Spiegel: Bush can barely string a sentence together, and more

[bgates]

I read the posts. Like I said before, your arguments are poor, so you need to restate them to make them intelligible.

That’s a clever comment about flunking math. You do go on about the intellectual superiority of people who think like you. Do you have any kind of credential or evidence of your brainpower? Besides your posts, of course. I suppose you could let those speak for themselves.

It’s just that they don’t speak well of you.

Because you argue so very, very badly.

When I said Iraqi casualties, I was referring to the military and police of the current Iraqi government, which is an ally of ours. But I must give you credit – Iraq is indeed the coutry we invaded. A fine point. One of your best so far, I’d say.

[Anonymous]

I have no way prove to you my brainpower. In fact, all I can say is that I am intelligent enough to figure out the obvious, which is that the Iraq war is a clusterf*&k and utter failure. However, this doesn’t prove much because a monkey could figure that out.

So, I won’t say that I am particularly smart, but I can say without a doubt that anyone who truly believes the war is going well is extraordinarily dumb.

[lostkitty]

JG – take a closer look at that link you posted. On the left there is a “multimedia” graph and link. If you open it it clearly spells out that men’s higher incidences of heart disease may be related to higher percentage of tobacco and alcohol use. I bet if we searched for studies on eating habits, men would show higher percentages of overeating and excessive meat eating as well. All directly linked to heart disease… no mystery there!

In regards to incresing spending on women’s health issues research… well.. the pendulum swings. Historically, medical research did not even consider women. Almost all research was based on males, medical and psychological scientific research… so get over it. I entirely disagree with you…. Disproportionate coverage of women’s breast cancer research vs. men’s heart disease research does not equate to a “liberal” slant in scientific journals.

[bgates]

Finally we can agree on something:
I won’t say deadzone is particularly smart, either.

I’m still curious about this ‘utter failure’ talk. When did it become obvious, even to someone of your admittedly limited intelligence, that the war was lost? What made you believe that? It can’t be because of casualty levels, which are historically low for a war. It can’t be because of mistakes, because there are mistakes in every war. It can’t be because we’re still fighting, because we’ve won war that we fought longer. It can’t be for lack of coalition support, because we’ve won wars fought completely unilaterally.

But you have no doubts in your mind. Having decided on the end state you want to see, you have no interest in competing theories or contrary data. You act exactly like your own caricature of the administration.

[Anonymous]

bgates, based on your silly arguments you clearly know nothing about military or history. Which wars are you referring to that were won unilaterally? Certainly no U.S involved wars in this century.

If I have to convince you that the Iraq war (it’s not really a war by the way) is a failure then you are in the minority. The majority of American citizens realize it is a failure. If you want to keep burying your head in the sand that is your businees. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

[bgates]

Unilateral US victories include the Spanish-American War, Moro Rebellion, Mexican-American War, and War of 1812.I think I can throw the Civil War on that list, too. Likewise the Indian Wars of the late 19th century. These are all armed conflicts that the US won on its own.

For that matter, the Korean Conflict was every bit as unilateral as Iraq is (vast majority of casualties on our side suffered by indigenous allies, vast majority of remainder suffered by America, 5-10% by other allies) and that wasn’t a defeat.

Which argument did you find silly? Was it the US won no wars unilaterally ‘in this century’? (Did you mean to say ‘in the past 100 years’? That would look a little more reasonable.)

Yes, you do have to convince me that the Iraq war is a failure. Or rather I have not yet been convinced. You’re clearly not up to it, since you prefer insults to argument. I prefer both, but then I have both the ability to argue and the presence of facts on my side, advantages you lack.

This is fun, though – please tell me how I’ve made it clear I know nothing about history. Awe me with further display of your intellectual acumen.

[Anonymous]

We won in Korea? Then why are there still two of them?

Guess it all depends on how you define “winning”, right?

Are you willing to ask the Iraqi people if they are better off than they were 5 years ago? And more importantly are you willing to listen to their answer? Do they have a liberal bias–no, just silence.

Woo-hoo. We are winning* in Iraq!

*Definitions vary. See White House or bgates for details.

[bgates]

Hey there kristinejm. There are still two Koreas because, as I said in my post, we weren’t defeated. If we were, the peninsula would be united under the Kim family. Ask somebody from South Korea if they would be better off that way.

I’m very interested in what the Iraqi people think. So are others who have the resources to ask them. The internet has things called ‘search engines’ which can help to find answers on these topics. I used one called Google to find this. I don’t know much about the group, other than one of its advisors was Clinton’s NSC advisor. So it’s not affiliated with the administration. According to that survey, 61% of Iraqis think deposing Saddam was worth it. What do you think of their answer?

To be honest, I’m not sure that we’re winning. My major argument in this thread has been against the notion that we’ve already lost. We haven’t, but saying we have makes it more likely that we eventually will – it boosts the morale of our enemies and disheartens our allies.

It’s ok that you made some little mistakes reading my post. Don’t be embarassed to call a grown-up over to your computer to help you read the longer sentences. I think it’s great you’re making an effort.

[Anonymous]

The point of the thread is that Iraq war is a failure. The war supposedly ended in May 2003. Since then nearly 3000 American troops have died and over 20,000 injured. The occupation was not properly planned for, the adminstration totally underestimated the impact of occupying the country.

So, if your definition of winning the war was removing Hussein, then Bravo we won, we can all feel proud of ourselves. Meanwhile, the troops who are over there, and their families see a very different reality. Americans continue to die every day and yet very little has actually been accomplished.

