Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Bush did it by letting the NeoCons run the war,

Do you think he A. Didn't intend to and/or B. Had any other way of running things ?

If so do you think things would have worked out differently than they have ?

Well I do think things were rushed into. I mean as soon as the towers fell people called for action with angry fervor. I mean it would be hard to say okay we need to run investigation that may take years but should be accurate. The people would say he was doing nothing and blah blah blah. Idk about later in the war but I can see his need to act(even if it was rash).

reds8n wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Bush did it by letting the NeoCons run the war,

Do you think he A. Didn't intend to and/or B. Had any other way of running things ?

If so do you think things would have worked out differently than they have ?

I give you Condaleeza Rice as exhibit A, of how to clean up Neocon messes. Things started to go right when Rumsfield was fired/asked to resign.

Personally, the 2 biggest mistakes Bush made was hiring Rumsfeld and Cheney.


GG

Hmm.. interesting.

Mamzel Rice always seemed fairly level headed, as did Colin Powell ( sp ?).

Especially give Bush doesn't like Black peopl.. GET THE feth OUT OF HERE KANYE ...

where was I..

So why do you think the Neocons had/claimed so much influence. Internet rants and odd whackjobs aside your system has, generally, to an outsider generally seemed to be fairly middle of the road ( well..to the right compared to us but given where you and us drive...), it seemed odd that the..hmmm... far's not the correct word... the more extreme rightwing element grabbed as much power as they did ?

Just money or a swing after 2 terms of Clinton ?

reds8n wrote: Hmm.. interesting.

Mamzel Rice always seemed fairly level headed, as did Colin Powell ( sp ?).

Especially give Bush doesn't like Black peopl.. GET THE feth OUT OF HERE KANYE ...

where was I..

So why do you think the Neocons had/claimed so much influence. Internet rants and odd whackjobs aside your system has, generally, to an outsider generally seemed to be fairly middle of the road ( well..to the right compared to us but given where you and us drive...), it seemed odd that the..hmmm... far's not the correct word... the more extreme rightwing element grabbed as much power as they did ?

Just money or a swing after 2 terms of Clinton ?

I think it has a lot to do with Clinton's era. Over the last couple presidents we have made harsh swings back and forth. We have divided ourselves and have lost our sense of us as a nation that we once had. It's sad that it takes something like 9/11 to get us on the same page. On a side note, what is the west's infatuation with watching people falling and laughing. It doesn't matter if it's politicions(sp) or celebrities?

WarmasterScott wrote:
Always have to have a confrontational one. I see so you just want people to point fingers and have a "no this kinda is a bigger "" Ok I'll bite. If you wanna trace the debt back that you all are so happy to blame on currents. Why not blame it on the ones who started it. After the depression the banks gave the people and government an almost unlimited credit source to rebuild the broken economy. Then they later decided it was time to collect cause they almost lost their ass to the overspending of the american people/government. Past presidents have repeatedly said the national bank has been one of our worst ideas. Ok another culprit of the debt is our need to always save everyone but our own. We hand out aid like no other with no real intention of recuperating any of it. While our people are in all sorts of bad situations(I mean the ones not created due to laziness and personal choices) we're handing money to everyone else. Then following presidents saying well we have always had debt lets go ahead and blow more by making new add ons to the white house, go to wars we have no part in, people not willing to help cover stuff like hurricanes, etc Again endless stuff to argue about.

Ah, I was just bein an ass . I do like to argue though. Let me bite back. First, the government gave the banks money not the other way around, unless you are talking about the fed. The majority of banks have paid their loans back of their own accord (gives the appearance of them being "solid" i guess), there wasn't a "deadline" to pay the government back. Banks had incentive to pay back quickly due to the interest on the loans. As of the end of August, the US government had collected over $4B in profits from the interest and is still owed an approximate $6.2B. Foreign is a very small portion of the federal budget. Including food, it amounts to $36.7B for the 2010 budget. The total budget for the year is some $2.38T.

youngblood wrote:

