Bring It On!

By Jersey McJones on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

The poltical backbone does not exist to pursue this option. 

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

I am afraid that you are right but I hope that you are wrong.

By Dusty on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

Jeez..the NY Post? Such a stellar rag.

By Dusty on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

Ok..I read it all. Ralphie now admits the crap has hit the fan over there..bfd. Less than six months ago he refused to admit there was a hint of civil war, or strife. Then he said there was a civil war, and we needed to get the hell out. NOW..he seems to be the only one advocating a win is possible..IF we do it his way. Don’t you think the military minds have thought of this Craig?

And then we have this quote from one of Ralphie’s posts over at USAToday in Nov 06:

I supported this war, but the deteriorating situation is starting to convince me that we can’t win. Those of us who hoped that the Iraqis could achieve democracy were wrong — and their failure has implications for the entire region.

Ralphie can flip flop better than Kerry at this point. 

 Robert Scheer has a good article up that mirrors my thoughts on this war and why we are still hanging around over there. Its not the oil..its the military industrial complex.

By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

And yet lots and lots of Americans voted for Kerry as President. People change their minds as the situation changes. I don’t begrudge anyone that. As someone has said, “To do the same thing over and over and expect different results is the definition of insanity.” Very well, let’s try something that sounds to me like it has a chance of succeeding.

I agree that it’s not the oil. Some nexus of military and industry is necessary if one is to have a viable military. Who’s going to arm, make the armor, tanks, humvees, jets, carriers, etc., if not industry. It is unavoidable. As long as there is a hope in Iraq, we must stay in Iraq, is my way of thinking. 

By Dusty on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

Oh give me a break..change their minds? If a Democrat does it, its called Flip Flopping! 

You just want to believe in this war, you pull out any article you can find that cements your position. Ralph is full of shit..and has been for quite awhile. If you look at his articles for the last year he has flipped his ass off.

He has now come full circle. 

By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

Hey, I said “I don’t begrudge” anyone to change their mind as situations change. My not voting for Kerry was predicated not on his flip-flops but on his refusal to change his mind. His statement that 9/11 didn’t much change him doomed him as far as my vote was concerned. A return to Clinton’s firing a few missiles in retaliation for the latest bombing of a hotel in which Americans were staying, for the latest bombing of an American embassy, for the latest bombing of a US naval ship, for the latest (the first) attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers, etc., was anathema to me. That and his “global test”.

As for my pulling out articles, I read lots of them. When I read one that makes sense to me, I highlight it regardless of who wrote it or what that person’s previous positions might have been…well, when I’m not highlighting articles that are total nonsense, like the “You have the right to say whatever I think” article.

To me, it’s the ideas that matter much more than the source. 

By Dusty on Dec 27, 2006 | Reply

The source is just as important as what he/she/it is saying. And Ralph can’t make up his little mind about how he feels about the war.

By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

I’m confused here. Whether an idea is a good or bad one is not dependent upon its source…or should folk around here stop quoting Nazi officials about how easy it is to start wars? An idea either has merit or it doesn’t. It’s source is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned. You’re free to disagree, I just don’t get the argument.

If Paul Krugman of the New York Times advanced the idea rather than Ralph Peters of the New York Post, would that make it a better, more credible idea, more worthy of your consideration or more of an idea that should be tried?

As for Ralph changing his opinion, if he had advanced exactly this idea from before the actual invasion and had never advanced any other idea but remained fixed on this idea throughout, would THAT make him a more credible source or his idea a better one?

I really can’t believe that you actually believe that. 

By Dusty on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

Ralph has changed his mind every three months and that doesn’t bother you? He goes from”I support this war and always have” to “its a mess get out now” to “we can win!” 

Sorry, but thats way too far of a jump in the opposite direction for me..makes me wonder what his agenda is..sort of like McCain kissing all that religious ass now, that he shunned the last time he ran for President. 

I don’t trust anyone that changes their mind THAT much Craig. 

