Been busy as of late

I totally don't understand this thread. Why does it say that 6thGen started the thread?

When I first looked at it earlier it had the title of the thread and nothing else when you clicked on it. I guess 6thgen changed his mind about what he wanted to post.

He is probably checking to see who missed him

No idea what happened to it. Here is what it said:

I haven't had time to join in the campfire Kumbaya singalong, but I remember Uncle Timmy saying something about addressing the surge after Petraeus testified. Was he lying when he said that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met"? I know you aren't going to come around on this one, or admit that you were hoping for worse news, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on it. Are Petraeus and Crocker telling the truth?

Weird. The whole point of the first post is that I saw 6th Gen had posted something at 12:21pm while I was talking to Skunk as he drove between Pensacola and Pace.

As for the Petraeus report -- before we get into this, please tell us what you believe you've heard them say, 6th Gen. From the tone of your post, it seems you feel Petraeus, et al, have proclaimed the surge an unmitigated success.

So, what did you hear him say? And how did it make you feel?

I think Uncle Timmy is 6thGen, cuz he has been missing too.:scratch:

I love a good conspiracy!

I think Uncle Timmy is 6thGen, cuz he has been missing too.:scratch:

Blasphemy!!

Don't you dare besmirch the name of Uncle Timmy! You just love to tap on the glass. I do kinda wish he'd come back, though....

Blasphemy!!

Don't you dare besmirch the name of Uncle Timmy! You just love to tap on the glass. I do kinda wish he'd come back, though....

Oh I'm always lurking, don't you worry.

I'm attracted by dumb comments like a shark drawn to the smell of blood; and now that 6thGen has waded back in , gushing ignorance, I'm happy to begin whatever frenzy may unfold.

No idea what happened to it. Here is what it said:

I haven't had time to join in the campfire Kumbaya singalong, but I remember Uncle Timmy saying something about addressing the surge after Petraeus testified. Was he lying when he said that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met"? I know you aren't going to come around on this one, or admit that you were hoping for worse news, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on it. Are Petraeus and Crocker telling the truth?

I’m so glad you feel that you are going to salvage some sort of rhetorical dignity by challenging me on the issue of ‘The Surge’.

Let’s rumble.

Given your abysmal performance in our previous arguments, I’ll give you a head start so as to make it fairer to you and somewhat more challenging for me.

Post away. I look forward to reading your standard mind-numbing cut and pastes from one-sided conservative sources.

Presurge troop levels will be drawn down just before the elections...maybe. I have no problems with that timing. Just like I believed the Fed in July when they said all was well in the economy. Any flag rank officer is an accomplished politician, and Petraeus is as knee deep in the lies as was civilian Powell. Would you expect any less?

Blasphemy!!

Don't you dare besmirch the name of Uncle Timmy! You just love to tap on the glass. I do kinda wish he'd come back, though....

This was posted by Rapunzel under my name.

I?m so glad you feel that you are going to salvage some sort of rhetorical dignity by challenging me on the issue of ?The Surge?.

Let?s rumble.

Given your abysmal performance in our previous arguments, I?ll give you a head start so as to make it fairer to you and somewhat more challenging for me.

Post away. I look forward to reading your standard mind-numbing cut and pastes from one-sided conservative sources.

I asked a simple question, Olbermann. Since you fashion yourself, an internet message board poster with zero credibility, more informed than people on the ground, is Petraeus telling the truth when he said "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met"?

I think Uncle Timmy is 6thGen, cuz he has been missing too.:scratch:

Maybe 30gAy is really 6thGen because he(she) has been missing, too.

I asked a simple question, Olbermann. Since you fashion yourself, an internet message board poster with zero credibility, more informed than people on the ground, is Petraeus telling the truth when he said "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met"?

I have no idea about the truths or lies being spoken, and to think that simply because one is on the ground in the Middle East, he is truthful, is not good math. In poliTRICKS and war, expect many "stategies," aka - lies.

I asked a simple question, Olbermann. Since you fashion yourself, an internet message board poster with zero credibility, more informed than people on the ground, is Petraeus telling the truth when he said "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met"?

Actually 6thGen, contrary to what your teachers told you ?there is such a thing as a dumb question.

I didn?t realize that the opinion of ?people on the ground? was what constituted a valid opinion in your view.

How problematic for your position, since NOBODY is more ?on the ground? than the Iraqis themselves?.

US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

I think Uncle Timmy is 6thGen, cuz he has been missing too.:scratch:

Dingdingdingdingding!!! We have a winner. The prize patrol will be around to off you later today.

The issue at hand is not whether U.S. forces and the freshman Iraqi Army/police have achieved discrete tactical successes. The primary issue is whether the ?Surge? shows signs of providing sufficient security in Baghdad and elsewhere to promote political stability, sectarian reconciliation, and functioning state institutions and infrastructure. The answer is unequivocally, ?no.?

It all harks back to my original criticism of the ?Surge? ?too little, too late. Now we see I was right.

My other criticism of the ?Surge? is that it is a belated anti-insurgency doctrine being initiated long after the situation has deteriorated into the early stages of a Civil War. An anti-insurgency doctrine is not what you want to use in a civil war, as it in effect throws fuel on the fire by helping one side versus another.

This is why I have not supported the ?Surge? and why I continue to call for a substantial strategy change in Iraq.

Dingdingdingdingding!!! We have a winner. The prize patrol will be around to off you later today.

:rofl: :rofl:

My other criticism of the ?Surge? is that it is a belated anti-insurgency doctrine being initiated long after the situation has deteriorated into the early stages of a Civil War. An anti-insurgency doctrine is not what you want to use in a civil war, as it in effect throws fuel on the fire by helping one side versus another.

