Paul Vs. Thompson

[budney]

No Len, I'm not suggesting we're fighting this war wrong. You have been for 13 pages now. You say we're too aggressive and make us out to be a no better than the terrorist. I say we're fighting it correctly.

Oh. I thought you were complaining that we were tying the hands of the military, as is generally claimed of Vietnam. Instead you're claiming that they're doing everything right, and that "liberals" opposing Bush's policies are the reason the effort hasn't gone better. If only "liberals" had kept their mouths shut the whole time we might already have won.

Well, if it were an experiment we could afford, and if it were moral to experiment with Iraqi lives like that, we could actually keep doing what we're doing for the next 200 years and see how that works out. I'd be interested to see the outcome, so we could settle this debate once and for all.

The bummer is that time won't tell. When the effort ultimately fails, and Iraq doesn't become a stable pro-western democracy, folks who opposed the war will say they knew it all along, and folks who supported it will say that the war was sabotaged by the opposition, and we would have won if they hadn't been so unpatriotic as to question it. When the dust settles, people will pretty much believe just what they believe already.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

The interesting thing here is that unlike Len, I was against the war from the outset. The arguements for war seemed too weak, the evidence circumstantial and there was nothing I could see that merited it, other than getting rid of Saddam, which was a good idea.

Now I support it fully. We must win. We have found the enemy in Iraq or he has found us, either way we are now fighting who we should be fighting. If we fail and fall back to the house we will be in rough straights.

Maybe I am simply fated to have a contrary position in life I do not know.

 

[Marshall]

Len, you squirm with the best of them and just won't admit you've messed up, even when it's blatent. And to listen to you talk bad about politicians, shame on you.

 

[budney]

Len, you squirm with the best of them and just won't admit you've messed up, even when it's blatent. And to listen to you talk bad about politicians, shame on you.

I've made minor factual gaffes, but you're focusing on them to dodge the points that matter.

On the other hand, some of the "mess ups" you refer to aren't mess ups, of course. For example, the posts that mentioned Ireland and the War for Southern Independence supported my position, but they were presented as counter-examples.

So I don't actually know what you're referring to, in all this long thread. Actual factual errors? Points that you feel were fatal to my argument, but that actually weren't? I dunno. If there's something specific you'd like me to address, you'll need to cite it specifically.

Correia, your request to "answer your fricking question" falls under the same heading. I'm not sure which question you're referring to.

--Len.

 

[NickEllis]

I believe Correia's question would be, "do you believe we would be better off in the war if there was a unified front here at home, rather than giving the Al Qaida leadership hope to keep fighting"

Perhaps I am wrong about that, please duly correct if so.

 

[Marshall]

You're just playing now Len. You must be bored and are just using us for your entertainment. No one as intelligent as you can be so retarded to not know what question Corria's referring to and to not know what points we nail you on. You follow the discussion just fine when it's to your benefit. When it's not, you're confused? Whatever. I'm done with playing with a troll.

 

[budney]

I believe Correia's question would be, "do you believe we would be better off in the war if there was a unified front here at home, rather than giving the Al Qaida leadership hope to keep fighting"

Thanks for that. The answer is no: unanimous agreement doesn't make a bad plan into a good one.

--Len.

 

[Correia]

The one that I've asked about five times, and even bolded once:

If America presented a united front on winning in Iraq, and we gave no indication that we were willing to give up, both parties were committed, and the badguys knew they couldn't beat us, would we still be having this war?

Or in other words since the badguy's motivation is killing us until the Democrats take command and pull out, if the Democrats weren't running on pulling out, would the bad guys still be motivated to fight us?

 

[budney]

Or in other words since the badguy's motivation is killing us until the Democrats take command and pull out, if the Democrats weren't running on pulling out, would the bad guys still be motivated to fight us?

Yes, they would. The same way they perpetrated 9/11, and will continue to conduct terrorist attacks. Their motivation has nothing to do with their perception of the odds. As you yourself would be the first to point out, these are people that consider suicide to be a valid tactic.

--Len.

 

[ArmedBear]

Their motivation has nothing to do with their perception of the odds.

BS

Bin Laden himself has said, in various contexts, over many years, that Al Qaeda's motivation came from observing that it could win, given the way American politics works. Specifically, Al Qaeda was conceived as an anti-American terror organization as a result of Carter's backing down from a bunch of students in Iran, in 1979.

This is not to say that nobody would have certain objectives that Al Qaeda has. Their methods, however, are chosen based on a perception that success is possible, and even probable.

 

[Chui]

There's no evidence of an allegiance between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi gov't of Saddam Hussein...

 

[D.S. Ambrose]

But their reason for doing it in the first place is the things we've done in the Middle East, you can't cite one without the other.


They WANT to fight us because we're over there and have been doing things they don't like for some time.

