Political posterizing redux.

[Ian]

Coito - Apologies for my tone a few minutes ago, but I don't intend to ever be civil towards an Iraq War supporter when the subject comes up.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your understanding of our involvement in Afghanistan is pathetic.

It is? What did I say that was wrong.

Pretty much everything.

In other words, you're full of it. The only thing I said here was that Obama increased spending on Afghanistan, the Taliban has gotten stronger, and more Americans are dying. All that is true. If you're referring to something else I've said, then put up or shut up.

More deaths: It took us 9 years to reach 1,000 dead - from October, 2001 to 2010. In the last 27 months, another 1,000. So, my point is correct. More Americans are dying.

Taliban are alive and well, and the surge did not achieve it's goal of defeating the Taliban. Even as we remove the surge troops, the Administration's position has largely become "the Afghans will work it out after NATO troops are gone." http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.html

Cost -- he dramatically increased cost: "Spending on the war in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since Mr. Obama took office, to $118.6 billion in 2011." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/us/po ... wanted=all

So, no, Ian, you're not getting away with that bullshit. I wasn't wrong about what I said.

Now either specify something I did say that was wrong, or admit that you were just talking out of your ass.

And what is your point in whining about liberals lack of (to your eyes, apparently!) frustration about Obama's foreign policy? That they're hypocrites because deep down they're just as awful as conservatives? That's a weak pedestal to stand on.

No - the contention was that they're anti-war. They're not. Generally speaking, they're anti-war when a Republican is President. That is what it is. In many ways they are just as awful as so-called conservatives, but I'm not standing on that pedestal. But, I'm not on their team either, and I criticize conservatives all the time. I'm just generally consistent.

There has been ample debate about Obama's foreign policy from liberal circles which you're probably not even aware of. SHall we do some Google searching?

Let's see it. Your assertion. You support it. Where are the marches in the streets? Where are the endless threads on this forum and others by grassroots so-called Liberals?

The greater hypocricy comes from the guys on your end - everything Obama does is such a terrible thing, wah wah wah. Gimma a break.

Bullshit again, not everything. Many things, but not everything. You haven NOT seen so-called conservatives opposing or protesting what he did in Afghanistan or the drone attacks, etc. They've supported his decisions, in fact. He has not received resistance in Congress for the funding he wanted for the overseas operations.

So, not "everything," not by a long shot. Certainly his domestic economic policies have been opposed by so-called conservatives, but why not? His economic policies are unpalatable to a lot of people.

And it's perfectly correct for me to bring up Iraq when you brought up the costs of Obamacare.

Dude - I did not bring up the cost of Obamacare.

You're just annoyed because the disconnect didn't even cross your mind.

Why would it, Ian? I DID NOT BRING UP THE COST OF OBAMACARE. Repeat: I did not bring up the cost of Obamacare. Go and reread my posts here. At no time did I bring up the cost of Obamacare.

Iraq cost between 3 and 4 trillion dollars,

False. The total costs of all the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan Pakistan has cost around $3.2 trillion or so.

and for that expense we killed several thousand Americans, one hundred thousand Iraqis, over-stretched our military at a time when we were already involved elsewhere, found zero WMDs, did not discourage Iran one bit, and trashed our reputation around the world for a generation at least. Yes, you were wrong... and fuck your motherfucking hindsight that you gripe about not having had back then - people like me told you you were wrong in 2003,

Look - I accept you have a difference of opinion. But, what, if anything, does this have to do with Obamacare? We could have spent $10 trillion in Iraq, and Obamacare is still wrongheaded.

and you didn't want to listen. And today millions of Americans are getting the benefit of health care where they never did before (some might call that a good investment), and here you are whining about the potential cost.

I said nothing of the "potential" cost. I oppose Obamacare in principle. The cost is another issue, but you keep making the false claim that I brought up the cost of Obamacare. I did not.

