Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Playdude, you're obviously the one who requires a lot more seasoning in life. Hell, I've never donned a uniform in my life. However, I figure Rani and Semo both have the natural sense, the common knowlege or the practical experience to recognize a person who is, as you said, pretty well seasoned in life.

Hey, I thought you'd be off to the Emerald City by now. What's up?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I also see a lot of values filtering going on. It is natural for people to seek out information sources and associates who coming from those similar values, and find reasons to shun or disregard people and information sources that threaten their values.

Crises come to climax because people cling to old values past their time. Old values have to totally fail before many will abandon the past and start solving the problems staring them in the face. Until truly catastrophic failure is completely undeniable, it will be denied.

The lack of communications typical on these forum just illustrates the problem.

A lot to agree with here, but don't you think there's also an element of laziness involved?

If one's viewpoint is based on seeking that stops at reading an internet poster's claimed personal experiences, it would seem that (i.e. laziness) may be key factor in differences among viewpoints, perhaps even limiting basic communication.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hey, I thought you'd be off to the Emerald City by now. What's up?

Home is so close, Toto. All we have to do is close our eyes and wish. :

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hey, I thought you'd be off to the Emerald City by now. What's up?

Dude, you should consider yourself lucky that I'm a forty year old vs a twenty something with combat experience and a couple of tours in Iraq under his belt. My tone and communication towards you would be ten times harsher and ten times more personal in nature than you have experienced up to now.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Dude, you should consider yourself lucky that I'm a forty year old vs a twenty something with combat experience and a couple of tours in Iraq under his belt. My tone and communication towards you would be ten times harsher and ten times more personal in nature than you have experienced up to now.

I'm sure 40-something is around the average age for those at the State Department being asked to fill those 50 slots in the Emerald City.

Come on stud-ly dude! Don't use the age excuse, here's your chance to prove u da man.

Hell, one rotation over there and you too could come back lookin like this -



You'd have the Rani dudette doing backflips for ya!

But maybe 3 out of 4 of our Iraqi vets might have some harsh words for you, old stud-ly -

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ahhh ... no. You put me in the gender box looong ago. And you started to do it again here with the "being swayed by a man in uniform" crap.



Not only can you not spell, you can't read either. Amazing.

Oh, I'm such a bad boy.

Hey, we're all friends here. Right?

Then why the personal, stupid crap? Keep it away from the public forum. I don't want to read it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

\http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

• Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
• While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
• Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
• Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
• Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
• Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

13rian, that poll is from February of last year! Find a more recent poll!

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Then why the personal, stupid crap? Keep it away from the public forum. I don't want to read it.

You prefer 100% certainty, perhaps?

Originally Posted by Odin

The Grandfather of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, thought, following Plato, that "the elites" should lie to the public to keep them in line. Anyone who hasn't had their head in the stand for the past 6 years knows that W's Neo-Con puppet-masters are deceiving the public

I guess that makes Max Shachtman and James Burnham the crazy grandmother and dour great aunt, respectively?

I love to see Marc Lamb get his panties in a twist when you point out that neo-conservatism is in large part an offshoot of Trotskyism. They and their fellow elitists, the plutocrats, are playing people like him, HC, and others in the Religious Right for fools.

If or when the rank-in-file red staters fully realize that they have been duped, watch out! If you think the groundswell of radical centrist populism sentiment is strong now . . . both parties should watch out.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Before spazzing out, you may want to consider the context; Playdude has called me a liar for saying that I was in the military and has claimed that my knowledge of Iraq comes from teh internets.

I don't think it's your military service that he is questioning. Same goes for me, BTW.

Originally Posted by 13rian

I think Justin's Coke v. Pepsi argument is valid. I stand here despicably guilty as charged.

That's why I recommend:

Originally Posted by 13rian

Which is why when some here say to a supporter "Well then, if you're so behind it, grab a gun and ship on out!" ...it is usually met with silence.

In all seriousness, though I strongly disapprove of the Iraq War for reasons I have mentioned elsewhere, I am uncomfortable with the above argument. I don't think it is necessarily fair to tell a war supporter to go to Iraq (assuming they could).

