the US into invading an Arab country, provoking a broad anti-Western uprising. George was only too happy to help him on both counts. (It is tempting if probably inaccurate to conclude that there was collusion on this.)

Another obvious if unstated goal was to change the prevailing social mores, to be closer to the medieval worldview in which the Wahabists feel most comfortable. In this, they appear to be succeeding as well.

Now as for al-Qaeda, "they" can't win because "they" don't exist. If you are thinking of them as a secret worldwide organization, you've been reading too many James Bond books (or White House press releases.) On the other hand, "Al Qaedaism" as a political ideology is alive and well and more popular than ever -- again, in large part due to the Chickenhawk-In-Chief and his little Crusade in Iraq.

So, yes, al Qaeda has already won, and they will continue to win as long as George Bush occupies the White House. I hope you will do your part in November to kick the little al-Qaeda sympathizer out (but I'm not holding my breath.)

Why does George Bush hate America?? :evil:

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Should we all just convert to Islam now...
Convert if you like; but as I'm sure you are aware, the medieval Caliphs were remarkably tolerant of other religions. They didn't much care who you worshipped or how you did it, as long as you respected their authority and their own right to worship. This is a marked contrast to "Christendom" of the same time period.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
or go on with our infidel ways until a dirty bomb goes off in Chicago?
I for one will go on with my infidel ways until a dirty bomb goes off, or at least until an asteroid hits the earth. The latter is a virtual certainty (eventually); the former is a figment of Ashcroft's imagination. If the DOJ had any even remotely plausible evidence against Jose Padilla, they would have him in front of a secret tribunal before you could say "habeus corpus" (which Ashcroft apparently can't.)

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Mystery group wage war on Sadr's militia

FOR the past month they have been the rude young pretenders, a rag-tag slum army ruffling the quiet dignity of Iraq?s holiest city.

For every day that the United States army fails to act on its threat to crush them, the Shiite militiamen of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have grown in confidence in their stronghold in Najaf.

Now, however, a shadowy resistance movement within might be about to succeed where the 2,500 US marines outside the city have failed.
So, in other words, we should leave the policing of Najaf to the Iraqis? What a novel idea!







Post#8153 at 04-30-2004 06:04 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 06:04 PM #8153
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

As for a victory conditions for Iraq:

Before the invasion, Iraq's leadership actively supported international terrorism. Iraqi money was funneled through banks tied to Al Qaeda. Iraq was actively seeking WMD capability. We now know that Iraq was in negotiations with North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons tech as late as March 2003. Iraq had significant chemical weapons technology. Iraq was successfully bribing the U.N. and countries like France and Russia to act in ways opposed to the interests of the U.S. All of these facts are commonly accepted as true, and such people as David Kay, Hillary Clinton, and even John Kerry agree. (And Joe Wilson now says in his new book that Iraq did, after all, seek uranium from Niger just like British intelligence said they did.)

Right now, all of that has stopped. Provided that the above remains stopped, the Iraq invasion was successful. The American people are much safer without Saddam Hussein in power.

We already have our victory conditions. The rest is cake.







Post#8154 at 04-30-2004 06:06 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 06:06 PM #8154
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
So, in other words, we should leave the policing of Najaf to the Iraqis? What a novel idea!
Not so novel; it has been the stated ambition of the Bush administration for a year now. Where have you been?







Post#8155 at 04-30-2004 06:12 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 06:12 PM #8155
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Another obvious if unstated goal was to change the prevailing social mores, to be closer to the medieval worldview in which the Wahabists feel most comfortable. In this, they appear to be succeeding as well...

Now as for al-Qaeda, "they" can't win because "they" don't exist...

So, yes, al Qaeda has already won, and they will continue to win as long as George Bush occupies the White House.
Uh huh. Be honest now: does what you just said make any sense to you?"

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
:wink: Ok, you got me --
:lol: because, y'know, cuckoo cuckoo!

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
-- thought maybe I could slip that bullshit by...







Post#8156 at 04-30-2004 06:16 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 06:16 PM #8156
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Just look at Afghanistan for an example: the US "defeated" the Taliban, despite the fact that currently the nominal Afghan government controls little more than Kabul. Afghanistan is now responsible for 80% of the world's opium poppy production. Oh well, who cares -- "we won!"
Afghanistan has never been a real nation. It is a land of warring tribes. It is this way because of its geography. Every attempt to change that has met with failure.