I'm genuinely glad Obamacare is there, even if it does somehow end up costing 1 trillion. And if the only way to finally get it to happen was to shove down the throats of Republicans, then I'm glad to the point of schadenfreude. They deserved it.

Oh - the "trillion." That's not the $1,000,000,000,000 I was referring to. Obamacare is an additional cost above-and-beyond the trillion I was talking about.

But, if you think it's worth it, fine. However, let's remember why it even came up. 'Zilla asked me whether I was "afraid" of the extreme right more than the extreme left, or vice versa. I responded that I wasn't afraid of either, I just disagreed with things that Obama is doing or wants to do. Zilla asked for examples. Obamacare was one of those examples. I disagree in principle with Obamacare for a variety of reasons. Iraq and other wars have nothing at all to do with it, and even assuming arguendo that all the money spent on all the wars the US has ever engaged in is considered a giant waste of money, Obamacare is still a wrongheaded policy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - Apologies for my tone a few minutes ago, but I don't intend to ever be civil towards an Iraq War supporter when the subject comes up.

I don't care if you are civil or not. Take the issues personally if you want. That's up to you. It is a bit frustrating to discuss issues with people who get so personal and emotional about it that they'll actually make the argument that "we wasted all sorts of money on the Iraq War" therefore those that oppose Obamacare are suffering from "cognitive dissonance." Surely, you see the fallacy lurking in your argument there?

[Gerald McGrew]

Neither of them scare me. I oppose what Obama says he wants to do.

Quotes?

Paraphrase -- yes, we do want to raise taxes by $1,000,000,000,000.

Tax hike on the middle class: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-4 ... ke-2012-10

Retain Obamacare.

Your turn.

This is a pretty good demonstration of the problem arguing with conservatives today. They have their own "think tanks" that gin up ridiculous studies that they then cite as authoritative. The American Enterprise Institute (the author of the above-cited "study") is a perfect example.

They claim Obama is going to raise taxes on the middle class by $2,400-4,000 per year. Of course Obama has pledged no such thing, so that begs the question: Where did the AEI come up with this figure? They project the debt levels by assuming that all the Bush tax cuts will remain in place over the next decade, and all the war spending will continue over the next decade. Anyone who's been paying attention at all knows that those are ridiculous assumptions.

IOW, it's a pathetic attempt to gin up something to throw at the President without any regard at all for its accuracy. The word that comes to mind here is "bullshit".

[Ayaan]

[Ian]

In other words, you're full of it. The only thing I said here was that Obama increased spending on Afghanistan, the Taliban has gotten stronger, and more Americans are dying. All that is true. If you're referring to something else I've said, then put up or shut up.

I'll put up: you were wrong about Afghanistan not being put on Bush's back-burner for six years. Yes it was. Most of what we're dealing with now might've been dealt with and done years ago if the military didn't get tasked with Iraq for so long. That over-stretched DoD and intelligence resources in ways I can hardly begin to explain, but I'll at least mention troop levels since it's probably the most salient point. Prior to Obama's term, US troop levels in Afghanistan never went much above 30,000. In Iraq though, we began with 140,000 for the invasion and kept levels well above six digits for the next five years, peaking at 166,000 in 2007 before beginning the draw-down (yes, Iraq had bigger population to occupy, but we're talking about judgement of priorities here, aren't we?). With the Afghanistan surge, troop levels were tripled there and reached around 100,000 in 2010 and 2011. Was that because the Taliban had recently tripled in strength and we needed to react, or was that because going after them had been a lower priority for the previous administration? If the answer for that is obvious, then here's the follow-up question: why was going after them not such a priority? The answer is because after the Taliban had lost power in Kabul and failed to recover it by 2003, well enough could be left alone since far more headaches were being dealt with in Iraq. Of course we're spending more now and seeing more losses. You may not care about context because you think the recent history of Afghanistan makes a good talking point with which to slap Obama, but I care.

[Coito ergo sum]

One - you said I was wrong about "everything." You cited one point.

