Originally Posted by Semo '75

I doubt that you're actually sorry to nitpick, but that's OK. Whatever. "Monolog" (and "dialog") are 'accepted' variants in the sense that they're in the dictionary, thanks to an attempt to streamline spelling and modernize American English. But those spellings never caught on.

Well, then let me be polite, even if you doubt my sincerity. At some point in the last nine months, I lost the desire to fight with people on internet forums. It's time-consuming, and the catharsis is no longer sufficient to compensate for the feeling of futility. At this point, you'd have to seriously transgress my principles to draw me into a loud argument. If I pick nits, it's because I'm a stickler for the language.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Sure I am. But only when I see something that warrants an apology. So far I've seen nothing of the sort from you. Not for nothin', but your claim that you really are a playwright and that you make more money than I do doesn't mean that I believe you.

As far as the rest of your post goes? I have neither the time nor inclination to go through volumes of old posts to make my case. The people who know what's up already know what's up, and I need not make the case for them. The people who don't will never see what's right there in front of their faces anyway, so it's not really worth my time.

Yes, the implied claim of my using the "playwright" label (even if misspelled) could fall within the same bounds of your claim as being a vet and a community activist. The difference, however, is up to the point of my last post, I haven't used it as the basis for an argument. And the argument above is that I do indeed read a lot which would seem to dovetail well with the majority of my posts (at least those not spent counter-snipping you and the other ‘snippettes') containing referenced material. On the other hand, your posts are nearly devoid of any referenced material and instead sweep down as if from the hand of God as being the penultimate of "the people who know what's up already know what's up."

However, my test of your ability to apologize did not involve any claim as to my livelihood. It dealt with your suggesting a feint on my part of having an insider's viewpoint of our Embassy in Iraq. As presented above, there is no logic to your assertion -- it was merely you just being nasty. Your inability to apologize justs further underscores the nastiness.

As I said before, with a decade or more of seasoning, such abilities may come to you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I would never use the word "Nam" myself, in any context, precisely for the reason that for me to do so would be completely ridiculous and comical ... and not to just those who were actually there.

Also, I have to add that most of the Vietnam vets I've met would probably find it horribly presumptuous, and possibly insulting, if I used the word casually in conversation with them.

The fact that others view you as being "completely ridiculous and comical" has little to do with any specific term you may choose to use.

However, it is a step in the right direction for you -- as you should be aware, the dawn of self-awareness and how others may perceive you are both key initial steps to finally addressing a variety of personal maladies...

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Sure he did. He flat out called me a liar.

I realize this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but this attempted 'liar' diversion of yours has now been completely neutered. You're going to have to attempt to use a different synaptic pathway and come up with something else or let it go -- its getting a little too embarrassing to witness.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You have, however, used it as an excuse for your jackass behavior in the past. .

I have stepped over the line (which I apologized for), but I've never used my work as an excuse for it. The nature of my implied way of making a living has been much more a target of you and your very small band of not-so-merry men than it has ever been a claim by me of some superior position and knowledge. And in regard to where I have brought it up (and this may be hard for you to grasp) -- there is a big difference in using implied personal experiences (i.e., a writer) as a somewhat humorous excuse for a choice of words (e.g. "my fair lady") as compared to using claimed personal experiences (i.e. I'm an Islam-studying, former Iraqi vet, I'm a brilliant mental health worker) in an attempt to squash otherwise serious and logical discourse backed up by provided references to opinions stated by highly recognized experts.

Originally Posted by The Rani

To your credit, you have started to clean up your act, as other people have started calling you on your shit

What others? You and your little band of merry men? I think most would agree that your ratio of snark to insightful postings is far beyond mine or most other posters. Because most have given up on "calling you on your shit," doesn't mean it still ain't shit.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Now see, I wonder whether you do actually read the stuff you post. Like the example above, where you quoted certain "men in uniform" as an authority source, but seemed to completely miss the part where your authority figures say they think Saddam had a role in 911. Sorta detracts from their credibility, dontcha think?