They BELIEVE they can win in Iraq due to the nature of our politics and the lack of a general populace to continue to support such a bloody war for a very long time.


It's all very circular, but winning in Iraq is not their primary goal. The goal of terror is to terrorize a people enough to submit and to scare a state so much that it constricts the liberties and quality of life of its citizens, causing them to fear, hate and distrust their government. We're doing exactly what they want us to do.

 

[budney]

Bin Laden himself has said, in various contexts, over many years, that Al Qaeda's motivation came from observing that it could win, given the way American politics works.

Bin Laden has indeed said those things. However, before turning his attention to America, he got his start in the terrorism/insurgency business by fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. He himself was one of the guerrilla leaders that helped expel the Soviets. It is not reasonable to suppose that a "united front" would be sufficient to have changed his mind, considering that the Soviets had a perfectly united front, enforced on pain of execution.

It is more reasonable to interpret those statements of Bin Laden's as aimed at encouraging his followers.

--Len.

 

[ArmedBear]

budney, you're misquoting the original post, which said much more than a "united front" would be needed.

If it's enforced on pain of execution, it's only a front. I have little doubt that Bin Laden took that into account.

But Correia never said that it was only about presenting a front.

 

[budney]

But Correia never said that it was only about presenting a front.

You're quibbling the fact that I use a shorter phrase when referring to Correia's position, because I'm not writing a book here. That's ridiculous; in no way does the expression "united front" contradict or falsify what Correia said. In particular, it does not convert his position into a straw man.

If you are now saying that the Soviets weren't united enough in their Afghan invasion, then you're saying there's nothing we can do. If shooting the Democrats, and anyone else who opposes Bush's position, isn't good enough to convince the terrorists of our resolve, nothing would. And we certainly aren't going to be shooting anyone.

Correia: that's one of the reasons I brought Afghanistan into it; it certainly isn't irrelevant that the Afghan insurgency is precisely where Bin Laden got his experience.

--Len.

 

[NickEllis]

A rhetoriical question not advocating any tactics or strategy. Who here would agree to give up your right to keep and bear arms and the Bill of Rights if the rest of the world was unified in the belief against those ideals that they vehemently oppose for your own good because they know better than we do?

Completely irrelevant. A better example, to keep your illustration, would be the following:

"Who here would agree to keep fighting in Europe to retain the Europeans' right to keep and bear arms and the Bill of Rights, if the rest of the world was unifed and acting in singleminded determination against those ideals which they vehemently oppose for our own good beacuse they know better than we do?"

HECK NO. I'm not going to keep fighting in Europe in a hopeless war, knowing i'm going to lose eventually. The only way I would stay there to fight for such an ideal (given that I would be crazy enough to do that.... seems to Byronesque to me) would be the hope of victory. I'd more likely limp back here to the good ol' USA and enjoy my freedom.

Now, if it happened here... then a different question. But the issue in Iraq, and especially those terrorists Correia is talking about, seems to be more alligned with foreign, Al Qaida fighters. As such, it would seem to match better with my redacted example, than your original.

 

[Titan6]

Chui- You are talking about the first quarter of a game when we are already well into the second half. It is no longer relevant.

Ambrose- We are certainly headed that way. That is why we must win. If the war comes here the Patriot Act will seem like enlightened liberalism.

 

[budney]

That is why we must win. If the war comes here the Patriot Act will seem like enlightened liberalism.

I hear you. Unfortunately, the same guy conducting the war is the one who brought you the USA PATRIOT act. Pinning your hopes that worse measures won't be enacted on success in Iraq is rather indirect.

Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the scoundrel that gave us USA PATRIOT, and replace him with someone who'll repeal it? Like Ron Paul?

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

Lunchmeat your numbers are way off. I will ask you the same question that Len refused to answer: Have you been there?

 

[Titan6]

Yeah, that's what I thought another refusal to answer. Are you an expert on land warfare like Len also?

 

[Titan6]

Yeah, actually it does.

4% of attacks Al Queda? Maybe big maybe. 96% natives, not even close. But it is about more than that; like who is providing the C2 and C4 among other things.

 

[budney]

The attacks all originate with Iran. That's why we need to invade.

[strike]Plus, Iran has WMDs and is gassing Kurds.[/strike] Whoops, sorry about that. I tried to be a good patriot and parrot the administration, but I got the two invasions mixed up.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

If you don't know what C2 and C4 are then there really is no more point in continuing this debate about military strategy so I bid you farewell as well.

 

[AlaskaErik]

Paul doesn't have a prayer of a chance, Thompson does.

 

[budney]

If you don't know what C2 and C4 are then there really is no more point in continuing this debate about military strategy...

Nothing in this thread suggests that lunchmeat (or anyone else) doesn't know what C2 and C4 are. But I commend you on quitting while you're behind.

--Len.