Mission Accomplished

[D. Scarlatti]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/bush_mission_accomplished.jpg

Democratic leaders in Congress are planning a special ceremony on Tuesday afternoon to send President Bush a bill that sets timetables for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The timing is no accident. It comes on the fourth anniversary of the day Mr. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under the banner “Mission Accomplished” and declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

Bill on Iraq to Be Delivered 4 Years After Bush’s Words (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/world/worldspecial/01cong.html)

http://www.newyorkslime.com/osama-mission-accomplished-01.jpg

Anybody know what mission was accomplished as of May 1, 2003?

[Watser?]

http://www.newyorkslime.com/osama-mission-accomplished-01.jpg

Anybody know what mission was accomplished as of May 1, 2003?

:giggles:

[ChuckF]

So Bush will veto the funding for troops tonight, on the anniversary of the Mission Accomplished speech. Yesterday would have been an appropriate date for betraying the military, too. Anniversary of the fall of Saigon. I will never understand why this man hates the military so much.

[Dingfod]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/bush_mission_accomplished.jpg

I think this is the photo that got Bush nicknamed Captain Codpiece for a while.

[Watser?]

Hey, you can see his brains

[D. Scarlatti]

That's what attracted the purple Teletubbie.

[Clutch Munny]

A recent CBC documentary, The Lies that Led to the War, noted that the video footage of Bush's speech on the carrier is still available on the WH website, but has been altered to include a wide black band at the bottom of the screen. This has the effect of pushing everything else up in the frame... causing the "Mission Accomplished" banner to disappear.

ETA:
http://www.bakelblog.com/photos/uncategorized/bushaccomplished.jpg

See it on YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u2ITs4yIAE)

Oops, I went looking for images while Chuck was already on the case. Oh, well. Embarrassment of riches, indeed.

[ChuckF]

A recent CBC documentary, The Lies that Led to the War, noted that the video footage of Bush's speech on the carrier is still available on the WH website, but has been altered to include a wide black band at the bottom of the screen. This has the effect of pushing everything else up in the frame... causing the "Mission Accomplished" banner to disappear.
Being naturally skeptical of the devious and liberal Canadian press, I decided to check this out for myself. Well I'll be damned. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html#)

Be careful, I vomited a little in my mouth watching that.

[Clutch Munny]

No lie too large, no lie too small.

[ChuckF]

I cannot help but share the hilarious Freeper hilarity (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826358/posts).
The TROOPS put the banner up! The only PR blunder is on the part of the demonRATS/enemedia/commie/socialists.
I too remember that when the Stalinist press brought this issue up, that there was explicit acknowledgment that idea for the banner came from the crew. I am sure it can be sourced. I cannot write what I truly feel about the MSM and ABC in particular. Let me just say I pray there is a special place in Hell for those with evil in their hearts (which is 95% of the MSM) The MSM and the left is truly consumed with destroying our Republic. I fear by the end of Presidents Bush's term, they will be rabidly insane.
It's awesome :grin:

[D. Scarlatti]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc) says all the whitehouse.gov videos have that black bar.

[Clutch Munny]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc) says all the whitehouse.gov videos have that black bar.

And he seems to be correct. My mistake. Accusation of lie withdrawn.

[D. Scarlatti]

Further down the Freeper comments, somebody quotes Ari Fleischer saying, "We put the banner up," but then the consensus appears to be that he was lying too. Some other guy even says, "White RINO House." Haha.

Anyway, I think their complaints are misplaced. Keith Olbermann, who is about as anti-Bush as the so-called MSM gets, refers to 'major combat operations in Iraq hav[ing] ended' every night, which is what Bush actually said, as opposed to 'Mission Accomplished.'

[ChuckF]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc) says all the whitehouse.gov videos have that black bar.
Damn Canadian media! :shakefist:

[Watser?]

I cannot help but share the hilarious Freeper hilarity (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826358/posts).
The TROOPS put the banner up! The only PR blunder is on the part of the demonRATS/enemedia/commie/socialists.
I too remember that when the Stalinist press brought this issue up, that there was explicit acknowledgment that idea for the banner came from the crew. I am sure it can be sourced. I cannot write what I truly feel about the MSM and ABC in particular. Let me just say I pray there is a special place in Hell for those with evil in their hearts (which is 95% of the MSM) The MSM and the left is truly consumed with destroying our Republic. I fear by the end of Presidents Bush's term, they will be rabidly insane.
It's awesome :grin:
Way to support the troops :P

[The Lone Ranger]

The whole thing was a lie from the beginning.