WarmasterScott wrote:
Always have to have a confrontational one. I see so you just want people to point fingers and have a "no this kinda is a bigger "" Ok I'll bite. If you wanna trace the debt back that you all are so happy to blame on currents. Why not blame it on the ones who started it. After the depression the banks gave the people and government an almost unlimited credit source to rebuild the broken economy. Then they later decided it was time to collect cause they almost lost their ass to the overspending of the american people/government. Past presidents have repeatedly said the national bank has been one of our worst ideas. Ok another culprit of the debt is our need to always save everyone but our own. We hand out aid like no other with no real intention of recuperating any of it. While our people are in all sorts of bad situations(I mean the ones not created due to laziness and personal choices) we're handing money to everyone else. Then following presidents saying well we have always had debt lets go ahead and blow more by making new add ons to the white house, go to wars we have no part in, people not willing to help cover stuff like hurricanes, etc Again endless stuff to argue about.

Ah, I was just bein an ass . I do like to argue though. Let me bite back. First, the government gave the banks money not the other way around, unless you are talking about the fed. The majority of banks have paid their loans back of their own accord (gives the appearance of them being "solid" i guess), there wasn't a "deadline" to pay the government back. Banks had incentive to pay back quickly due to the interest on the loans. As of the end of August, the US government had collected over $4B in profits from the interest and is still owed an approximate $6.2B. Foreign is a very small portion of the federal budget. Including food, it amounts to $36.7B for the 2010 budget. The total budget for the year is some $2.38T.

hey I was adding pieces. I don't claim to have the expertise, background knowledge to explain the whole debt or the time. Though you can never plan how much they'll spend when war or natural disasters occur..

WarmasterScott wrote:
hey I was adding pieces. I don't claim to have the expertise, background knowledge to explain the whole debt or the time. Though you can never plan how much they'll spend when war or natural disasters occur..

Ah I don't have any expertise either, I just read what I can when I can and I listen to that god Rush Limbaugh (j/k)

YOU SAID THE MAGIC WORD!!! DINGDINGDINGDING!!!

generalgrog wrote:2 things

1:
I knew it was Mahr after the first paragraph.


2:

Frazzled wrote:The GOP was not invited into the negotiation. This is a Pelosi/Reid creation. Why on earth should they participate? Obama knew that when he gave it to them to run with and didn't do himself.

Frazz has pretty much summed up why this thing has been a disaster from the start. Like I said before, I was rooting for the President, but he (like Bush before him) dropped the ball, by allowing the extremists to "handle it".

Bush did it by letting the NeoCons run the war, and Obama did it by letting the Pelosi's run this healthcare reform proposal.

GG

Agreed on all counts. You don't farm major policy stuff out to the nattering nabobs of your party.
-Bush should have stuck with Afghanistan/Pakistan and hunting Osama until he was dead no matter the cost (I'll profit I thought Iraq was a springboard for reverse domino theory in bringing democracies into the ME and it was initially, but I have since learned my lesson on the efficacy of democracy in that region).
-Obama should not have given healthcare, the democratic porkbarrel bill, and Cap and Trade over to same. The fact he has repeatedly done so is a blinding error, unless he supported such in real life. His budget reveals where his heart lays however so it might not be far from that.

youngblood wrote:No you are smarter, just plain smarter. Actually, with enough money and cooperation, it could be done. Look at China. It has a massive population and its GDP is about 1/3 of the US'. If the US were truly serious about "universal" health care, put it on the state level with federal support. With that said, I have no idea how effective Chinese health care is.

Chinese healthcare isn't great. But even if it was, the Chinese economy is so different that it wouldn't be much of an indicator of what the US could achieve. Better to look at somewhere in Europe, who manage better healthcare at anywhere up to half the cost.

sebster wrote:

youngblood wrote:No you are smarter, just plain smarter. Actually, with enough money and cooperation, it could be done. Look at China. It has a massive population and its GDP is about 1/3 of the US'. If the US were truly serious about "universal" health care, put it on the state level with federal support. With that said, I have no idea how effective Chinese health care is.

Chinese healthcare isn't great. But even if it was, the Chinese economy is so different that it wouldn't be much of an indicator of what the US could achieve. Better to look at somewhere in Europe, who manage better healthcare at anywhere up to half the cost.