Two - I wasn't wrong. It was handled differently, not back-burnered. US troops in Afghanistan never went much above 30,000 and they didn't have to. Illustrative of that is that Obama's surge hasn't really helped anything or solved any problems.

Had we sent in 140,000 troops into Afghanistan, it would not have helped. We would have been immediately seen as another white enemy occupier, and there wasn't a conventional army to fight. The Northern Alliance was on our side, and with our help Afghanis and a small number of Americans drove out Al Qaeta and the Taliban easily.

Obama's "surge" hasn't worked. It isn't "dealing with" any problems, at least not successfully. And apparently it's not even important that they be dealt with, because without much in the way of actual accomplishments, we're drawing down. We're not drawing down because we succeeded.

Here's a quote:

[A]fter two years of combat in Kandahar and Helmand, those provinces still account for an outsize proportion of Afghan insurgent violence.
Nor is violence is down significantly in Afghanistan as a whole. [Major General John]Allen, speaking to Pentagon reporters on Thursday, said the overall insurgent violence in the country has dipped three percent from this time last year — a figure he conceded “may not be statistically significant.” The previous year, ISAF said that insurgent attacks remained basically level with summer 2010 levels — when the full complement of surge troops arrived in Afghanistan. The purpose of the surge was to reverse the momentum of the Taliban in order to hand over a stable Afghanistan to the Afghan government. If measured by the rate of insurgent activity, the surge at most dented the Taliban’s momentum.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08 ... e-helmand/

Now, if your answer is that "had Bush dedicated adequate forces in the first place, then this would never have happened and we would have been in good shape" - it is certainly a valid assertion. But, it's one that is speculative, and certainly not something that goes without saying or has been conclusively established.

Frankly, the fact that we've had in the ballpark of 100,000 troops in there for the last 3 years and not made a significant dent in anything or a significant change in the stability of Afghanistan can be considered evidence that such troop levels would not have helped when Bush was President either. It is certainly not something that you can claim as established either way, is it?

That is why your last shitty little comment, about me "not caring about context" falls absolutely flat. Your own assertion, without evidence, that the Bush Administration didn't assign enough soldiers to Afghanistan and therefore we are now faced with problems that wouldn't have existed had the proper levels (what? 100,000 like we've had?) been dedicated in the first place, is just an allegation. It's not something you've even presented evidence for. You've just made the assertion and claimed that since I don't accept it, then I'm the one who doesn't understand what is happening in Afghanistan.

I have presented evidence for the proposition that the surge under Obama has done just about Jack Squat. My evidence: The testimony above of Major General John Allen speaking for the Pentagon. If you want to claim that Jack Squat has been accomplished in the last 3 years, because Bush did the wrong things in the previous 7, well, that's up to you, but all your work is ahead of you there. However, if the 100,000 troops were not enough now to fix the problem you think Bush set Obama up with, then one might wonder why Obama is withdrawing troops now, instead of dedicating additional resources to fix the problem.

Lastly - do you accept that the surge has accomplished nothing or very little of consequence? If you do not accept that, can you educate me as to how things are better there now than in 2009?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Less chatter, more posterizing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if she's not actually wearing the pants in the family, it seems as if she should be....

[Coito ergo sum]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still waiting for you to apologize for voting for Dubya TWICE.

[Coito ergo sum]

Still waiting for you to apologize for voting for Dubya TWICE.

Hold your breath.

And, assume what you want.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still waiting for you to apologize for voting for Dubya TWICE.

Hold your breath.

Afraid to admit a massive mistake? Pity.

And, assume what you want.

Okay, lie to us and tell us you didn't vote against the Democrat despite the obvious fuck-up that implied.

[Ian]

drink.jpg (35.2 KiB) Viewed 224 times

boxes.jpg (44.92 KiB) Viewed 224 times

oops.jpg (25.82 KiB) Viewed 224 times

[Ian]

lib.jpg (65.47 KiB) Viewed 224 times

wcgw.jpg (69.28 KiB) Viewed 224 times