By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

Dusty,

If Peters has changed his mind every three months, that is his business, not mine. I’ve been known to change my mind quite to the 180 degrees in much shorter than three months because I’ve reconsidered my position and decided that I’ve been wrong. As one example, I had a spat with Jersey recently over the proposition “Christians murdered 6 million Jews less than 70 years ago.” All it took was reading a history book based upon a doctoral dissertation. That’s in less than one month. I don’t consider reconsidering one’s position and changing one’s mind to be a weakness. I consider it a strength.

Independently of that consideration, I prefer to evaluate an idea independently from the source, in conjunction with ideas presented by others whose ideas differ from one another. Doing this will necessitate reading Liberals of more moderate position as well as Liberals of more extreme position, likewise Conservatives and moderates. That will include people whose political ideas I disagree with and whose ideas may have changed appreciably over time. I read a lot of articles and editorials presenting many different ideas. I then think about them. I evaluate the ideas that I read and the defense of those ideas that the authors make, whether they are convincing or not. I arrive at my position.

Let me ask this. Had the article been published anonymously so that you had no clue of who the author was or what the author had thought about the issue three months ago or it had been written by an author you weren’t familiar with or whom you did know and whose previous positions had not been appreciably different from the ones presented here, how would that change your view of the idea? I mean, it’s pretty clear that you don’t like the idea, regardless of who is advancing it so I don’t understand why its author or its author’s previous positions is of any relevance.

If, three months before he came up with e=mc2, Einstein thought something quite the opposite, would that make e=mc2 a ridiculous idea, not worth considering? I’m not, in any way, shape or form, comparing Peters to Einstein or his idea to Peters’. I’m just saying that changing one’s mind after reconsidering the situation as it has changed over the three months and maybe getting a flash of an idea that one hadn’t considered three months previous, shouldn’t, indeed, doesn’t make the idea a bad one. It just makes it different from the idea one had three months previous.

We’re never going to come to agreement, I guess, and that’s alright. I’m just explaining in any way I can think of why I think that it’s the idea, not the source, that matters.

By Dusty on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

Craig, I understand your point about the source vs. the idea.

I just refuse to give any credibility to anything Peters says based on his changing his mind like its a pair of pants. He has gone from 180 one way to 180 the other way in the course of 9 months or so. 

I also feel if the idea had any merit, the military minds would of broached the subject with the Decider-in-Chief long before now.  There are too many variables for “his” plan to be put into place such as:

Empty the Green Zone.

Pack off the contractors.

Remove our advisers from any Iraqi unit that can operate marginally without them

I could point out problems associated with attempting each of Peter’s steps I listed above, but I figure you already bought into this idea..so why waste my time. There are a few tidbits that I agree with, but not enough to run it up the flagpole and salute his Plan.

By Dusty on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

You are correct that I think the idea is full of holes Craig. Perhaps I should of concentrated on blowing holes in the idea rather than bitching about the author. Between the two, I just think its not well thought out. Plus, anything printed in the NY Post is crap..but thats just a personal observation

By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

I wish you’d have concentrated on the ideas but, well, that’s as it may be…

I’ve never bought into an idea so completely that evidence and valid arguments can’t budge me.

By Dusty on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

The only place the Iraqi Security forces are even partially working is the northern part of the country. The rest are pretty worthless and untrustworthy from the things I have read, which includes writings from men who have actually trained them. We haven’t even supplied most of the Security forces with the proper munitions or gear..so how could be possibly expect them to do the job? It would be like taking a pea-shooter into a gun fight in my pov. 

Sending the contractors home sounds nice but isn’t plausible. The contractors are in everything, from running the prisons to feeding our troops AND training the Iraq police and security forces.

Why does he want to empty the Green Zone again?  I looked a couple of times but didn’t find any justification for that sentence in his piece..

Ok..thats all I got for now..your turn if your still up.

By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 28, 2006 | Reply

Still up but bound for bed. I gotta sleep sometime, ya know. Thanks for the chat. I’ll give it some thought tomorrow and see what I can come up with.