I was looking at a country who has large population. Although their GDP is 1/4 of ours.

Cairnius wrote:
I am not in a militia.

If, as you claim, you're 35, then yes you are. Sorry.

Cairnius wrote:
I would define a “well-regulated militia” the way Article VI of the Articles of Confederation in 1777 defines it:

"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

Clearly in this Constitutional clause the Founders were only referencing the arms available during their time. They never intended any militia to be equipped with modern assault weapons.

In any case, a militia is either a part of the organized armed forces that a nation is only able to call on in an emergency (this includes both the Selective Service, as it is an organization, and the National Guard), or all able bodied citizens eligible for military service. You're literally pretending that this word means whatever you want it to.

Cairnius wrote:
Someone has to be quite dense, or filled with such ideological fervor so as to ignore simple fact which stands opposed to their ideological beliefs, to ignore this history.

What a horribly unfortunate phrase for you to ever make use of.

Cairnius wrote:
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment could not be MORE clear to anyone who stops crying in hysterics and who looks at things unemotionally.

Yes, all that emotion that was clearly absent your earlier epithet laden diatribe.

Cairnius wrote:
The ownership of firearms in our laws was ALWAYS tied to service in an organized militia from the very beginning. Modern interpretation of law has stripped away this all-important basis for the law and turned it into an excuse for lunatics to own fully-automatic weapons if they choose to.

The individual right argument from the Second Amendment was first arose in Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822. The first collective right interpretation was found in State v. Buzzard in 1842. Your claim that firearms ownership was always tied to militia membership is false. Both from a purely linguistic standpoint, and a purely legalistic one.

Cairnius wrote:
Militias during the colonial era started off as "all able-bodied males" who could be used to recruit into the Provincial Forces, who were paid and who also rarely actually saw combat (probably because the British Regulars did the fighting). These troops were of horrible quality. George Washington bitched about them in the mid 1750's while trying to fight against Indian raids. They were undisciplined and had no chain of command.

And they fought as auxiliaries, which was the role of conscripts in that era of warfare, throughout the entire conflict.

Cairnius wrote:
This is clearly not a blueprint for a "militia" as any of us would like to think of it, and it's also combat-ineffective...and this is where the Minutemen came from. Order from chaos. Now you saw the creation of companies, captains and lieutenants, and then battalions and field officers.

Again, this is what comes from people not bothering to learn their history. If the Founding Fathers didn't believe in unorganized, random civilian militias, then why should we?

The Minutemen were part of the militia, not the whole of it.

Incidentally, a militia does not have to engage in constant training to be considered a militia. Indeed, if they do engage in constant training there is a very solid case to be made that they aren't a militia at all, but regular forces.

Cairnius wrote:
Show me an armed force in the world who accept people bound in wheelchairs into front-line infantry units…then perhaps I’ll bother trying to make sense of what seems like a ridiculous line of argument for which I currently have no time. I also have no clue what the hell you are implying with your “assault rifle and not .22 as standard issue weapon.”

Ad hominem. Oh man, is that ever an ad hominem.

Cairnius wrote:
This is why we need to use more words, not less, class. Sometimes when you don’t use enough words no one knows what the hell you mean.

And sometimes when you use too many you sound like a pompous ass making a feeble attempt to obscure the feeble excuse for argument which is meant to substantiate his claims.

There's a happy medium here, dude. And it certainly isn't something you're approaching.

Cairnius wrote:
If I had my druthers, yes, I’d take firearms away from the senile and mentally infirm the same way I think old people should get re-tested for driving competency at some as-yet-undermined regular interval. Anytime anyone had any sort of capacity to kill someone else through extension of a privilege I would test them for the continued right to that privileges.

See, I believe rights are socially derived in all cases. Referring to them as natural rights is simply a nonsensical bit of sleight of hand. And even I think referencing the 2nd amendment as a privilege is nonsense.

You're simply engaging in the selective validation procedure you seem so quick to accuse others of.

Cairnius wrote:
There’s nothing problematic here. Anything dangerous SHOULD be regulated and restricted. You must have a lot more faith in the average American citizen than I do, which is why you’re willing to allow anyone and everyone, it seems, to walk around packing.