The whole publicity stunt exercise of landing a jet on the carrier was advertised as being necessary because the carrier was far out to sea, and out of helicopter range (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22502-2003May6?language=printer). In fact, the Abraham Lincoln was only about 30 miles out and was easily within helicopter range. The ship was actually turned so that media cameras wouldn't record the easily-visible skyline of San Diego as Bush's plane landed.

Cheers,

Michael

[Watser?]

Mission Accomplished, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, yellowcake, the codpiece...

It's all fiction

[yguy]

Anybody know what mission was accomplished as of May 1, 2003?That would be the disempowerment of the Hussein regime.

You're welcome. :)

[California Tanker]

The whole thing was a lie from the beginning.

The whole publicity stunt exercise of landing a jet on the carrier was advertised as being necessary because the carrier was far out to sea, and out of helicopter range (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22502-2003May6?language=printer). In fact, the Abraham Lincoln was only about 30 miles out and was easily within helicopter range. The ship was actually turned so that media cameras wouldn't record the easily-visible skyline of San Diego as Bush's plane landed.

Cheers,

Michael

When initially they thought up the idea, the ship was going to be out of chopper range. It just happened to make better time than expected. Frankly, even if it was known to be within chopper range from the time he thought up 'let's go to a carrier', I don't begrudge a former fixed-wing-jock for wanting to do a carrier trap instead of landing by chopper. Perk of the job. (Besides, it's safer than a chopper!)
The Governator, former tanker, wants to come down and play with one of his Abrams, at $250 a mile. In practical terms, a total waste of money, but I've no problem with it. Besides, it was good visibility for the S-3 drivers who were often underappreciated.

think this is the photo that got Bush nicknamed Captain Codpiece for a while.

Heh.. when I did my jump course, my straps were so tight around my groin I couldn't even stand up straight. The choice is simple: tight on the ground, or utter pain in the air.

NTM

[BDS]

I agree with California Tanker. It’s ridiculous to criticize the Bush flight to the carrier because it was a “publicity stunt”. Of course it was a publicity stunt. What else could it possibly have been? In addition, why shouldn’t politicians be involved in “publicity stunts”? It seems their natural milieu.

It is, of course, true that some of the positive publicity the stunt generated has since backfired.

[The Lone Ranger]

I don't begrudge the publicity stunt. I object to the fact that even after the landing, they insisted that the ship had been far out to sea at the time, necessitating the use of a plane instead of a helicopter.

Cheers,

Michael

[ChuckF]

Far from criticizing Bush's codpiece appearance on an aircraft carrier as a stunt, I applaud it. He shot himself in the foot but good and gave the Democrats excellent fodder. I wish he'd do it again.

ETA: Upon further reflection, I realize that he's doing just that on a daily basis, even without the help of an aircraft carrier and a jockstrap.

[livius drusus]

What's a fixed-wing-jock?

[The Lone Ranger]

Someone who flies fixed-wing aircraft. As opposed to someone who flies helicopters (rotary-wing aircraft).

Cheers,

Michael

[Watser?]

The whole thing was a lie from the beginning.

The whole publicity stunt exercise of landing a jet on the carrier was advertised as being necessary because the carrier was far out to sea, and out of helicopter range (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22502-2003May6?language=printer). In fact, the Abraham Lincoln was only about 30 miles out and was easily within helicopter range. The ship was actually turned so that media cameras wouldn't record the easily-visible skyline of San Diego as Bush's plane landed.

Cheers,

Michael

When initially they thought up the idea, the ship was going to be out of chopper range. It just happened to make better time than expected. Frankly, even if it was known to be within chopper range from the time he thought up 'let's go to a carrier', I don't begrudge a former fixed-wing-jock for wanting to do a carrier trap instead of landing by chopper. Perk of the job. (Besides, it's safer than a chopper!)
The Governator, former tanker, wants to come down and play with one of his Abrams, at $250 a mile. In practical terms, a total waste of money, but I've no problem with it. Besides, it was good visibility for the S-3 drivers who were often underappreciated.

think this is the photo that got Bush nicknamed Captain Codpiece for a while.

Heh.. when I did my jump course, my straps were so tight around my groin I couldn't even stand up straight. The choice is simple: tight on the ground, or utter pain in the air.

NTM

The fakeness was not just that it was staged, but that he supposedly flew and even landed the plane (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/), which was bullshit (http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/504): Later, Bush explained that he had taken the controls from the pilot, Cmdr. John "Skip" Lussier, for about a third of the 15-minute flight at 360 knots, but had just steered during the "straight" parts.

