So, Iraq hasn't been getting much play.. but a lot has been going on.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

No, it's not. But congratulations on completely missing the point.

Congratulations on not having one.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Congratulations on not having one.

This is easily the 4th or 5th discussion i've had with you since i've come to this forum where we've gone back and forth because you want to discuss semantics and side topics and ignore the meat of an issue.

Since I don't want to get frustrated with your complete ineptitude at having a focused conversation and, through that frustration, insult you personally - i'm going to put you on ignore.

I'm sure you'll see this as a personal victory, but keep in mind you're the ONLY liberal on this forum i'm ignoring. I discuss issues to shape my viewpoints and expand my knowledge, neither of which happens when debating with you.

Scrum

[Crazy]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Answer the question please. If it's US, Sunni, & Shia - indicating our military and 2 civlilian groups as the only key players, then which side do you put the militants murdering the two civilian groups by the thousands?

Typically, I don't quote wikipedia, but from what I recall in Iraq it is a fairly accurate assessment of the breakdown of insurgents.

Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein's former nomenclatura, e.g. army or intelligence officers;

Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims, who fight for Iraqi self-determination;
anti-Shi'a Sunni Muslims who fight to regain the prestige they held under the previous regime (these three categories are often undistinguishable in practice);

Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement, as well as any remnants of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam;

Foreign Islamist volunteers, including those often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Sunni Wahabi doctrine (the two preceding categories are often lumped as "Jihadists");

Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party) and other leftists;

Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr;
Criminal insurgents who are fighting simply for money; and
Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the insurgency).

And yes, in many parts there are Sunni's killing Sunni's :roll: Do you even research what you debate, or do you come here to get an argument fix?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

This is easily the 4th or 5th discussion i've had with you since i've come to this forum where we've gone back and forth because you want to discuss semantics and side topics and ignore the meat of an issue.

Since I don't want to get frustrated with your complete ineptitude at having a focused conversation and, through that frustration, insult you personally - i'm going to put you on ignore.

I'm sure you'll see this as a personal victory, but keep in mind you're the ONLY liberal on this forum i'm ignoring. I discuss issues to shape my viewpoints and expand my knowledge, neither of which happens when debating with you.

Scrum

Giving up this soon?

[TekDragon]

... and apparently this forum doesn't have an ignore feature.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Crazy

Typically, I don't quote wikipedia, but from what I recall in Iraq it is a fairly accurate assessment of the breakdown of insurgents.




And yes, in many parts there are Sunni's killing Sunni's :roll: Do you even research what you debate, or do you come here to get an argument fix?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

Even with two of us saying it, I have the feeling it will go in one ear and out the other.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

... and apparently this forum doesn't have an ignore feature.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Giving up this soon?

Your post on Intellegent Design in the other forum is what made me realize that i'd rather bang my head into a wall than have a discussion with you. I lurk in DemocraticUnderground, the biggest cess pool of circle jerkers on the internet, and I can at least tolerate reading thier posts.

[Crazy]

I would too if my own sources proved what I was arguing was wrong


Seriously though, he gawks at the idea of Sunnis killing Sunnis when that is exactly what is happening. The militants don't care who they kill as long as they try to break the morale of the new government and our soldiers. Which isn't happening because more and more civilians are reporting suspicious activity and becoming increasingly aware of those who "don't fit"... they report them and we go nab em.


I'm still waiting for him to actually read the Tet Offensive article

It'll never happen though. Ignorance is bliss

[Ardentfrost]

stop attacking each other and talk the issues dammit

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

stop attacking each other and talk the issues dammit

I agree.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Crazy

And yes, in many parts there are Sunni's killing Sunni's :roll: Do you even research what you debate, or do you come here to get an argument fix?

Are you kidding me? I'm making the point that the Sunni or Shia or Kurdish militants killing civilians should NOT be lumped into the same group as the civilians.

By yours and Scrums logic we shouldn't consider murders in America as "criminals" because they are Americans just the same as the rest of the population is American.

That makes no sense what-so-ever

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They are not goin to be western friendly. Maybe afghanistan would come out ok, but Iraq is not. Those in power in Iraq now have known ties to Hezbolluh, have come out against Israel, and are damn near allies with Iran.

This has created a huge shit storm that will be realized in the near future.

Oh, and to think my opinion of the war results in painting the US soldiers as bad guys is quite frankly.. fucking retarded.

I don't recall you posting in DIACF about how "US soldiers are murderers" and "We're carpet bombing Iraqi villages" and "Those hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians are because of US soldiers, not Iraqi militants".

I recall a few people who did, however. So do you.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

How does that further your point? What "Political Pressure" was it that prevented US forces from completely annihilating the North Vietnamese forces with combined strategic bombings?

News flash: it wasn't the pressure from the conservatives.

I'm still waiting for a reply to this.

I made the point that anti war activists provided moral support that DIRECTLY led to the lengthening and ultimate failure of the Vietnam war. The interview I provided, from a North Vietnamese officers, provides undeniable support to this.

You attempted to refute my point by saying that ANOTHER reason we didn't win the war was because of the politics involved that prevented our Generals from using the level of force needed to end the war early and ultimately save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Suprise, surpise! It was the LIBERAL political pressure that kept those generals from doing their job. So tell me, how does that:

1. Refute my original point.
2. Make a point that DOESN'T portray the liberals as being harmful to our operation in Iraq?