Firearms should be regulated, as the militia clause points out, but they cannot be out and out denied. Pretending that there is no sense in which the 2nd refers to individual rights is ideological stupidity.

As you said, the Constitution was poured over when it was created. The Founders were plainly aware of that interpretation. If they weren't, then you have no business worshiping them in the way you plainly do.

Cairnius wrote:
I don’t trust the average to know how to drive properly or how to vote responsibly. I sure as hell don’t trust them to be packing a Desert Eagle under their trenchcoat...

This is the very worst kind of elitism.

Frazzled wrote:You're forgetting that whole Tenth Amendment thing.

Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution. From Wiki:

"This document lets the government create “necessary and proper” programs/laws and retain them, such as creating the Air Force. The Air Force is an implied power because the constitution did not give the power of the Air Force to the federal government, because airplanes didn’t even exist.

"Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.

Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.

In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself."


The 10th Amendment does not preclude Congress from passing Obama's health care reform. 'Nuff said.

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed on all counts. You don't farm major policy stuff out to the nattering nabobs of your party.
-Bush should have stuck with Afghanistan/Pakistan and hunting Osama until he was dead no matter the cost (I'll profit I thought Iraq was a springboard for reverse domino theory in bringing democracies into the ME and it was initially, but I have since learned my lesson on the efficacy of democracy in that region).

I think only time will tell if the Iraq war was an overall bad thing or good thing. (I mean war is never a good thing, but sometimes a necessary thing) The thing that bothers me the most about it, was the idiotic prosecution and arrogance of the "end of major conflict" stage. The scary thought that Iraq could sell/give nuclear weapons or other WMD's to terrorsists was THE selling point to the war. This is what made it "necessary" to most Americans. The interesting thing is that we also have Iran and N.Korea (All in the Axis of evil speech) that could possibly do this as well. All that stuff about establishing an Arab democracy in the ME was just smoke screen for "We don't want Saddam Hussein to be responsible for nuking NYC".

GG

How is there any perspective from which the war in Iraq was a good thing? It didn't make us safer, it didn't give us unilateral control of the nation's resources, our military bases there will not be permanent, it has cost us around $680 billion dollars with no return on investment, it has led to the deaths of 4,000+ American soldiers and over 30,000 being wounded, and for no reason whatsoever as we've gained nothing by this.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, and therefore there was no justification for any sort of pre-preemptive military action...therefore it also represents an overt abandonment of American principles which admittedly had been abandoned long ago through decades of proxy wars, but to just come out and piss on the principle with no subterfuge whatsoever, and thereby set a horrible precedent for the future, for THIS stupid war was inexcusable. The war in Afghanistan may have been prosecuted poorly but at least there was a reasonable justification for it...

There is nothing good about the war in Iraq. Not a damned thing.

Guys, we were effed as far as the middle east was concerned as soon as we sided with Jerusalem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hell bin laden said he would talk to our leaders if we pulled our support. You heard it from the man himself that our ally in the Holy Land was the breaking point.

Every once in a while it is worth opening one of your posts, Dogma, beyond just checking in to see if you're still acting like someone who is clinically depressed...

dogma wrote:You're literally pretending that this word means whatever you want it to.

dogma wrote:Yes, all that emotion that was clearly absent your earlier epithet laden diatribe.

dogma wrote:Ad hominem. Oh man, is that ever an ad hominem.

dogma wrote:And sometimes when you use too many you sound like a pompous ass making a feeble attempt to obscure the feeble excuse for argument which is meant to substantiate his claims.

dogma wrote:You're simply engaging in the selective validation procedure you seem so quick to accuse others of.

dogma wrote:This is the very worst kind of elitism.

Dogma...meet Dogma.

dogma wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Out of curiosity could Cairnius be a "Concern Troll" ?

He actually remind me of myself, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him.

Just going from your posts, even with the tone-neutrality the internet departs, the chief difference between the two of us is that I seem to be in a much better mood than you are most of the time...and I suspect I take myself a lot less seriously.