"Did you see President Bush land on the aircraft carrier? President Bush told reporters on the carrier after he landed that the pilot actually let him fly the plane for a little bit. In a related story, Dick Cheney said that he once let President Bush run the country for a few minutes."Conan O'Brien (http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/bushlanding.htm)

[Watser?]

Anybody know what mission was accomplished as of May 1, 2003?That would be the disempowerment of the Hussein regime.

You're welcome. :)

Are you calling your own president a liar?

It was this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml): Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world.

and: The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

and: In the images of fallen statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era.

The toppling of that statue was also fake (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Toppling_the_statue_of_Saddam_Hussein) btw

So yeah, a new are of lying, proving that the Iraqis have nothing on the Bush administration when we are talking about propaganda

[California Tanker]

The fakeness was not just that it was staged, but that he supposedly flew and even landed the plane (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/),

Umm... Do you read the links you link to?

Claim #1: He flew the 'plane.
True. He took the controls for a few minutes in the middle. I don't think anyone's claiming he did split-Ss and Immelmans.

Claim #2: He landed the 'plane. Nowhere is that claim made. But as one of your links points out, it would be ridiculous to suggest that he fly the Viking to a landing. Carrier traps are the most difficult form of aviation (at least, according to Navy fliers), and there was no chance that a person with no carrier training could be allowed make such an attempt. To make such a claim would have been laughable, even amongst those who have only a vague idea of such matters.

NTM

[California Tanker]

because the regime is no more.

Appears to be in synch with yguy's claim, although he's perhaps a little simplistic.

The toppling of that statue was also fake (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Toppling_the_statue_of_Saddam_Hussein) btw


Not fake, just smaller than led to believe from initial footage. Which also shouldn't be particularly amazing, if you were expecting throngs of thousands. If there's a war going on, and tanks are arriving on your street, wouldn't you think it prudent to stay indoors? There is, I think, no denying that those who did show up with the intent of removing the statue were honest in their intentions and not paid by the CIA to show up. Indeed, given the somewhat hazardous situation of a war going on, their desire to pull down the statue must have been particularly strong.

NTM

[Watser?]

The fakeness was not just that it was staged, but that he supposedly flew and even landed the plane (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/),
Umm... Do you read the links you link to?

Claim #1: He flew the 'plane.
True. He took the controls for a few minutes in the middle. I don't think anyone's claiming he did split-Ss and Immelmans.

Claim #2: He landed the 'plane. Nowhere is that claim made. But as one of your links points out, it would be ridiculous to suggest that he fly the Viking to a landing. Carrier traps are the most difficult form of aviation (at least, according to Navy fliers), and there was no chance that a person with no carrier training could be allowed make such an attempt. To make such a claim would have been laughable, even amongst those who have only a vague idea of such matters.

NTM
Title: 'Commander in Chief lands on USS Lincoln'. It at the very least gives the impression he landed it himself. He didn't even really fly the thing, everybody could have held that stick for a couple of minutes.

And (of course this is a laughable woman, but: Ann Coulter (http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005) said): It's stunning. It's amazing. I think it's huge. I mean, he's landing on a boat at 150 miles per hour. It's tremendous. It's hard to imagine any Democrat being able to do that. And it doesn't matter if Democrats try to ridicule it. It's stunning, and it speaks for itself.

Laughable it may be, but that was the impression that was made, even though of course except Coulter nobody was stupid enough to say it in a way that could not be denied later.

[BDS]

Criticizing a politician for being involved in "propaganda" is a bit like criticizing a spider for weaving webs. Propoganda is politicians' metier.

The problem with such criticism is that it inevitably seems hypocritical. All politicians propagandize, the left criticizes the right for propagandizing, and the right criticizes the left, and neither group criticizes their own politicians.

I suppose it's reasonable to criticize people for "lying" -- but even that is sometimes overdone. For example, was it unreasonable for an officer to order his subordinate to withhold the information that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire from his brother? If the officer believed that Tillman's brother's morale and performance would be hurt by the truth (which could jeopardize his life and those of his companions) shouldn't he lie? Aren't soldiers often REQUIRED to lie, by expediency?

[D. Scarlatti]

I realize that the banner said 'mission accomplished.' That was specific to the mission of that ship.
- Dana Perino, 5/1/07 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070501-1.html)

That ship deposed Saddam?

[Watser?]

because the regime is no more.

Appears to be in synch with yguy's claim, although he's perhaps a little simplistic.