[Crazy]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Are you kidding me? I'm making the point that the Sunni or Shia or Kurdish militants killing civilians should NOT be lumped into the same group as the civilians.

They actually aren't broken up into US vs Sunni vs Shia Scrum was a bit off there. I know what he was meaning, but he was a bit off in stating it.

He is correct that those are the two major religious factions mixed into the war. However, the militants are more than just Sunni vs Shia. I was debating your response to the fact of Sunnis killing Sunnis, to which you acted almost in disbelief. Because that is actually happening.

Now, if you want to talk "sides"...

You have the Coalition, and the Iraqi Army on one side.

On the other you have AIF (Anti-Iraqi Forces) which include all militants who commit acts of war against the Iraqi civilians and Coalition forces.

Also on this lump you have Al Sadr and his SHIA grp of militants as well.

You can break it down however you want to, but this is what the military is using to designate the "sides"... this is all public information as well.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Crazy

They actually aren't broken up into US vs Sunni vs Shia Scrum was a bit off there. I know what he was meaning, but he was a bit off in stating it.

He is correct that those are the two major religious factions mixed into the war. However, the militants are more than just Sunni vs Shia. I was debating your response to the fact of Sunnis killing Sunnis, to which you acted almost in disbelief. Because that is actually happening.

Now, if you want to talk "sides"...

You have the Coalition, and the Iraqi Army on one side.

On the other you have AIF (Anti-Iraqi Forces) which include all militants who commit acts of war against the Iraqi civilians and Coalition forces.

Also on this lump you have Al Sadr and his SHIA grp of militants as well.

You can break it down however you want to, but this is what the military is using to designate the "sides"... this is all public information as well.

Answer this one question:

Do you feel that the civilians in Iraq are on the side of the government and Iraqi army, or on the side of the AIF who are slaughtering civilians by the thousands.

My entire point in my original statement, which Scrum managed (as usual) to break down into a semantical argument) is that the US forces are working to the best interests of the Iraqi people.

[Crazy]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

I'm still waiting for a reply to this.

I made the point that anti war activists provided moral support that DIRECTLY led to the lengthening and ultimate failure of the Vietnam war. The interview I provided, from a North Vietnamese officers, provides undeniable support to this.

You attempted to refute my point by saying that ANOTHER reason we didn't win the war was because of the politics involved that prevented our Generals from using the level of force needed to end the war early and ultimately save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Suprise, surpise! It was the LIBERAL political pressure that kept those generals from doing their job. So tell me, how does that:

1. Refute my original point.
2. Make a point that DOESN'T portray the liberals as being harmful to our operation in Iraq?

I refuted your point with a better source. Your source denies your point in whole on two different occasions to which I've pointed out already.

Although it was provided in my source, and you clearly didn't read that, I will post a snippet.

The Tet offensive failed in part because one of the central premises—that South Vietnam’s population would spontaneously revolt—was wrong. In fact, the lack of an uprising exposed the hollowness of North Vietnamese propaganda claims. But Tet did provoke an uprising—among U.S elites, including the inner circle around President Johnson. Because of the prior political and public relations handling of the war at home, Tet demolished the illusion of control and progress.

Also, in the article it was Johnson who kept the General Wesmoreland from doing his job, not only by not having enough balls to put faith in his generals and allowing more ground troops, which clearly sent a signal to the N Vietnamese that the USA had reached its threshold on the war (this is in your article).... BUT Johnson and the CIA both dismissed multiple sources of GOOD intelligence that they were mounting a MAJOR OFFENSIVE... They denied Wesmorelands request to take certain key areas, and all the while you're going to sit here and blame the liberals for this?

I've refuted your argument on three different fronts, one to include your source alone which has multiple citations of the GOVERNMENT being the cause of the loss in Vietnam.



Johnson could have shrugged off the liberals the same way Bush is doing now. He could have stayed the course and probably won, but he didn't. It was Johnson's inability to let the Generals to the job. It was the government, not the liberals. Do you blame the other team's fans at a football game for your team losing? No you blame the players...

I have a hard time believing you are this ignorant to the matter ... wow...

[Crazy]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Answer this one question:

Do you feel that the civilians in Iraq are on the side of the government and Iraqi army, or on the side of the AIF who are slaughtering civilians by the thousands.

My entire point in my original statement, which Scrum managed (as usual) to break down into a semantical argument) is that the US forces are working to the best interests of the Iraqi people.

They are coming around to the fact that this government is going to be their future and the new forces at hand will be their only safety against such violence. Thus, they are reporting criminal acts more and more and helping to secure their neighborhoods.

However, none of what you said has anything to do with the US forces working in the best interests of the Iraqi people. We were debating where the militants fall under, not the job the USA is doing over there. Two completely and seperate issues. With that I must go to drinking Time to get hammered. I await to see how this thread develops.

[TekDragon]

You have not refuted anything. You either don't understand what "refute" means or you put too much faith in your convictions.

I completely understand and agree with your point that the political pressure HELPED keep the war from being one.

In order for you to REFUTE (key word) my point you need to do the following:

1. Prove that anti war activists did NOT have an affect on North Vietnamese leadership and affect their decision to stay in the war.
2. Prove that liberal pressure did NOT have an affect on US generals not engaging in a more open war.