OT: “Obama administration warns public to expect rise in US casualties”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Partypup: As I’ve mentioned before, Breezie is largely a polemicist. He doesn’t like having to deal with actual facts, and will generally back water when forced to actually debate the facts.

You’re seeing the various responses that someone who doesn’t know how to conduct an argument falls back on, from ad hominem attacks (“right wing nutjob”, which you clearly aren’t in terms of party or leaning), to the classic strawman to outright obfuscation (10 Reasons Why We Should Attack Canada).

I have tried on numerous occasions to get Ole Windy to face off in a set piece battle, but he has averred (or ignored me entirely).

It’s interesting to note that he brands anyone who disagrees with him as a kook, which is right out of Stalinism 101: Don’t legitimize the statement through dialogue/discourse/argument, rather, discredit or scapegoat your opponent instead.

[34f3f3f]

I don’t see Obama doing anything different to what he said he was gong to do, which incidentally included cross border raids into Pakistan, or Waziristan. A change of policy is not the same as a U-turn, which can be suicidal. I also don’t see the connection between left wing politics and non-militarism. The assertion above that the macro view of situations like this are vulnerable to political persuasion rings true, but equally, the micro view is often an isolated account. There is no substitute for being on the ground, for first hand accounts, but it has to be the sum total of those accounts that make a difference. Our press does a fair job of striking that balance of impartiality, but we never really learn what is truly going on. So it is much better to prefix all assertions with a conditional get out clause, viz; “Can we assume that…?'” rather than making bold statements based on western media accounts.

We are lead to believe that Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is porous, and occupied by Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. The Sunday New York Times front cover depicted a public beating of a man accused of a crime. Interestingly, it was mostly young boys who were sitting around watching this. But how typical this is, we don’t know. Pakistan’s instability as a result of the rise in terrorism makes it’s nuclear capabilities a greater cause for concern. But I think it would take a major shift in the power structure before that threat became real, by which time preventative steps would hopefully have been taken by the current Pakistan regime and it’s allies. Fractious relations with India are probably as big a concern, if not bigger, and I hope that this tension is not successfully exploited by Al-Qaeda.

Taking the fight back to Afghanistan looks like a more justifiable battle, since it is the origin of where it started. I wonder to what extent the Pakistan government has given the US implicit permission to conduct cross border raids. Since this is a dangerous and inhospitable mountainous area making media coverage difficult, and where civilian populations are tribal and probably lead quite a primitive existence, it looks like a more discreet war can be waged. That has to be more politically prudent for a new president.

[34f3f3f]

I don’t see Obama doing anything different to what he said he was gong to do, which incidentally included cross border raids into Pakistan, or Waziristan. A change of policy is not the same as a U-turn, which can be suicidal. I also don’t see the connection between left wing politics and non-militarism. The assertion above that the macro view of situations like this are vulnerable to political persuasion rings true, but equally, the micro view is often an isolated account. There is no substitute for being on the ground, for first hand accounts, but it has to be the sum total of those accounts that make a difference. Our press does a fair job of striking that balance of impartiality, but we never really learn what is truly going on. So it is much better to prefix all assertions with a conditional get out clause, viz; “Can we assume that…?'” rather than making bold statements based on western media accounts.

We are lead to believe that Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is porous, and occupied by Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. The Sunday New York Times front cover depicted a public beating of a man accused of a crime. Interestingly, it was mostly young boys who were sitting around watching this. But how typical this is, we don’t know. Pakistan’s instability as a result of the rise in terrorism makes it’s nuclear capabilities a greater cause for concern. But I think it would take a major shift in the power structure before that threat became real, by which time preventative steps would hopefully have been taken by the current Pakistan regime and it’s allies. Fractious relations with India are probably as big a concern, if not bigger, and I hope that this tension is not successfully exploited by Al-Qaeda.

Taking the fight back to Afghanistan looks like a more justifiable battle, since it is the origin of where it started. I wonder to what extent the Pakistan government has given the US implicit permission to conduct cross border raids. Since this is a dangerous and inhospitable mountainous area making media coverage difficult, and where civilian populations are tribal and probably lead quite a primitive existence, it looks like a more discreet war can be waged. That has to be more politically prudent for a new president.

[34f3f3f]

I don’t see Obama doing anything different to what he said he was gong to do, which incidentally included cross border raids into Pakistan, or Waziristan. A change of policy is not the same as a U-turn, which can be suicidal. I also don’t see the connection between left wing politics and non-militarism. The assertion above that the macro view of situations like this are vulnerable to political persuasion rings true, but equally, the micro view is often an isolated account. There is no substitute for being on the ground, for first hand accounts, but it has to be the sum total of those accounts that make a difference. Our press does a fair job of striking that balance of impartiality, but we never really learn what is truly going on. So it is much better to prefix all assertions with a conditional get out clause, viz; “Can we assume that…?'” rather than making bold statements based on western media accounts.

We are lead to believe that Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is porous, and occupied by Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. The Sunday New York Times front cover depicted a public beating of a man accused of a crime. Interestingly, it was mostly young boys who were sitting around watching this. But how typical this is, we don’t know. Pakistan’s instability as a result of the rise in terrorism makes it’s nuclear capabilities a greater cause for concern. But I think it would take a major shift in the power structure before that threat became real, by which time preventative steps would hopefully have been taken by the current Pakistan regime and it’s allies. Fractious relations with India are probably as big a concern, if not bigger, and I hope that this tension is not successfully exploited by Al-Qaeda.