The toppling of that statue was also fake (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Toppling_the_statue_of_Saddam_Hussein) btw


Not fake, just smaller than led to believe from initial footage. Which also shouldn't be particularly amazing, if you were expecting throngs of thousands. If there's a war going on, and tanks are arriving on your street, wouldn't you think it prudent to stay indoors? There is, I think, no denying that those who did show up with the intent of removing the statue were honest in their intentions and not paid by the CIA to show up. Indeed, given the somewhat hazardous situation of a war going on, their desire to pull down the statue must have been particularly strong.

NTM

Fake: An American military vehicle actually pulled down the statue.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/CHALIB~1.gif
link (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm)

I don't know and neither do you whether they paid those Iraqis. They probably didn't. But it was definitely not what it seemed, there were only a few dozens of them and the statue was removed not by them but by Americans. It was nothing like the fall of the Berlin Wall as was suggested.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Fake: An American military vehicle actually pulled down the statue.


Yeah, but...but the Americans were liberating them. So, uh..., uh... they had to pull it down. :shiftier:

[California Tanker]

Title: 'Commander in Chief lands on USS Lincoln'. It at the very least gives the impression he landed it himself.

Perhaps we merely have a translation problem into Dutch.
The phrases "He just landed at Schiphol" and "His airplane just landed at Schiphol" can be used interchangably in common English. If I call Household 6 and say "I just landed at San Francisco, can you pick me up?" it does not imply in any way that I was at the controls of the aircraft.

An American military vehicle actually pulled down the statue.
We know that. An M88A1 is the largest and noisiest vehicle in the Army or Marine Corps (Unless you count aircraft, I guess). It's kindof hard to miss that, or the chain attached to it. I don't believe I have ever seen it reported as anything other.

Sequence of events was that some people, militiamen or otherwise, attacked the statue themselves, and tried to bring it down. At that, the Marines decided to offer the aid of their ARV. The US took advantage of a pre-existing condition and manipulated it for their own ends. I believe we established many moons ago in a Lebanon thread that this is quite acceptable common practise. This is different to creating a total fake scenario in open view.

Yes. the people in the photographs do look similar. Damned if I know if they're the same person though, the one on the left is hardly crystal clear. You telling me you've never mistaken a total stranger to be the spitting image of someone you knew? And even if it is the same person, or the entire event was staged from scratch, are you disputing that the sentiment of a large portion of Iraqis was portrayed?

NTM

[ChuckF]

Quick, guess who said this:
It is a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism
-Dana Perino (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00691020070501?pageNumber=2), commenting on the Democratic legislation to fund the troops.

[D. Scarlatti]

Reuters led with that howler, but the NYT buried (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01cnd-policy.html?hp) it in the last paragraph.

NYT readers have a more sophisticated sense of irony, I guess.

[ChuckF]

Actually that's on page 2 of the Reuters story.

[D. Scarlatti]

Ah, so it is.

Dana Perino's on a roll today, because Tony Snow is coming back or something.

So ... did the USS Lincoln pull that statue down?

[JackDog]

Quick, guess who said this:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
...and this:

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

If you guessed George W. Bush, you're right! Not only is he completely incompetent, he's also a world-class hypocrite!

[Watser?]

Title: 'Commander in Chief lands on USS Lincoln'. It at the very least gives the impression he landed it himself.

Perhaps we merely have a translation problem into Dutch.
The phrases "He just landed at Schiphol" and "His airplane just landed at Schiphol" can be used interchangably in common English. If I call Household 6 and say "I just landed at San Francisco, can you pick me up?" it does not imply in any way that I was at the controls of the aircraft.

An American military vehicle actually pulled down the statue.
We know that. An M88A1 is the largest and noisiest vehicle in the Army or Marine Corps (Unless you count aircraft, I guess). It's kindof hard to miss that, or the chain attached to it. I don't believe I have ever seen it reported as anything other.

Sequence of events was that some people, militiamen or otherwise, attacked the statue themselves, and tried to bring it down. At that, the Marines decided to offer the aid of their ARV. The US took advantage of a pre-existing condition and manipulated it for their own ends. I believe we established many moons ago in a Lebanon thread that this is quite acceptable common practise. This is different to creating a total fake scenario in open view.

Yes. the people in the photographs do look similar. Damned if I know if they're the same person though, the one on the left is hardly crystal clear. You telling me you've never mistaken a total stranger to be the spitting image of someone you knew? And even if it is the same person, or the entire event was staged from scratch, are you disputing that the sentiment of a large portion of Iraqis was portrayed?

NTM

No, I don't believe they took advantage of a pre-existing condition, they manipulated pretty much the whole thing. Chalaabi's militia was not indigenous, he had not been in Iraq for decades.
Yes, I am disputing that. I have no doubt most Iraqis hated Saddam and were glad to be rid of him. I have a lot of doubt they were happy to have the US do it. And I certainly don't see how this staged event justifies these words: In the images of fallen statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era.
In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom.