Timmy,

I do not entirely comprehend how a belated anti-insurgency movement is helping fuel the fire. Inherent in your assumption that an anti-insurgency doctrine is an ineffective response to civil war; must be that a pro-insurgency course of action is appropriate during a civil war. A non-existent anti-insurgency strategy is supportive of the insurgents through passivitiy while an explicit pro-insurgency movement would be unconscionable.

If an insurgency is an act of rebellion, then how is encouraging this behavior beneficial during a civil war or at any other time of crises?
While I suppose you may could argue that an anti-insurgency doctrine and corresponding increase in occupying troops could conceivably cause an increase in civilian casualties (which undeniably creates animosity towards occupying troops & the ultimate cause). But even under this assumption you must consider the loss of innocent lives while occupying forces are limiting insurgent activities versus the loss of life while insurgents have free will.

While you may be correct on the belated, I am far from convinced that your criticisms of an anti-insurgency doctrine are well founded.

I have no idea about the truths or lies being spoken, and to think that simply because one is on the ground in the Middle East, he is truthful, is not good math. In poliTRICKS and war, expect many "stategies," aka - lies.

The only thing you left off here was finishing every sentence with a drawn out ", man."

dude

Actually 6thGen, contrary to what your teachers told you ?there is such a thing as a dumb question.

I didn?t realize that the opinion of ?people on the ground? was what constituted a valid opinion in your view.

How problematic for your position, since NOBODY is more ?on the ground? than the Iraqis themselves?.

US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

OK, thanks. I just wanted to see if you still fashioned yourself smarter than people who do this for a living. 85% of Americans can't identify the Senate Majority Leader. 70% think we should do away with the electoral college. 31% can't identify the VP. I don't put a lot of faith in opinion polls, especially when executed by the BBC. Bottom line, if given the choice to trust a decorated four star general who finished top in his class at West Point, obtained a PhD from Princeton, literally wrote the book on counter-terrorism, and has been doing this very, very well for all his life, or an internet message board poster known as "Uncle Timmy", I choose the former.

Timmy,

I do not entirely comprehend how a belated anti-insurgency movement is helping fuel the fire. Inherent in your assumption that an anti-insurgency doctrine is an ineffective response to civil war; must be that a pro-insurgency course of action is appropriate during a civil war. A non-existent anti-insurgency strategy is supportive of the insurgents through passivitiy while an explicit pro-insurgency movement would be unconscionable.

If an insurgency is an act of rebellion, then how is encouraging this behavior beneficial during a civil war or at any other time of crises?
While I suppose you may could argue that an anti-insurgency doctrine and corresponding increase in occupying troops could conceivably cause an increase in civilian casualties (which undeniably creates animosity towards occupying troops & the ultimate cause). But even under this assumption you must consider the loss of innocent lives while occupying forces are limiting insurgent activities versus the loss of life while insurgents have free will.

While you may be correct on the belated, I am far from convinced that your criticisms of an anti-insurgency doctrine are well founded.

That?s a good question, dude.


The answer to your question depends on how your strategic interests relate to the potential outcomes in a Civil War.

Is it in your interest to end or contain that Civil War?
Or
Is it in your interest to help one faction in that Civil War?


A counter-insurgency strategy is by definition meant to shore up an existing government. However, if as in the case of Iraq, that government is so inherently weak then there really is no central government to shore up.

No real government = no insurgency.

But by pumping arms and money into that government we are effectively creating a ?clearing house? of resources that the various factions in the Civil War are siphoning off in order to arm themselves for the future all out Civil War and fight to carve up Iraq?s economic resources.

For example, do you remember this report from last month?

190,000 U.S.-Funded Weapons Missing in Iraq http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12544902

The US sent 190,000 weapons to Iraq that were supposed to be used to fight insurgents, however somebody in Iraq clearly believes that using these weapons to defend a defunct central government was pointless, and no doubt these weapons are now in the hands of one of the various factions struggling to carve up the country.

That is what I call adding fuel to the fire on a future Civil War.

I believe it is in America?s best interest to end this Civil War. (Option 1 from above). However, this option is no longer possible. So we must look at Option 2, picking one side in this fight and essentially buying their loyalty and help them to consolidate their power quickly and thereby (hopefully) contain this Civil War within the borders of Iraq.

First we need to swallow the ugly reality that there will be no democracy in Iraq, no unity government, and no multi-ethnic, multi-religious central government.

OK, thanks. I just wanted to see if you still fashioned yourself smarter than people who do this for a living. 85% of Americans can't identify the Senate Majority Leader. 70% think we should do away with the electoral college. 31% can't identify the VP. I don't put a lot of faith in opinion polls, especially when executed by the BBC. Bottom line, if given the choice to trust a decorated four star general who finished top in his class at West Point, obtained a PhD from Princeton, literally wrote the book on counter-terrorism, and has been doing this very, very well for all his life, or an internet message board poster known as "Uncle Timmy", I choose the former.

That is a poll of Iraqis. Not Americans.

Oops, kinda makes your response look a little silly now, doesn?t it?

Let?s examine how insightful a look into your flawed thinking this retort is. You see a BBC poll, clearly not a conservative source, and therefore you flippantly dismiss it without even looking at it. Facts don?t matter, what matters most to you is the source of the information you are getting.

?Is this an approved conservative Bush leaning source? If not then I shall simply ignore it.? ?We can almost hear your flawed mind at work.

It explains a great deal about how you have come to hold your political opinions.

Likewise, it is really going to piss you off when Iraq continues to unravel und your so-called brilliant Bush Admin strategists don?t look very smart as compared to say, ????..an internet poster named Uncle Timmy.

Don?t worry, I?ll be here to remind you of your flawed thinking and give you a lesson in logical thinking 101.