By the way, who are our allies that are being disheartened by us talking realistically about the war? The rest of the world already knows this is a failure. People like you who sugarcoat things may temporarily boost morale of people here who can’t read the newspaper, but don’t think you are fooling the rest of the world or our allies. Additionally, most of the US allies were never involved in this war, or they pulled out a long time ago.

[bgates]

Everyone I’ve talked to who’s been over there, and most of the guys I’ve read, are more optimistic than you. What’s you definition of losing the war? Who did win, since we lost?

What is being accomplished is a slow process. Building a civil state from the ground up takes time. Building professional police and military from the ground up is slow. The US Army has over 200 years of tradition, and can train its people in a very secure environment at West Point, and it still takes 4 years to get the lowest level officer ready to go out in the field – at which point he gets led around by a senior noncom with several times as much experience. The American government took seven years to junk the Articles of Confederation, and they weren’t being shot at. Iraq has a written constitution, its government has broad popular support, and its enforcement ability is growing – all thanks to the efforts of American servicemen, including those whose graves you spit on by saying little has been accomplished.

It’s not over. It will be if we give up and go home. The Americans can go home. Our allies in the Iraqi government are home, and will still have to deal with the terrorists, the criminals, the militias, and the Iranians no matter what we do. If the Iraqi people know we will help them as long as they want it, but will leave when asked, their resolve will be strengthened. People like yourself, who would rather hurt Republicans than help people trying to establish something like a free country, make it more likely that our allies try to cut a deal with our enemies before they’re abandoned by us. That would leave Iraq and us worse off.

You have an interesting definition of ‘allies’, if you think most US allies were never involved. Who are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

I’m still waiting for you to list the allies that are being disheartened by our criticism of the war. In fact, why don’t you list some allies that actually have troops in Iraq right now?

In reality the “war” ended in May 2003. What is happening now is unwinnable by a military because we don’t have a clear enemy or a clear objective. Why don’t you explain your brillint plan to win. In fact, why don’t you go over there and shed some of your own blood as part of this brilliant plan of yours.

I have nothing against Republicans. The problem is nutjobs like you who try to turn everything into a partisan debate, or use labels like “liberal”. Your type listens to way too much Rush Limbaugh. When are you going to learn that the world is not black and white, that most people are not extremists? In fact, I have voted Republican more than Democrat in Presidential elections.

The criticism of the war and Bush is not about Republicans and Democrats. You just don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

dz, Iraq is absolutely winnable.

It will be very interesting to see how things play out with the new Congress, Baker and gang, and Bush. We’ve all read today that there may be a big push to tip this thing the favor of stability, with 20K troops being shipped over to help.

Far from lost, unless we go with the Democrat ‘staged redeployment in 4-6 months.’

[Anonymous]

“It’s ok that you made some little mistakes reading my post. Don’t be embarassed to call a grown-up over to your computer to help you read the longer sentences. I think it’s great you’re making an effort.”

You are a patronizing asshole.

[PerryChase]

bgates is certainly very knowledgeable and well-informed. Her(?) defense of GWB and the Iraq War is like the performance of a good attorney defending her powerful (possibly guilty) client. Think Kenneth Lay. The court of public opinion has already spoken but the trial is still going on and the jury won’t deliberate for a while.

Since we’re “in court,” let’s define what “win” means. Based on the expectations created by the Bush Administration, we can probably agree that a win in Iraq means that 1) Iraq retains its territorial pre-war integrity/unity, 2) Iraq develops a multi-party democratic government, 3) the sectarian violence stops, 4) Iraq develops a “prosperous” economy where the per-capita GDP is at least equal to that of Iran, 5) American troops are reduced to less than 10,000.

I can accept that we shouldn’t say that we lost the Iraq War since it’s still going on. However, we are certainly not yet winning. The war itself is not over so it can’t be called a failure. But, so far, the implementation of the war has been a failure.

Can the Administration rescue the war and turn it into a win by their own definition? I doubt it. They are going to redefine what win means and reset the public’s expectations. That’s probably what Republican strategists are working on right now.

The real estate bubble will be still be deflating a few years from now. I think that Iraq will be over before the real estate bottom. So, in a few years, Piggington will still be around and we’ll be here to start a thread on whether we won or lost.

In the mean time, we can continue to debate how the war is being fought. The tactics for winning the war have so far turned disastrous. Bush has two more years to see his strategy to fruition. The problem is that his strategy is democracy, unity, prosperity, they-stand-up-we-stand-down rhetoric. What kind of strategy is that? How can the strategy be the same as “winning” itself?

[bgates]

Deadzone, I appreciate your wish to see me bleed. It confirms something I had suspected about your character. Thanks very much; rather than wishing the same in return, I hope you live long enough to gain some wisdom and grow to regret making that sort of comment. Since you won’t bother answering any of my questions, I’ll keep my answers to yours short: Our chief ally in Iraq is Iraq. If we stay and help them, together we can beat the various factions that want to take the place over. If we leave, the people who had supported us will be killed as collaborationists. If I were an Iraqi working with the Americans, I would be very troubled by talk of giving up and going home.

Deadzone, your hatred of Bush and anyone who supports him is the only partisan thing in our debate. I don’t like Bush’s stance on immigration, his campaign appearances at Bob Jones, his failure to veto bloated budgets, or his position on gay marriage. I’ve voted for Nader as many times as I’ve voted for Bush and his father combined. My defense of an aggressive foreign policy to spread freedom around the globe, the kind of thing Truman and JFK tried to do, isn’t based on some love for the Republican party, you narrow-minded hate-filled hack.

Kristine, what goes around comes around. Since you can’t take it, you shouldn’t be trying to dish it out.

[Author]

Posts