Ah, duh? The point of the post was that most Iraqi vets would likely take more issue with KIA's view that they would have harsh words for me as a war non-supporter. The fact that they would do this in the face of their belief that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 makes their contempt for chickenhawks like KIA even more dramatic. Are you really that numb that you can't grasp this?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I've said this to you before, but if I want to read articles I'm fully capable of looking them up on my own. Moreover, reading articles presented as "argument" is more like reading propaganda than doing objective research. For EVERY internet link tooting the horn of one side of an issue, you can find another supporting the opposite side. So why bother? It's just silly back and forth nonsense, and a waste of time.

Oh, bullshit. You look at the source and the sources that confirm it or detract from it. You are just frickin lazy.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Talking to people directly is what an internet forum is all about, IMO. That enables you to read what people say, challenge it, see how what they say holds up, and THEN form an opinion, based on a critical assessment of what is being said. THAT is how people know "what's up," not by knowing the Word of God.

You are basically agreeing with my initial argument -- put your logic out there and see what survives in marketplace of ideas. What you and Semo constantly do is charge in and try to close up everybody shops by telling us you got the sheriff badges - hey, I don't neeeeddd no stinking badges!

Originally Posted by The Rani

If you prefer to blindly spoonfeed yourself stuff that supports what you already believe anyway, go right ahead, but don't expect others to follow suit.

Translation - if I want to remain well-read and not rely solely on the opinions put forth by anonymous posters claiming off-stage expertise, well, you're just too clever for that. Yeah, right.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well darn ... I guess I have to take back what I said about you cleaning up your act.

FYI, apologies are meaningless if they are not followed by a change in behavior.

The behavior in question was the posting of a photo that I decided was inappropriate, retracted, and apologized for. This may be difficult for you to grasp, but that does not mean that my behavior will now be cowering from you and your merry band of moronic 'snippets.' If you don't like it, then STFU.

Originally Posted by playwrite

On the other hand, your posts are nearly devoid of any referenced material and instead sweep down as if from the hand of God as being the penultimate of "the people who know what's up already know what's up."

Could Pope Hope be getting some competition?

Originally Posted by playwrite

What you and Semo constantly do is charge in and try to close up everybody shops by telling us you got the sheriff badges - hey, I don't neeeeddd no stinking badges!

You are far from the first person who's observed this.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I've said this to you before, but if I want to read articles I'm fully capable of looking them up on my own. Moreoever, reading articles presented as "argument" is more like reading propaganda than doing objective research. For EVERY internet link tooting the horn of one side of an issue, you can find another supporting the opposite side. So why bother? It's just silly back and forth nonsense, and a waste of time.

There is values filtering. It is pleasant and satisfying to read stuff that supports one's values, and not pleasant and satisfying to read stuff that would force one to rethink values. Not many here, on either side of the issue, is rethinking values. Thus, the prime values defense mechanism is to reject what one does not want to believe, to label it propaganda.

When both sides are doing it, you get into a post-modern realm where what you want to believe is true. It is clearest on the Global Warming thread, where the 'skeptics' have absolutely no data, calculation and theory to stand on. When one embraces post modern factless thinking, the right to believe replaces scientific objectivity. With Iraq, where we are wading through a sea of biased reporting and government propaganda, it is harder to objectively spot the UFO and Fairie logic style departures from Truth. One ends up with two paragraph snark posts, where the cleverest insult determins the 'winner.' The discussion is more about how to argue and the personalities involved than the issues.

My feeling is that the violence is fading a bit and is not directed as much at the US as much just now because the militias are focusing on finishing the ethnic cleansing. There are fewer and fewer mixed neighborhoods. More and more neighborhoods are behind walls. The country is being forced into ghettos. One is safe if one stays behind walls, but at risk if one leaves one's own ghetto. This solidifies the power of the militias over the ghettos they control, and makes the battle lines clearer. It also makes the life style of the typical Iraqi very poor, and makes a functional economy very difficult. Ghetto partitions do not suggest the country is moving towards compromise, democracy and tolerance.

And this is in part a natural result of US 'Surge' tactics, to go out and live among those being protected, to build small forts out among the natives. If the objective is to protect as many as one reasonably can, one can define the tactics as succeeding. I am dubious about the long term social, economic and political fallout.