I know you like to knock the academy, and it always reads like jealousy to me. You say that your job is languishing behind a desk at a health club somewhere...maybe you tried to get into college and couldn't, I don't know, but for such an unabashed armchair intellectual as yourself, literally an armchair intellectual, to post the way you do here on Dakka Dakka while also lambasting the academy is quixotic in the extreme.

Perhaps you would be in a better mood if you got up from behind that desk and got yourself into school for Poli Sci or History or something similar? You might be a more self-satisfied and happy person.

That's my social work quota for the year, I think. Now you go back on ignore for a while.

Cairnius wrote: our military bases there will not be permanent,

I highly doubt that. The US isn't exactly known for its willingness to close foreign bases. Sure, we might shut down operations there after 10-15 years, but that's certainly not a temporary deployment by modern standards, so I'm not sure what you would called it except 'permanent'. Perhaps 'intermediary'?

Cairnius wrote:
it has cost us around $680 billion dollars with no return on investment, it has led to the deaths of 4,000+ American soldiers and over 30,000 being wounded, and for no reason whatsoever as we've gained nothing by this.

We've deposed a problematic regime, and avoided the need to invade after Saddam's death (essentially inevitable, given the problems inherent in having an unstable Iraqi government vis a vis oil supplies). You can claim that it wasn't the best means of approaching the scenarios proposed by PNAC (because it wasn't), but to say that no benefit can be derived from the conflict is deliberately obtuse.

Cairnius wrote:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, and therefore there was no justification for any sort of pre-preemptive military action...

That's not explicitly true. There was no justification for preemptive action as it was presented to Congress, but there was a justification for the action as described by PNAC. Specifically, "We need to do it now, because we might not be able to do so in the future, and this is necessary for the security of our foreign oil supply."

Cairnius wrote:
therefore it also represents an overt abandonment of American principles which admittedly had been abandoned long ago through decades of proxy wars, but to just come out and piss on the principle with no subterfuge whatsoever, and thereby set a horrible precedent for the future, for THIS stupid war was inexcusable.

What 'American principles' are you referring to?

Cairnius wrote:
The war in Afghanistan may have been prosecuted poorly but at least there was a reasonable justification for it...

There is nothing good about the war in Iraq. Not a damned thing.

Ideological nonsense. The fact is that as soon as we deployed troops to Iraq we shouldered the responsibility inherent in nation building activities. There is no reasonable case for immediate withdrawal. Now that we're there we are obligated to derive as much benefit from the invasion as possible, even if it was based upon an ill-conceived plan of action.

Also, Grog is right. You can't actually judge the overall quality of a conflict while still engaged in it. You can judge the pretense to instigate the conflict. You can judge the relative quality of the tactical choices made in the course of the conflict, but judging the conflict itself is impossible as you lack contextual evidence. Speculation as to the forthcoming affects of any given war grant no moral certitude.

Cairnius wrote:our military bases there will not be permanent,

TBD, look at Germany


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarmasterScott wrote:Guys, we were effed as far as the middle east was concerned as soon as we sided with Jerusalem.

But if we protect Israel, Jesus comes back right?

Cairnius wrote:
Every once in a while it is worth opening one of your posts, Dogma, beyond just checking in to see if you're still acting like someone who is clinically depressed..

Psychoanalysis without ever having met me? That's an interesting bow to draw.

Either way, your allegations of my depression are entirely in your own mind. They also represent an ad hominem attacks. You should really learn to stop that.

dogma wrote:
He actually remind me of myself, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him.

Yeah, that was a poor judgment on my part. You're very little like me. I actually value logic, and understand how to use it. You claim to, but fail at doing so in a rather resounding fashion. A better statement would have been: "He actually reminds me of myself when I was in my later teens, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him."

Cairnius wrote:
Just going from your posts, even with the tone-neutrality the internet departs, the chief difference between the two of us is that I seem to be in a much better mood than you are most of the time...and I suspect I take myself a lot less seriously.

Better mood? All those epithets are indicative of a better mood? Really?

I'm also surprised that you consider profanity to be a sign of detachment. I've never really heard of that being presented as a reasonable behavioral argument. Not by anyone who understand profanity, anyway.