The U.S. made no attempt to change that, at least in the short term.
I wholeheartedly agree; of course, this is the direct opposite of the Administration's official line regarding "liberation."

Quote Originally Posted by msm
YES, RICK. WE DID WIN.
This is commonly referred to as "moving the goalposts."

Quote Originally Posted by msm
What would you have done differently in Afghanistan, Rick, if you were President? Huh?
President when? In 1979-1981, when Carter and then Reagan organized and funded the mujaheddin? Or in 2001, when Bush sent $43 million to the Taliban as a bribe to allow pipeline construction ("Accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury you under a carpet of bombs")? Or again in 2001, when Bush explicitly shut down covert efforts to capture bin Laden and his associates in Afghanistan and the US?

I suppose one of the first things I would have done in September 2001, when Bush was demanding the Taliban hand over bin Laden, and Mullah Omar politely requested that he be given the evidence of bin Laden's complicity, is to actually provide the evidence. (He did have evidence, didn't he??) This is what a civilized leader, one who respects the rule of law, does.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Opium, smopium. Is that the best you can come up with?
I have no particular objection to poppy production; I am concerned that it is highly likely the US government is once again profiting from drug production at the expense of the (US and Afghan) population. I was merely using that as an example to indicate that Afghanistan's basic behavior has not changed since the US came and (mostly) went; but thank you for making my point for me so elegantly. :wink:







Post#8157 at 04-30-2004 06:21 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 06:21 PM #8157
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Convert if you like; but as I'm sure you are aware, the medieval Caliphs were remarkably tolerant of other religions. They didn't much care who you worshipped or how you did it, as long as you respected their authority and their own right to worship. This is a marked contrast to "Christendom" of the same time period.
My god. Where the hell did this kid COME from. He's like a caricature of a mush-brained product of a lefty college education.

Islam TODAY is where Christianity was IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Forced marriages. Patriarchy. Wife beating. Therefore, what you are DEFENDING is what you profess to be AGAINST.

Look, dude. You think you're smart. Read this:

When Islam Breaks Down

and get back to me. The conflict is caused because Islam (unlike Christianity) has no way to coexist with modernism.







Post#8158 at 04-30-2004 06:28 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 06:28 PM #8158
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
President when? In 1979-1981, when Carter and then Reagan organized and funded the mujaheddin?
So? That has nothing to do with what we're talking about, Rick, and you're lame for bringing it up as if anyone should be impressed. The mujaheddin were an anti-Soviet insurgency. Osama was a small player in it. So what? Italy was our ally in WWI and our enemy in WWII. So what?

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Or in 2001, when Bush sent $43 million to the Taliban as a bribe to allow pipeline construction
LOL!!!!

Your arguments are so lame, and now this. What's next, the mythical plastic turkey?

Tell me this, smart guy? Where's the pipeline now? Huh? I mean, our boots are all over Afghanistan, so what's holding up the pipeline deal?

EARTH TO RICK: A PIPELINE ACROSS AFGHANISTAN NEVER MADE ECONOMIC SENSE. NEVER DID, NEVER WILL. IT WILL NEVER BE BUILT. IT IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

Take the red pill, Rick. Wake up.







Post#8159 at 04-30-2004 06:32 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 06:32 PM #8159
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Witchiepoo
Quote Originally Posted by msm
The conflict is caused because Islam (unlike Christianity) has no way to coexist with modernism.
:lol:

How are you defining "modernism?" Can Christianity coexist with gay marriage and abortion rights? Or even the theory of evolution, for that matter?
Witchie, read the article. You'll see what I mean.

This so-called backward society we live in is honestly debating how we will eventually allow gays to marry, and what we will call it when we do eventually allow it. The theory of evolution is taught in our schools daily.

Sure is some fascist state we live in, huh? Why, we're worse than Nazi Germany!!!







Post#8160 at 04-30-2004 06:38 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 06:38 PM #8160
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Another obvious if unstated goal was to change the prevailing social mores, to be closer to the medieval worldview in which the Wahabists feel most comfortable. In this, they appear to be succeeding as well...

Now as for al-Qaeda, "they" can't win because "they" don't exist...