Another element is pulling out of regions where the ethnic cleansing is complete. In the Sunni dominated regions, once the Shiite are forced to move and Al-Quaida is for the most part suppressed, you have something vaguely approaching peace. In the Shiite sectors, however, there are multiple factions. Some want no foreign devils. Others think Iranian foreign devils will be necessary to drive out the Yankee foreign devils. Others like all the Yankee foreign aid money flowing through highly corrupted channels, and would be pleased to see the Yankees stay.

Meanwhile, back in the States, most to all of the presidential candidates are buying into the notion of a long term occupation. One hears tell that this administration is setting things up such that the next administration has no choice but to continue a forever war. They may be succeeding in that.

I see no reasonable path to an endgame, which to me requires a functional Iraqi economy. What we seem to be getting is a de-facto partition scheme -- ethnic cleansing by death squad -- the survival of the fittest and most ruthless. If the US objective is to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide, we are failing. If one measures success by a reduced body count and violence, then encouraging complete ethnic cleansing will end this phase of the violence. If one combines the Administration reports of somewhat reduced violence with the UN and press reports of massive displacement of the population, it seems to me that the ethnic cleansing phase of the conflict might be moving past peak.

What comes next? Ghetto to ghetto fighting for possession of individual enclaves? Political partition after clean lines of separation are achieved? Massive intervention from Iran after the US blows up their nuclear facilities? I just don't know.

But the trends are that the next president, of whichever party, will attempt to reduce troop commitments, but basically stay the course. The troop level will be sustainable. We won't be able to maintain anything near our current levels. Thus, we will not be able to achieve as much as we are now without Iraqis who believe in what we are doing. I don't see the general US public being happy with that. A unified Iraqi government capable of a fair partition that ends the need for violence seems to be moving no closer.

My personal concern is that the unemployed young Iraqi males must have a better path to family, security, and a place in the culture than by picking up a gun and joining the local warlord. Right now, the warlords are winning recruits. If that continues, it will be hard to find a happy ending.

OK. I haven't written any plays. The last uniform I wore was that of the Northeastern University Marching Band. I just can't buy an approach saying casualties are down therefore we are winning. Casualties down is nice, but it doesn't create a peaceful culture with a functioning economy. I am also not at all sure what the result of our prolonged presence will be. If we defend a no man's land between ghettos as perpetual peacekeepers, we cut casualties, but prevent any resolution of the conflict by force. If we don't, it will be no doubt ugly. While the military situation is in flux, political compromise is going no where, as each faction seems to believe its options are better continuing with violence than accepting the currently offered compromises. Meanwhile, we get closer to recreating the Israel situation, with walls between factions that hate one another, and big refugee camp population breeding hate and the next generation.

Did the US mess it up? What individuals contributed most to the mess up? I don't really care except to the extent that we might learn some lessons that will let us avoid future mess ups or solve the current ones. To that extent, I'm upset at those who deny that anyone messed up. I want lessons learned more than I want revenge on those who mucked up. Other than that, we have a choice between standing between multiple groups that are shooting one another, or getting out of the way and allowing a larger but perhaps shorter disaster. The central question is whether attempting to play peacekeeper will prevent full scale holocaust. Will we gain anything by maintaining a long term slow sustained holocaust.

I'm afraid it may take another Friedman Unit or two to see what the next stage of the conflict might be. What happens after partition by ethnic cleansing and genocide? How bad is the long term slow sustained holocaust going to be?

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

Still waiting for your evidence.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Agreed, which is why I see it as a waste of time.

Then why are you persistently coming in with small fact free two paragraph snark posts focused on forum members rather than issues?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Must be nice to live in such a simple world as yours. A one-month drop in casualties and you're ready to sing "Mission Accomplished" again.

I never sang 'mission accomplished' to begin with. There isn't a one-month decrease in casualties, the trend has been in place for nearly a year, with the first beginnings occuring in Anbar over a year ago. Things are far from solved, but the current trends are hopeful.

Your argument is worthless, because it's based on false premises.

But go ahead, be happy in your simple world.