Either way, I've been no more hostile in the course of this thread than you have. By my judgment considerably less so. The fact that you have chosen to, yet again, resort to an ad hominem retort is evidence of that.

Cairnius wrote:
I know you like to knock the academy, and it always reads like jealousy to me.

I knock the academy because much of it is made up of those who use their degrees as a substitute for intellectual rigor in the course of public debate. This is something you've been guilty of in several threads here; including this one. However, I've only done this once in the sum of my time here, in maybe three posts which were specifically in reference to you as an example of the worst of the academy. That's hardly an insult to the whole of the institution. Though, given your obviously high opinion of yourself, I can see how you would construe it as such.

Cairnius wrote:
You say that your job is languishing behind a desk at a health club somewhere...maybe you tried to get into college and couldn't, I don't know, but for such an unabashed armchair intellectual as yourself, literally an armchair intellectual, to post the way you do here on Dakka Dakka while also lambasting the academy is quixotic in the extreme.

I tend to be more critical of those organizations of which I am a part, than those of which I am not. Is it quixotic? Perhaps, though I don't believe so. Certainly no more so than preaching the gospel with respect to the stupidity of Americans.

Cairnius wrote:
Perhaps you would be in a better mood if you got up from behind that desk and got yourself into school for Poli Sci or History or something similar? You might be a more self-satisfied and happy person.

I realize that you're incapable of doing anything beyond launching into polemical diatribes, but you should probably avoid making any attempt at personal suggestion via the internet. At least in any way which isn't directly connected to the posting style of the person to whom you're responding. Admittedly, I used to be fond of this method of posting as well, but it really reflects poorly on anything else you might have to say; especially if you're going to use it as a replacement for a proper rebuttal.

For someone so adamant about the maintenance of intellectual standards in public discourse you seem quite keen to discard them when they work against you.

Alright, flames off you guys. I swear you guys make Johnny Storm look like Iceman. Please keep comments less personal as I'd prefer this thread stay open.

What flames? I didn't hear anything. Dogma's just talking to himself again, no worries.

dogma wrote:There's a happy medium here, dude. And it certainly isn't something you're approaching.

Hehehehehehe... Wrex with that cheezy grin again



FOR THE FRIZZACKING WIN FOR GODDAM SURE !!!

This is in support of Dogma, as unclear as that could seem...

Cairnius wrote:How is there any perspective from which the war in Iraq was a good thing? It didn't make us safer, it didn't give us unilateral control of the nation's resources, our military bases there will not be permanent, it has cost us around $680 billion dollars with no return on investment, it has led to the deaths of 4,000+ American soldiers and over 30,000 being wounded, and for no reason whatsoever as we've gained nothing by this.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, and therefore there was no justification for any sort of pre-preemptive military action...therefore it also represents an overt abandonment of American principles which admittedly had been abandoned long ago through decades of proxy wars, but to just come out and piss on the principle with no subterfuge whatsoever, and thereby set a horrible precedent for the future, for THIS stupid war was inexcusable. The war in Afghanistan may have been prosecuted poorly but at least there was a reasonable justification for it...

There is nothing good about the war in Iraq. Not a damned thing.

Wow way to armchair general and kneejerk at the same time.

Dogma pretty much covered it, but I hate to let someone else do the talking for me.

It's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.
Why would we want a "permanent" base in Iraq when we have them in other Mid east countries?
Unilateral control of Iraqs oil would be tantamount to Imperialism.
Like I said we really won't know what we have gained or lost until 10 to 20 years from now. Iraq may descend into chaos, they may join Iran, or they may actually become a form of democracy like India. It's too early to make sweeping kneejerk statements like, "There is nothing good about the war in Iraq".

GG

The best things about the war in Iraq are that the free world is no longer at the threat either of WMDs in the region or of Al Qaeda inspired terrorism.

dogma wrote:

Cairnius wrote:
Every once in a while it is worth opening one of your posts, Dogma, beyond just checking in to see if you're still acting like someone who is clinically depressed..

Psychoanalysis without ever having met me? That's an interesting bow to draw.