So, yes, al Qaeda has already won, and they will continue to win as long as George Bush occupies the White House.
Uh huh. Be honest now: does what you just said make any sense to you?"
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me. As I indicated with the URL, by "al-Qaeda" I am referring to anybody in the world who supports bin Laden's philosophy and world view. This includes Bush, Ashcroft, the house of Saud and many others. Notice that when I placed "they" in quotes, I was referencing your definition of al-Qaeda. The use of quotation marks to indicate that you are referencing another person's statements is fairly common usage; are you not familiar with that? If not, I'll try to make my statement less complex; I wouldn't want to confuse you too much.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
:wink: Ok, you got me --
:lol: because, y'know, cuckoo cuckoo!

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
-- thought maybe I could slip that bullshit by...
Thanks so much for putting words in my mouth. Let me return the favor:

Quote Originally Posted by msm
George Bush wears women's panties!
Gee, isn't this fun?

Do you and Marc (DA) hang out together? 'Cause he has a very annoying habit of doing the same thing. But keep up the good work; I was getting tired of his constant straw-man attacks, and it's nice have a new sparring partner...







Post#8161 at 04-30-2004 06:46 PM by msm [at joined Dec 2001 #posts 201]
---
04-30-2004, 06:46 PM #8161
Join Date
Dec 2001
Posts
201

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Do you and Marc (DA) hang out together? 'Cause he has a very annoying habit of doing the same thing. But keep up the good work; I was getting tired of his constant straw-man attacks, and it's nice have a new sparring partner...
Sorry, Rick, I can't oblige you. It's not worth my time. I don't know why Mark puts up with you, but based on your description, he sounds like a fine sort. (In my experience, when guys like you accuse someone of making straw man arguments, they're frequently wrong. I bet you use the word "neocon" a lot, too, right?)

You can go on reading Chomsky or whatever brain-destroying bilge. I chuckle at the knowledge that, most likely, you'll agree with me in about ten years.

"If you're not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at age 30, you have no brain."







Post#8162 at 04-30-2004 06:53 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 06:53 PM #8162
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Convert if you like; but as I'm sure you are aware, the medieval Caliphs were remarkably tolerant of other religions. They didn't much care who you worshipped or how you did it, as long as you respected their authority and their own right to worship. This is a marked contrast to "Christendom" of the same time period.
My god. Where the hell did this kid COME from.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a kid; I'm from the '67 cohort. (The picture on the left is my 10-year-old son.)

Quote Originally Posted by msm
He's like a caricature of a mush-brained product of a lefty college education.
I attended high school in the heart of the Midwest, and graduated near the top of my class. As a National Merit scholar, I attended a highly conservative religious college. I voted for Bush Sr. in 1988.

Then I grew up and began to understand who the world really works. How are you coming along with that, by the way?

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Islam TODAY is where Christianity was IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Forced marriages. Patriarchy. Wife beating. Therefore, what you are DEFENDING is what you profess to be AGAINST.
This is of course a gross generalization of Islam; the same could easily be said of Christianity. I'm not sure what you think I'm "defending": after all, I did point out that Wahabism is a conscious return to Medieval values.

What I do profess to be against is intolerance, whether that be in the Middle East or here in the US. To the extent that the 15th-century Caliphs practiced that, I respect them. (They realized that you can't just kill all your political opponents.) To the extent that the Sauds or the Bushes reject that sort of tolerance, I denounce them. Not so hard to understand, is it?







Post#8163 at 04-30-2004 07:07 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 07:07 PM #8163
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Do you and Marc (DA) hang out together? 'Cause he has a very annoying habit of doing the same thing. But keep up the good work; I was getting tired of his constant straw-man attacks, and it's nice have a new sparring partner...
I don't know why Mark puts up with you, but based on your description, he sounds like a fine sort.
The "Marc" I was referring to is Marc Lamb, currently posting on this board as "Devil's Advocate." I don't know much about him, but I'm sure he's a fine sort as well.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
In my experience, when guys like you accuse someone of making straw man arguments, they're frequently wrong.
Now that's too precious: "guys like you" is of course a classic straw man. You obviously hardly know the first thing about me, so attacking "guys like [me]" is to attack a figment of your own imagination. If you want to attack my actual statements feel free.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
I bet you use the word "neocon" a lot, too, right? You can go on reading Chomsky or whatever brain-destroying bilge.
OK, maybe you do know the first thing about me. :lol:

Quote Originally Posted by msm
I chuckle at the knowledge that, most likely, you'll agree with me in about ten years. "If you're not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at age 30, you have no brain."
Sorry to disappoint you; I was a conservative 'til about 20, now I'm a Progressive. ("Liberal" means "generous". I would hope that applies to everybody, not just those of a particular political persuasion. If you are referring to the political definition, Merriam-Webster describes it as "favoring a political party associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives." I would hope that you advocate those goals as well.)







Post#8164 at 04-30-2004 07:24 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 07:24 PM #8164
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
President when? In 1979-1981, when Carter and then Reagan organized and funded the mujaheddin?
So? That has nothing to do with what we're talking about, Rick, and you're lame for bringing it up as if anyone should be impressed.
I'm sorry; I thought we were talking about how to deal with Afghanistan. Given that the mujaheddin formed the core of the Taliban, I should think it relevant.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
The mujaheddin were an anti-Soviet insurgency. Osama was a small player in it. So what? Italy was our ally in WWI and our enemy in WWII. So what?
So? So, apparently unalliances can be hazardous, and should be approached with extreme caution.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Or in 2001, when Bush sent $43 million to the Taliban as a bribe to allow pipeline construction
Your arguments are so lame, and now this.
That wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact. Do you deny that the money transfer, or the meeting to discuss it, took place?

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Tell me this, smart guy? Where's the pipeline now? Huh? I mean, our boots are all over Afghanistan, so what's holding up the pipeline deal?
Well, there's the small matter of the security situation, as I previously described. The multiple tons of unexploded ordnance don't help either. The US sort of fouled the well on that one.

Instead, the oil companies are now turning to brutally authoritarian Uzbekistan as an ally. Apparently, they haven't learned anything about unstable alliances after all.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
EARTH TO RICK: A PIPELINE ACROSS AFGHANISTAN NEVER MADE ECONOMIC SENSE. NEVER DID, NEVER WILL.
A whole lot of things can start to make economic sense when you can get the American taxpayer to foot the bill.

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Take the red pill, Rick. Wake up.
Ah, that's clever. The "red" pill, as in the "red zone" rather than the "blue zone." As for my opinions on the Matrix you'll have to jump over to the Eschatology thread.







Post#8165 at 04-30-2004 07:33 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
04-30-2004, 07:33 PM #8165
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Do you and Marc (DA) hang out together? 'Cause he has a very annoying habit of doing the same thing. But keep up the good work; I was getting tired of his constant straw-man attacks, and it's nice have a new sparring partner...
I was never a party to such "sparring partner" nonsense, beyond a curt few words. That "partner" stuff is all in your warped head, kid.







Post#8166 at 04-30-2004 07:41 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
04-30-2004, 07:41 PM #8166
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Do you and Marc (DA) hang out together? 'Cause he has a very annoying habit of doing the same thing. But keep up the good work; I was getting tired of his constant straw-man attacks, and it's nice have a new sparring partner...
I was never a party to such "sparring partner" nonsense, beyond a curt few words. That "partner" stuff is all in your warped head, kid.
's?r-"ka-z&m, n. HTH.

I was merely pointing out that I prefer this forum, and posters such as yourself to the "echo chamber" of strictly left-oriented sites like dKos.







Post#8167 at 04-30-2004 07:50 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
04-30-2004, 07:50 PM #8167
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by msm
Osama Bin Laden probably perished in one of the thousands of caves that was wiped out from the air.
Why do you think this?







Post#8168 at 04-30-2004 11:23 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-30-2004, 11:23 PM #8168
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

MSM:

Our choice is this: several dozen dead per year in Iraq for five years (not forever), or tens of thousands dead in a U.S. city in the future.
I'm going to make a running list of all the logical fallacies you've employed in the last few posts, starting with this one. There are two in the above sentence, an assertion contrary to known fact (re the annual casualties, which have far passed the "several dozen" mark for 2004 alone, unless 40 or 50 can be considered "several"), and an unsupported assertion (re the idea that if we pull out of Iraq we'll get nuked as a result). I'd love to see you try to connect the dots on that pull-out-and-get-nuked business, by the way.