Should all people afraid of global warming stop using their cars? Should all people in favor of stemming illegal immigration join the Minutemen? Should all people opposed to the death penalty physically go and protest at an execution? Set themselves on fire like a Buddhist monk? And so on. Chris may think so, but that's him.

But I have no problem challenging war supporters to defend their position on the subject. And other than those brave enough to admit that we need to radically ramp up the war effort in order to salvage any of our alleged goals there (alas, not people on this board), I have not heard or read a single cogent argument to back our current polices for staying there that stands up to logical scrutiny or fact-checking. The only thing that comes close is "we're damned not matter what we do so let's stay with the devil we know", and I personally don't find that persuasive.

But that's just me.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

That's why I recommend:

Oh great. A Perot guy....

Meh, all colas suck, IMO.

Originally Posted by sean '90

13rian, that poll is from February of last year! Find a more recent poll!

I'm the one who posted the poll.

After this poll came out, there hasn't been a repeat. With the poll's result, only a moron would think the WH and top brass didn't clamp down hard on any further attempt to get an update from the troops.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

No, silly. I wasn't claiming the term "Emerald City" as my own. If I'd meant to claim that you have no right to use the term "Emerald City", I would have said just that. I was poking fun of your tactic of using insider terminology in order to make it appear as if you know what you're talking about!

The point being made was that, as an indicator of the Iraq CF (the theme of this thread), Foreign Service officers are up in arms about being forced to station at our embassy in Baghdad and that 50 slots remain unfilled as a result. The point was made based on a reference -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101626_pf.html
It had no basis in "insider" knowledge and none was claimed by me, therefore, your grasping at my use of the "Emerald City" term has no logical basis. Further, I have provided at least six major books on the subject, some of which have been at the top of most bestseller lists, that have used the term extensively -it has come to be a fairly general term amongst those who have done some reading on the subject if not the general population. Your attempted foray would be similar to a vet, of another era, claiming anyone who used the word "'Nam" was attempting to feint insider knowledge. Both claims are rather silly.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

I mean, c'mon Playdude... The jig is up. You claim to be a professional writer, yet you can't spell. You claim to be a playwright, and yet you can't spell even a simple term related to your supposed profession (i.e. it's "monologue" not "monolog").

Let me turn to what I consider the major contribution to this forum given by one on your good buddies -- As KIA said, the day you or this forum start paying me to worry about spelling or punctuation is the day I might begin to worry about it as much as you seem to think I should care to do. The problem is, I very seriously doubt that the combined annual income of those of you who have repeatedly brought this up would come even close to other offers that I routinely turn down.

I may regret providing this little tidbit, but the misspelling of "playwrite" is an insider joke about me within the business on both coasts. It also has something to do with a friendly competitor grabbing the correct version first on a certain business forum we both use.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

You claim to have read a bunch of books on the subject of Iraq, some of which I've read, and yet you have yet to display an understanding of these works beyond what you might have picked up on a blog somewhere, in an Amazon review, or on Wikipedia.

. I have read all the books I listed and more, but you’re right, I do read Amazon reviews, blogs and love Wikipedia - so yes, I stand guilty of your implied accusation that I am well-read -- at least in the subject matter that I choose to cover in my art, this is a very basic requirement.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

You profess to be well read about current events in the Middle East, and yet you don't recognize a distinction between the concepts of Islamism and Islam.

Can you provide a quote of this egregious affront to humanity?

Originally Posted by Semo '75

You present yourself as a student of terror management theory, and yet your own take on it is frequently at odds with the sources you cite.

Again, can you reference the affront? And, in your world, must a student of a theory only mimic the master?

Originally Posted by Semo '75

And, of course, when you're actually presented with an argument that goes beyond your understanding, you resort to shrill ad hominem attacks and claiming that your opponent is a liar.

Despite my several times explaining that the "liar post" in question was my attempt at sarcasm (to make the point that it is adolescent to use claimed off-stage personal experience in an attempt to trump logical argument), you continue to bring this up. You must feel this as a mortal wound to your service and sacrifice to your country. I can understand this to a much greater degree than you would likely guess. Let me be clear. In no way did I intend to discredit your service or sacrifice. I apologize if you took it that way.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

And that's what I was getting at with my comment. Which is why I said that I find it entertaining that you use insider terminology to enhance your credibility, and why I didn't say that you had no right to use the term.