Taking the fight back to Afghanistan looks like a more justifiable battle, since it is the origin of where it started. I wonder to what extent the Pakistan government has given the US implicit permission to conduct cross border raids. Since this is a dangerous and inhospitable mountainous area making media coverage difficult, and where civilian populations are tribal and probably lead quite a primitive existence, it looks like a more discreet war can be waged. That has to be more politically prudent for a new president.

[34f3f3f]

I don’t see Obama doing anything different to what he said he was gong to do, which incidentally included cross border raids into Pakistan, or Waziristan. A change of policy is not the same as a U-turn, which can be suicidal. I also don’t see the connection between left wing politics and non-militarism. The assertion above that the macro view of situations like this are vulnerable to political persuasion rings true, but equally, the micro view is often an isolated account. There is no substitute for being on the ground, for first hand accounts, but it has to be the sum total of those accounts that make a difference. Our press does a fair job of striking that balance of impartiality, but we never really learn what is truly going on. So it is much better to prefix all assertions with a conditional get out clause, viz; “Can we assume that…?'” rather than making bold statements based on western media accounts.

We are lead to believe that Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is porous, and occupied by Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. The Sunday New York Times front cover depicted a public beating of a man accused of a crime. Interestingly, it was mostly young boys who were sitting around watching this. But how typical this is, we don’t know. Pakistan’s instability as a result of the rise in terrorism makes it’s nuclear capabilities a greater cause for concern. But I think it would take a major shift in the power structure before that threat became real, by which time preventative steps would hopefully have been taken by the current Pakistan regime and it’s allies. Fractious relations with India are probably as big a concern, if not bigger, and I hope that this tension is not successfully exploited by Al-Qaeda.

Taking the fight back to Afghanistan looks like a more justifiable battle, since it is the origin of where it started. I wonder to what extent the Pakistan government has given the US implicit permission to conduct cross border raids. Since this is a dangerous and inhospitable mountainous area making media coverage difficult, and where civilian populations are tribal and probably lead quite a primitive existence, it looks like a more discreet war can be waged. That has to be more politically prudent for a new president.

[34f3f3f]

I don’t see Obama doing anything different to what he said he was gong to do, which incidentally included cross border raids into Pakistan, or Waziristan. A change of policy is not the same as a U-turn, which can be suicidal. I also don’t see the connection between left wing politics and non-militarism. The assertion above that the macro view of situations like this are vulnerable to political persuasion rings true, but equally, the micro view is often an isolated account. There is no substitute for being on the ground, for first hand accounts, but it has to be the sum total of those accounts that make a difference. Our press does a fair job of striking that balance of impartiality, but we never really learn what is truly going on. So it is much better to prefix all assertions with a conditional get out clause, viz; “Can we assume that…?'” rather than making bold statements based on western media accounts.

We are lead to believe that Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is porous, and occupied by Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. The Sunday New York Times front cover depicted a public beating of a man accused of a crime. Interestingly, it was mostly young boys who were sitting around watching this. But how typical this is, we don’t know. Pakistan’s instability as a result of the rise in terrorism makes it’s nuclear capabilities a greater cause for concern. But I think it would take a major shift in the power structure before that threat became real, by which time preventative steps would hopefully have been taken by the current Pakistan regime and it’s allies. Fractious relations with India are probably as big a concern, if not bigger, and I hope that this tension is not successfully exploited by Al-Qaeda.

Taking the fight back to Afghanistan looks like a more justifiable battle, since it is the origin of where it started. I wonder to what extent the Pakistan government has given the US implicit permission to conduct cross border raids. Since this is a dangerous and inhospitable mountainous area making media coverage difficult, and where civilian populations are tribal and probably lead quite a primitive existence, it looks like a more discreet war can be waged. That has to be more politically prudent for a new president.

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/obama-savages-bush-redepl_n_125130.html?page=9&show_comment_id=15511960#comment_15511960

[/quote]

And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.

And this is change you can believe in??

Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]

Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/obama-savages-bush-redepl_n_125130.html?page=9&show_comment_id=15511960#comment_15511960

[/quote]

And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.

And this is change you can believe in??

Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]

Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/obama-savages-bush-redepl_n_125130.html?page=9&show_comment_id=15511960#comment_15511960

[/quote]

And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.

And this is change you can believe in??

Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]

Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/obama-savages-bush-redepl_n_125130.html?page=9&show_comment_id=15511960#comment_15511960

[/quote]

And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.

And this is change you can believe in??

Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]

Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup][quote=TheBreeze] George W. McSame was talking about sending a paltry 4500 troops to Afghanistan. Obama just ordered the redeployment of 18,000 Marines with many more to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/obama-savages-bush-redepl_n_125130.html?page=9&show_comment_id=15511960#comment_15511960

[/quote]

And what’s so very, very chilling is that you seem almost proud of this fact. Obama would send MORE troops to their deaths than McSame would.

And this is change you can believe in??

Breeze, are you a closet fascist?
[/quote]

Deep down all liberals are fasicst they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

[NotCranky]

Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.

[NotCranky]

Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.

[NotCranky]

Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.

[NotCranky]

Deep down all liberals are fascist they just don’t realize it because they agree with the dogma. lol.

John

Most Americans are fascist they just don’t agree with which party should be leading the way. We have the government we deserve.

[Author]

Posts