The one thing you may be right about is the five year timetable. It might take us that long to wise up and cut our losses.

Iraq is now a central battleground in the WOT. The U.S. State Dept. now agrees
Here's another fallacy: the argument by authority. That the U.S. State Department agrees with you does not mean that either of you is right. Or, in the case of the State Department, that it is truthful. This is, after all, a department of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, run ultimately by Mr. Bush, who is hardly going to assert anything else.

Perhaps you'd care to share some real evidence about Iraq being a "central battleground" in the "war on terror"? Or even some definitions of those terms?

Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail. What makes you think this will be one of the rare exceptions?
OK, we get a break from the fallacies. This is a genuine argument.

A high percentage of the rare exceptions have been cases of resistance to foreign occupations. In the list you provided, only one such case was mentioned (Vietnam) and it was one of the cases where the insurgents won. Jenny (the Wonk) added a few more, and most of her successful insurgencies fit that pattern. It is much harder to overthrow one's own government than it is to persuade foreign occupiers to go home. Iraq is a case of insurgents trying to persuade foreign occupiers to go home. We already overthrew their government for them.

Incidentally, you're overstating the case when you say the Contintental Army was "losing badly" for years. "Losing badly" would mean the army being trapped and wiped out or forced to surrender. So long as Washington managed to preserve the Continental Army as a force-in-being, he was winning his guerrilla war. It is true that French participation was required to win a conventional war. But I believe that even without French help, we could have worn the British down and achieved a political settlement from Parliament, although it would almost surely have taken longer.

Oh, look below! More fallacies! Back to the fun!

Before the invasion, Iraq's leadership actively supported international terrorism.
This is a classic: guilt-by-association, the implication (supported by the further fallacious argument below) that Iraq supported al-Qaeda. They didn't, of course, but they did support Hamas.

"International terrorism" is a category of things, not a thing. Al-Qaeda and Hamas both belong to that category, but al-Qaeda is not Hamas.

As there is no such "thing" as "international terrorism," Iraq's leadership could not have supported it.

Iraqi money was funneled through banks tied to Al Qaeda.
Look! More guilt by association!

Said banks were "tied to" al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda also funneled money through them. Know something? I bank at the same institution where Bill Gates banks. Does that mean his money is mine?

Don't I wish!

Iraq was actively seeking WMD capability. We now know that Iraq was in negotiations with North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons tech as late as March 2003.
These involve the fallacy of presupposition, in which the implied conclusion (that Iraq presented an imminent danger of developing the ability to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons) is based on a definite answer to another question which is not even asked, namely: Could Iraq have developed nuclear weapons in any reasonable time frame? The mere intent to do so is not sufficient.

Bear in mind that nuclear weapons are complex devices and must be tested to be relied upon. It is difficult to develop nuclear weapons secretly, but to test them secretly is impossible. Also, these are not exactly cheap devices that can be thrown together in somebody's basement. Iraq's trade base was devastated, a goodly part of its territory occupied, all of its territory overflown by hostile airplanes --

I'll grant you the will on Saddam's part, but let's see you try to establish the ability.

Iraq had significant chemical weapons technology.
Ah, the lovely misleading statement, a true assertion meant to be taken to mean something other than it does. What you mean to imply is that Iraq possessed significant stockpiles of chemical weapons, as that would constitute an actual threat. What you said, however, was that Iraq possessed the knowledge of how to make chemical weapons, which may be true, because Iraq certainly used them in the Iran-Iraq war and so presumably knew how to make them. Apparently, however, while "significant chemical weapons technology" did exist in Iraq, chemical weapons in significant quantities did not.

Iraq was successfully bribing the U.N. and countries like France and Russia to act in ways opposed to the interests of the U.S.
A classic false cause fallacy. The U.N. and countries like France and Russia acted in ways opposed to the interests of the U.S. (or at least to the stated aims of the Bush administration, which may or may not be the same thing), but the assertion that they did this because of Iraqi bribes requires some supporting evidence. Perhaps they did it because they genuinely disagreed with Bush. Or is that too far-fetched?

All of these facts are commonly accepted as true
The good old argumentum ad numerum, the reasoning that a proposition is likely to be true if it is believed by a lot of people.