Reality usually is simple, once all the deceptions and nonsense are stripped away. The anti-war movement, and the Democratic leadership lied, from beginning to end, about Iraq, why we were there, what was happening and why, and their own motivations in doing so. They continue to do so, though few people take them seriously now that the data are in.

That is a simple assessment, and it's also reality.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

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

Still waiting for your evidence.

That's an odd request for someone who makes statements of 'fact', yet provides no evidence himself. Odin was stating a strongly held opinion. Evidence in support of an opinion is strictly optional.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Isikoff is the one with the most political bias; however, it, along with Rich's book, are the ones that most make you want to reach out and strangle the nearest neoCon or chickenhawk.

If you think Frank Rich is anything but a partisan kook, then your own credibility is gone.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Isikoff is the one with the most political bias; however, it, along with Rich's book, are the ones that most make you want to reach out and strangle the nearest neoCon or chickenhawk.

If you think Frank Rich is anything but a partisan kook, then your own credibility is gone (emphasis mine).

Here's a good example of what I meant in post #467, above.

Odin was stating a strongly held opinion.

He could have a strongly held opinion that the tooth fairy was real, the burde of proof would still be on him.

Post-Plame, the burden of proof in debates about who lied is entirely on those who maintain that Bush lied, since it's already established that the 'peace movement' and the Democrats were lying through their teeth about the vast majority of what they claimed.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Post-Plame, the burden of proof in debates about who lied is entirely on those who maintain that Bush lied, since it's already established that the 'peace movement' and the Democrats were lying.

How circular can your reasoning be? You claim that something is an established fact without providing any proof. Have you got any evidence for your side? I do for mine. The Straussians, including the neocons do practice the noble lie and have scince the beginning.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's a good example of what I meant in my post, directly above.

No, it's a good example of the fact that you don't get it. No doubt exists that Frank Rich is a kook, or else a cold-eyed liar. I'm sufficiently charitable to grant him the benefit of the doubt on that point.

This is the man who warned us all about the wave of anti-Semitic violence that would follow from the The Passion of the Christ. Remember all that anti-Semitiic violence?

He pushed the idea that 'Bush lied' about Iraq hard, but when it turned out that it was Wilson and Plame and the Democrats that were lying, he fell silent, never so much as a hint of an apology or recognition of what a fool he'd been played for.

But why should he? He's still spinning the notion that the Plame scandal was for real, or he was as recently as February 2007. That alone is enough to mark him as either a knowing accomplice in the Big Lie, or else a deluded sucker, because that fake 'scandal' has been over since Fitzmas.

Top it off with his eagerness to support the way that Fitzgerald railroaded Libby to cover his ass, and we have a choice of two possibilities: kook or liar.

When I add in his goofy predictions about violence from the Passion, I incline toward the former, it's more likely a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome and a goofy world-view than genuine malice.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I never sang 'mission accomplished' to begin with. There isn't a one-month decrease in casualties, the trend has been in place for nearly a year, with the first beginnings occuring in Anbar over a year ago. Things are far from solved, but the current trends are hopeful.

Your argument is worthless, because it's based on false premises.



Reality usually is simple, once all the deceptions and nonsense are stripped away. The anti-war movement, and the Democratic leadership lied, from beginning to end, about Iraq, why we were there, what was happening and why, and their own motivations in doing so. They continue to do so, though few people take them seriously now that the data are in.

That is a simple assessment, and it's also reality.

Oh for Christ sakes, this is getting beyond banal. Can't anyone on your side of the table put together a half-decent F-kin argument with some real F-kin data?!!!!!!!!!!
Can you rub two F-kin sticks together??????

Here's the link, moron -

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Scroll down to the deaths per month per year. Look at the monthlies from year to year, and tell me, what trend do you see? You're on a F-kin forum about cycles and you can't even see (or you just readily buy into the propaganda) any thing other than a linear monthly progression?! Here's a hint, brainiac, put yourself in an oven and turn it up to 150 and see how interested you are in fighting.

And don't give me the bullshit that its a biased website. Look at their references and see how careful they are at labeling those casualties not yet officially counted by the U.S. of F-in A military.