Either way, your allegations of my depression are entirely in your own mind. They also represent an ad hominem attacks. You should really learn to stop that.

dogma wrote:
He actually remind me of myself, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him.

Yeah, that was a poor judgment on my part. You're very little like me. I actually value logic, and understand how to use it. You claim to, but fail at doing so in a rather resounding fashion. A better statement would have been: "He actually reminds me of myself when I was in my later teens, to a disturbing extent. That's most likely the source of my hostility towards him."

Cairnius wrote:
Just going from your posts, even with the tone-neutrality the internet departs, the chief difference between the two of us is that I seem to be in a much better mood than you are most of the time...and I suspect I take myself a lot less seriously.

Better mood? All those epithets are indicative of a better mood? Really?

I'm also surprised that you consider profanity to be a sign of detachment. I've never really heard of that being presented as a reasonable behavioral argument. Not by anyone who understand profanity, anyway.

Either way, I've been no more hostile in the course of this thread than you have. By my judgment considerably less so. The fact that you have chosen to, yet again, resort to an ad hominem retort is evidence of that.

Cairnius wrote:
I know you like to knock the academy, and it always reads like jealousy to me.

I knock the academy because much of it is made up of those who use their degrees as a substitute for intellectual rigor in the course of public debate. This is something you've been guilty of in several threads here; including this one. However, I've only done this once in the sum of my time here, in maybe three posts which were specifically in reference to you as an example of the worst of the academy. That's hardly an insult to the whole of the institution. Though, given your obviously high opinion of yourself, I can see how you would construe it as such.

Cairnius wrote:
You say that your job is languishing behind a desk at a health club somewhere...maybe you tried to get into college and couldn't, I don't know, but for such an unabashed armchair intellectual as yourself, literally an armchair intellectual, to post the way you do here on Dakka Dakka while also lambasting the academy is quixotic in the extreme.

I tend to be more critical of those organizations of which I am a part, than those of which I am not. Is it quixotic? Perhaps, though I don't believe so. Certainly no more so than preaching the gospel with respect to the stupidity of Americans.

Cairnius wrote:
Perhaps you would be in a better mood if you got up from behind that desk and got yourself into school for Poli Sci or History or something similar? You might be a more self-satisfied and happy person.

I realize that you're incapable of doing anything beyond launching into polemical diatribes, but you should probably avoid making any attempt at personal suggestion via the internet. At least in any way which isn't directly connected to the posting style of the person to whom you're responding. Admittedly, I used to be fond of this method of posting as well, but it really reflects poorly on anything else you might have to say; especially if you're going to use it as a replacement for a proper rebuttal.

For someone so adamant about the maintenance of intellectual standards in public discourse you seem quite keen to discard them when they work against you.

This screams Moderation but Dogma's retort has been both on point and polite. Impressive patience beyond mine. So lets call it even and move forward.

Moderation on:
From this point forward posts must follow Rule #1. Be polite. That means everyone, including myself. Slanting attacks on other posters will still be viewed as attacks.

Had to skip that post when I saw who you were quoting, Fraz. I've got him on ignore for a reason.

I have to say that reposting content you know one poster was avoiding in the interests of stopping a flame war before it started is an...interesting...moderation technique. I don't know what you said in there to justify doing it, but that's certainly an interesting choice.

At this point your intent is quite clear Cairnius... thanks for the input though mate .

This thread has been brought to you in part by... Cheese... or so it would seem.. or... not, it is cheddar mate.

generalgrog wrote:Wow way to armchair general and kneejerk at the same time.

Armchair general? Please. It doesn't take too much knowledge of the history of the region to know that going into Iraq was stupid on a strategic level in addition to all the other reasons it was bad...and kneejerk?

Seriously...sometimes I think some of you guys are automatons or something. You think *that* was kneejerk?

No. Kneejerk gets someone banned with no warnings.

Wrexasaur wrote:At this point your intent is quite clear Cairnius... thanks for the input though mate .

Fly out to New England and have a beer with me if you want to figure out my intentions, Wrex.

Don't push me today on the mod front Cairnie. I'm trying to avoid official warnings directed at certain parties and you might not want to tap dance in the minefield there.