In this case, we can add that you don't add by whom these "facts" are commonly accepted as true, nor acknowledge that some of the "facts" you've stated are not the same as the ones you are trying to get us to infer.

Right now, all of that has stopped. Provided that the above remains stopped, the Iraq invasion was successful.
Very good. Then, since we've already won, you'd approve of an immediate pull-out of forces that no longer serve any purpose, right?

My god. Where the hell did this kid COME from. He's like a caricature of a mush-brained product of a lefty college education.
Argumentum ad hominem of the abusive variety.

Islam TODAY is where Christianity was IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
Inappropriate generalization, another fallacy. Both Christianity and Islam are pretty diverse faiths, and no such statement is true about either as a whole. On the other hand, there are sects of Christianity which are about as bad as the fanatical, modernity-rejecting varieties of Islam.

Therefore, what you are DEFENDING is what you profess to be AGAINST.
Straw man argument. Rick was not defending Islam today; he was defending Islam in the Middle Ages.

This so-called backward society we live in is honestly debating how we will eventually allow gays to marry, and what we will call it when we do eventually allow it. The theory of evolution is taught in our schools daily.
Another straw man argument. Witchiepoo was critiquing right-wing Christianity, not American society.

In my experience, when guys like you accuse someone of making straw man arguments, they're frequently wrong.
Argumentum ad hominem again, coupled with another false-cause fallacy. The proper defense against an accusation of using straw-man arguments is of course to show that the argument is not a straw man but accurately describes and disputes one's opponent's real beliefs and statements. It is not a defense to claim that the accusation may be dismissed out of hand. It cannot.

I bet you use the word "neocon" a lot, too, right?
Red herring: the use of an irrelevant thought to divert attention from what has been said.

You can go on reading Chomsky or whatever brain-destroying bilge.
Yet another argumentum ad hominem.

I chuckle at the knowledge that, most likely, you'll agree with me in about ten years.

"If you're not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at age 30, you have no brain."
I'm not sure how to categorize this fallacy. It encompasses several of them. It's certainly false-cause, and assertion contrary to fact (in that Rick is already well past 30, and also in that there are plenty of old liberals around).

I guess two are enough.

OK, let's tally all that:

Assertion contrary to known fact (2)
Unsupported assertion
Argument by authority
Guilt by association (2)
Presupposition
Misleading statement
False cause (3)
Argumentum ad numerum
Argumentum ad hominem (3)
Inappropriate generalization
Straw man (2)
Red herring

Well, unless I missed some, that gives us an impressive total of 19 logical fallacies. You did, however, have one genuine argument buried in all that offal, deserving of a serious reply. There may have been more, but if so I didn't notice them.







Post#8169 at 04-30-2004 11:46 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
04-30-2004, 11:46 PM #8169
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

There's a word out there.

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
You did, however, have one genuine argument buried in all that offal, deserving of a serious reply. There may have been more, but if so I didn't notice them.
Mr. Rush, this was not offal which though often unpleasant at first can be made into hearty and life sustaining nutrition. I first thought to use the word ordure-- even though "that" can provide for a greening plant. I offer miasma. HTH







Post#8170 at 04-30-2004 11:58 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-30-2004, 11:58 PM #8170
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Correction accepted, Virgil, with my thanks. :wink:







Post#8171 at 05-01-2004 12:02 AM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
05-01-2004, 12:02 AM #8171
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Brian:

You just do not appreciate the danger that al-Qaeda poses to the future survival of the US. :lol: Don't you watch Fox News? :lol: :lol: :lol:

An al-Qaeda army has placed Vicksburg under siege and the residents are living in underground caves, eating rats. Atlanta is in flames and another al-Qaeda army is freely looting what is not burning. The al-Qaeda Navy's Pacific fleet lies north of Oahu awaiting the call to launch an aerial attack on Pearl Harbor. al-Qaeda wolfpacks sink merchant shipping in the North Atlantic daily. The al-Qaeda Air Force owns the skies over Europe. al-Qaeda infantry is debarking from ships in Boston Harbor as we speak and Justin '79 is riding all over the place screaming, "The towelheads are coming! The towelheads are coming!" Never before has the world known a scourge on a par with al-Qaeda! :lol: Hegel lives!
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#8172 at 05-01-2004 12:27 AM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
05-01-2004, 12:27 AM #8172
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

These two new columns from true conservative Charley Reese apply to this discussion. He voted for Junior in 2000 but he shall not do so again.



http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040503/index.php

(Standard disclaimers)


Lots Of Mistakes

by Charley Reese
For Monday, May 3, 2004

President George W. Bush has said he hasn't made any mistakes. I can think of lots of mistakes he's made.