Geez! This is exasperating! Good night!

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

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.

Given that the anti-war position is based on systematic lies, the burden of making the primary case lies with them, and you. It's up to you to make the case for retreating.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

... Post-Plame, the burden of proof in debates about who lied is entirely on those who maintain that Bush lied, since it's already established that the 'peace movement' and the Democrats were lying through their teeth about the vast majority of what they claimed.

This assertion of yours has no basis in any evidence presented by you or anyone else, that I have seen. Instead of posting in over and over, try posting a cite that offers evidence this is true. Everything I've seen points to the opposite conclusion. Since you travel the other side of the street, show us your stuff.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Oh for Christ sakes, this is getting beyond banal. Can't anyone on your side of the table put together a half-decent F-kin argument with some real F-kin data?!!!!!!!!!!
Can you rub two F-kin sticks together??????

Here's the link, moron -

Personal abuse instead of arguments, ego tripping instead of trying to comprehend what's going on. Behaving like a sulky teenager is not impressive to anyone but you.

Now, I didn't say that the casualities had been steadily declining for a year, I said that the improving trend in Iraq goes back more than a year, to the turnaround in Anbar, which is true. The total casualty rate doesn't define success or failure. You implied that the 'one month decline in casualties' was the sole and only reason why the public didn't rally to the Democrats to pull out of Iraq, you implied that the decline in casualties was an isolated event unrelated to the rest of what's going on, and you implied that a concensus for surrender existed in the United States. You were wrong in all three assessments.

Incidentally, you implied upthread that the plan is to 'transfer responsibility' to the Iraqis. Yes. That's always been the goal, it's not secret or sinister. What changed over the last year (and which may yet change back, nobody knows yet) is that the chaos unleashed by the destructon of the Golden Mosque has receded, in response to changed tactics and strategies on the American forces' part, and on overreaching by the insurgents.


http://icasualties.org/oif/

Scroll down to the deaths per month per year. Look at the monthlies from year to year, and tell me, what trend do you see? You're on a F-kin forum about cycles and you can't even see (or you just readily buy into the propaganda) any thing other than a linear monthly progression?! Here's a hint, brainiac, put yourself in an oven and turn it up to 150 and see how interested you are in fighting.

More hollow insults, accompanied by a post that completely misses the point of what's been going on.

I accept your concession of defeat.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No, it's a good example of the fact that you don't get it. No doubt exists that Frank Rich is a kook, or else a cold-eyed liar. I'm sufficiently charitable to grant him the benefit of the doubt on that point.

This is the man who warned us all about the wave of anti-Semitic violence that would follow from the The Passion of the Christ. Remember all that anti-Semitiic violence?

He pushed the idea that 'Bush lied' about Iraq hard, but when it turned out that it was Wilson and Plame and the Democrats that were lying, he fell silent, never so much as a hint of an apology or recognition of what a fool he'd been played for.

But why should he? He's still spinning the notion that the Plame scandal was for real, or he was as recently as February 2007. That alone is enough to mark him as either a knowing accomplice in the Big Lie, or else a deluded sucker, because that fake 'scandal' has been over since Fitzmas.

Top it off with his eagerness to support the way that Fitzgerald railroaded Libby to cover his ass, and we have a choice of two possibilities: kook or liar.

When I add in his goofy predictions about violence from the Passion, I incline toward the former, it's more likely a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome and a goofy world-view than genuine malice.

So your argument that Rich is a kook is the fact that he made predictions that didnt come true, hence everything he's ever written is delivered directly from cloud cuckoo land. Is that about it? If so, then every commentator that has ever made predictions is a kook, because perfection in prognostication is impossible.

-------------

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Given that the anti-war position is based on systematic lies, the burden of making the primary case lies with them, and you. It's up to you to make the case for retreating.

IOW, you can't make a case. That's what I thought.

I have made a case here on the boards. Again, and again, and again, and Lord knows how many more times. Not ONE reply from supporters of Bush's policies, on defending the surge at least. Unless of course "the anti-war crowd are kooks" is considered sufficient.