I refer you to my explanation above. In no way was I attempting to claim insider knowledge. To do otherwise, don’t you find that would be a little at odds with my viewpoint towards personal experience?

Now you have accused me of a feint - a deceptive action. The only question that I believe remains unaddress is: are you also capable of an apology?

Some of us may remember Linebacker 1 and especially Linebacker 2 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II

Just a not-so-amusing thought that crossed my mind when reading this -

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...rstrikes_N.htm

The U.S. military has increased airstrikes in Iraq four-fold this year, reflecting a steep escalation in combat operations aimed at al-Qaeda and other militants.
Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics.

"We are using air power in lieu of putting extensive forces on the ground," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Allen Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center.

However, increased use of air power raises the chances of killing innocent civilians, said Mark Clodfelter, a professor at the National War College. Winning over the population is key to defeating insurgents.

"You don't want bombing to be a recruiting method for the insurgents," Clodfelter said.

Thank God we got them thar smart bombs that only kill da bad guys!

Whoops -

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysi...biggest-bombs/

Large bombings claim ever more lives
2007 sees the worst bombings ever – and more of them

What does it say about a military occupation that turns to aerial bombing to get its own casuality rates down?

But, we're told, things are going swimmingly for most Iraqis. However, as Juan Cole points out -
http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/2007...us-troops.html

Although the Iraqi government's Ministry of Health has issued statistics purporting to show a substantial drop in civilian deaths, that ministry is highly politicized and has been caught hiding things from journalists. If deaths were actually falling, it is hard to explain how the proportion of internally displaced grew by 16 percent in September alone, or how the number of internally displaced Iraqis has gone from 0.5 million to 2.1 million in the past 10 months! In this same period, Baghdad has gone from being 65% Shiite to being 75% Shiite. That would be a displacement of 600,000 Sunnis from the capital alone since January. I can't square such massive internal refugee flows with declining violence very easily, though one possibility is that the US has disarmed so many Sunnis in Baghdad that they fled rather than fight for their neighborhoods.

More detailed "good news" here -

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...on=focusoniraq

Originally Posted by Semo '75

I took issue with your demand (and it was a demand) that I conform to what you thought my political position should be, or shut up about a war that I fought in. That I have to point out that there's a difference genuinely surprises me, but whatever.

I did not demand that you conform, only that you explain (or shut up). I have not seen an explanation yet.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I did not demand that you conform, only that you explain (or shut up). I have not seen an explanation yet.

I dunno Zar, either you explain yourself to me or shut up, comes across as being pretty rude and very demanding.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

I dunno Zar, either you explain yourself to me or shut up, comes across as being pretty rude and very demanding.

You should talk.

And it was a challenge. I want a cogent, even logically coherent, explanation for supporting this President's policies in Iraq. Is that too much to ask?

I know your answer already: He's the President, and according to the Constitution he gets to do whatever he wants to do when we are at war.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh great. A Perot guy....

Are you kidding? Perot was about the hooch.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

You claim to be a playwright, and yet you can't spell even a simple term related to your supposed profession (i.e. it's "monologue" not "monolog").

Sorry to nitpick, but according to Merriam-Webster, it can be either.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Sorry to nitpick, but according to Merriam-Webster, it can be either.

In my experience there is "analog" for the most part in the States and "analogue" in Britain, I wonder if it's the same for mono- and dia- ?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let me turn to what I consider the major contribution to this forum given by one on your good buddies -- As KIA said, the day you or this forum start paying me to worry about spelling or punctuation is the day I might begin to worry about it as much as you seem to think I should care to do. The problem is, I very seriously doubt that the combined annual income of those of you who have repeatedly brought this up would come even close to other offers that I routinely turn down.

Ah, don't use me as an excuse for your shortcomings. You see, I'm just KIA the businessman. I'm not the prestigious, self-proclaimed, I make the big bucks, play'wright/writer/author who's known to us as Playwrite. You see, I don't write for a living or get paid to write on the 4T. You're supposebly paid for writing stuff for a living which should reveal itself here as well. I get paid to verbally communicate, instruct, guide, direct and evaluate people and progress for a living. My secretary was the one who was paid to professionally write or input important data into my computer.