He failed to prevent the attacks on Sept. 11. Say what you will, those attacks occurred on his watch and are his responsibility. The Aug. 6 memo the CIA prepared for him would have told an alert man to at least get the Federal Aviation Administration to beef up security at the airports. He did nothing. On Aug. 7, when he talked to the press, he didn't mention al-Qaida. He talked only about Saddam Hussein. He came into office obsessed with the idea of removing Saddam Hussein, and this obsession blinded him to the real dangers that faced the country.

He took the country to war on false pretenses. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear program. There were no ties to al-Qaida. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to anybody but his own people.

Bush has been the most secretive and deceptive president in modern history. Even before the war in Afghanistan was over, he ordered the secretary of defense to prepare a war plan against Iraq and to keep it secret. They used money designated for one war to prepare for another, a violation of the Constitution.

He alienated our most important allies ? France, Germany and Russia ? and had to put together a comic coalition of the bribed and the browbeaten. Yeah, Honduras is a big help in a war ? almost as much as El Salvador. Consequently, American taxpayers are bearing 95 percent of the cost and more than 90 percent of the casualties. And there is no exit strategy.

He disregarded plentiful warnings from experts that invading Iraq would weaken the war against al-Qaida and actually help the terrorists. He disregarded warnings that the occupation would be difficult and costly. Every single warning has been proven to be true, and every single assumption Bush made has been wrong.

He fired a retired general who had experience in Iraq and replaced him with a Washington policy wonk, L. Paul Bremer, who has made blunder after blunder. Bremer fired the civil servants and had no one to run the government. He fired the police and army and had no one to provide security. Now, a year later, he's trying to hire Saddam's people while eating crow.

Bush disregarded the advice of the Army chief of staff and went into Iraq with too few soldiers to do a proper occupation. The orgy of looting while our soldiers and Marines stood by and watched is probably the single biggest blunder of the occupation. Not only did the looting prevent the restoration of services in a timely fashion, it sent a clear message to the Iraqi people that we didn't give a toot about their welfare. The only building we protected was the oil ministry.

The two greatest failures of intelligence since Pearl Harbor occurred on his watch ? the Sept. 11 attacks and the mythical weapons of mass destruction. Yet Bush has not fired one person. He fought against the 9/11 Commission and then stonewalled it. Like somebody on dope, he keeps insisting his intelligence was "good." I've never seen a president as disconnected from reality as George W. Bush.

His blind support of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has made America the most hated nation on Earth in the Middle East.

There is something seriously wrong with a man who denies any economic problems, any budget problems, any problems in intelligence and any problems in Iraq and insists he has made no mistakes. One has to wonder if he isn't living in his own private world.









http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040505/index.php

(Standard disclaimers)


War Propaganda

by Charley Reese
For Wednesday, May 5, 2004

If you step back a moment and think about it, you will realize that you are constantly being propagandized to approve of war ? not just the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but war generically.

We should resist. War is killing, maiming and disfiguring human beings. It is so disgusting and horrible in reality that even the most "realistic" Hollywood movie sanitizes it. The news media sanitize it. The government sanitizes war because it doesn't want you to see the coffins. Most of all, it doesn't want you to see the bodies before they are put in the coffins. The Bush administration's real beef with the Arab television station Al-Jazeera is really nothing more than the fact that Al-Jazeera shows the bodies.

No, the Bush administration doesn't want you to see the bodies ? not the bodies of our men and women, and not the bodies of Iraqi men, women and children. The administration wants you to see the war as an electronic game with bright lights in the distance and good sound effects, or close-ups of our brave warriors firing their guns at an invisible enemy. It doesn't want you to see the torn flesh, blood, intestines, feces, urine. If you did, you might not support the war, and billions of dollars depend on your support.

The government line is that if you don't approve of the war, you are disloyal. If you don't agree to give the Pentagon whatever it says it wants, you are disloyal. If you don't agree to surrender your civil liberties to the Patriot Act, you are disloyal. If you disagree with the Bush administration, you are disloyal. If you disagree with the chicken-hawk demagogues on radio and television, blathering about the war from the safety of their studios, you are disloyal.

This entire glorification of war ? as if the whole and only purpose of the government and the country were to fight wars ? smells of fascism. The news media glorify the war and militarism; we get the same dose on television, in the movies and in video games. If the American people aren't careful, they will wake up one day to find out they've become a nation of mindless heel-clickers.

America should not be about war. War is justified only in self-defense. We've been involved in many wars, but the last war fought in self-defense was World War II. That was also the last war that was constitutional, with a formal declaration of war by Congress. Not one single poor soul of the more than 100,000 Americans who have died in the Cold War and the hot wars since 1945 has died in defense of America.

The sad thing is that when the last soldier leaves Afghanistan and Iraq ? if that day ever comes ? we won't be any better off. Afghanistan will still be Afghanistan. Iraq will still be Iraq. There will be more graves, there will be more Americans without arms and legs, but nothing will have changed. Politicians will be searching diligently for more "bad guys" for the next generation to fight. First it was the fascists, then the communists, now the terrorists. Who's next? God only knows.

We should not equate peace with weakness. We ought to be like the Swiss. Their policy is armed neutrality. They have a sound defensive force and can be in the field in 48 hours, but they will fight only if they are invaded. They do not send their sons to foreign countries to die for political or economic reasons.

We should emulate the Swiss. No American should ever kill or die except in defense of this country. And no corporation should be allowed to make a profit off the blood of American soldiers, as is now happening in Iraq and has happened in every war.

An old Marine general had it right when he said, "War is a racket." Let us all learn to hate it as it deserves to be hated.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#8173 at 05-01-2004 01:23 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-01-2004, 01:23 AM #8173
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Thanks, Brian. I was posting from work, so I didn't have time to compose a detailed reply -- I was just shooting from the hip.

As for the ad hominem attacks, I find them rather amusing. With my copious gray hairs (a gift from my children), I haven't been called "kid" in a long, long time. Also, I'm sure my co-alumni of BYU would laugh out loud at the notion that we had received a "lefty college education": we were expected to attend devotionals at least twice a week, and stand at attention for the morning and afternoon flag ceremony. (Ah, the carefree days of my youth...)

Besides, the conventional wisdom is that a person who resorts to an ad hominem attack has not only lost the argument, he knows he has lost the argument.

Let's move on. Returning to the topic of the thread, I present as evidence the top 3 new stories currently posted on Reuters UK:

1) UK probes alleged Iraqi beatings by [British] troops.
Dehumanizing the enemy is a critical step toward the mindset required for a 4T Crisis "total war."

2) Europe reunites in blaze of joy.
In addition to the obvious geopolitical implications, for the first time since the end of the last 4T, the US will face a trading bloc with a larger GDP. At this point, the union is largely symbolic, but it is like a matching bookend to the partition of Europe at the beginning of this saeculum.

3) Subdued Jacko pleads innocent.
OK, maybe we're still 3T for now... :?







Post#8174 at 05-01-2004 01:39 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-01-2004, 01:39 AM #8174
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

An old Marine general had it right when he said, "War is a racket."
That would be Major General "Old Gimlet Eye" Smedley D. Butler. His is a most interesting story, one that I would recommend every sunshine patriot read. I have The Plot To Seize The White House sitting on my shelf of library books to get to, but first I have some "brain-destroying bilge" to finish off. 8)







Post#8175 at 05-01-2004 02:04 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-01-2004, 02:04 AM #8175
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Constructing a Logical Argument

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Well, unless I missed some, that gives us an impressive total of 19 logical fallacies. You did, however, have one genuine argument buried in all that offal, deserving of a serious reply. There may have been more, but if so I didn't notice them.
Oh dear. It seems like my monopoly on pointing out blatant fallacies has run out. Nineteen at once. I'm not sure whether to be impressed or jealous. :wink:

If anyone would care to browse through a primer on fallacies and logic, the following is a link to Constructing a Logical Argument, a handy little tool for internet debaters.

http://polyticks.com/home/indexlogic.html
-----------------------------------------