[California Tanker]

Democratic leaders in Congress are planning a special ceremony on Tuesday afternoon

So what was the special ceremony anyway? I didn't see mention of it on the news.

NTM

[viscousmemories]

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc) says all the whitehouse.gov videos have that black bar.

And he seems to be correct. My mistake. Accusation of lie withdrawn.
Flip-flopper.

[The Lone Ranger]

As for the "Mission Accomplished" publicity stunt, as I said, I don't object to that per se. Heck, publicity stunts are what politicians do.


What I object to is that they lied about it. Even after they knew the Lincoln would be well within helicopter range, Administration officials insisted that the ship was far out to sea and out of helicopter range. And the press went right along with the lie, repeating the claim without question despite the fact that reporters on the Lincoln could see for themselves that the ship was just a few miles from San Diego.

Cheers,

Michael

[ChuckF]

Ok, this is really weird (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/02/rep-shimkus-loves-the-cubsuses-silly-baseball-analogy-about-the-iraq-war/).

It seems that they are more worried about next day's 1:00 p.m. game at home than finishing the game at hand. Who wins? We know, it's the team that stays on the field. Arbitrary deadlines and a date certain accept defeat before the conclusion of the contest. It is our national security interest to continue to take the field and support a moderate Arab state. Leaving prior assures a loss for us and victory for our opponents which will lead to another extremist Islamic state.

I think the point is Chicago Cubs = Al Qaeda?

[Watser?]

Ok, this is really weird (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/02/rep-shimkus-loves-the-cubsuses-silly-baseball-analogy-about-the-iraq-war/).

It seems that they are more worried about next day's 1:00 p.m. game at home than finishing the game at hand. Who wins? We know, it's the team that stays on the field. Arbitrary deadlines and a date certain accept defeat before the conclusion of the contest. It is our national security interest to continue to take the field and support a moderate Arab state. Leaving prior assures a loss for us and victory for our opponents which will lead to another extremist Islamic state.

I think the point is Chicago Cubs = Al Qaeda?

What a stupid metaphor

If there are arbitrary deadlines anywhere it is in sports

Whistle blows and it's over

[Crumb]

No one has any idea what "winning" means in Iraq.

[California Tanker]

Hmm.. In terms of symbology, I think Bush wins.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_pen_veto_070503/
When President Bush used a simple ballpoint pen to veto congressional Democrats’ supplemental war budget Tuesday, it was the start of a second career for the pen. Its first had been writing letters to a Marine who was killed in Iraq.

That Marine’s father, Robert Derga, 53, brought the pen with him on a trip to Washington, D.C., in April when he and other Gold Star families met with Bush at the White House. During the 45-minute session with the president, Derga said, he gave Bush the pen and said that if Democrats passed a war budget that included a timetable for bringing troops home, he wanted Bush to use his pen to sign the veto.

[ChuckF]

Indeed. Too bad the troops lose.

[California Tanker]

Indeed. Too bad the troops lose.

Do they?

Dave Ross chimes in with an idea which might have merit.

http://www.daveross.com/otherfeatures/cbs_20070502_IRAQVETO.mp3

NTM

[ChuckF]

Wow. Who is Dave Ross? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Seriously, I'm glad the president vetoed the war funding with a special pen. He definitely wins. Will he use it to sign condolence letters too? Or is that still on autopen over at the Pentagon?

[California Tanker]

Wow. Who is Dave Ross? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Columnist/Opnionist of some sort. Heard him on the radio in the car.

He does have a point, though. Both sides of a nearly diametrically opposite debate are arguing 'it's for the troops'. They can't both be right, so why not let the troops decide? Even if foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by military fiat, at least they can sort out who speaks for whom.

NTM

[viscousmemories]

The fact that so many troops have signed up to risk their limbs and lives to further an unjust occupation for little personal gain indicates that they may not be the most reliable judges of what is and isn't in their own best interest.

[JackDog]

Can someone please explain why we need a Supplemental Spending Bill to pay for the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why wasn't this in the regular budget?

(I'm not trying to be a smart-ass...I really don't know)

[ChuckF]

Can someone please explain why we need a Supplemental Spending Bill to pay for the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why wasn't this in the regular budget?

(I'm not trying to be a smart-ass...I really don't know)
Less oversight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201936.html).
The administration has obtained most of the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency or supplemental spending bills, which are not subject to the same level of congressional scrutiny as the regular budget. That practice has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers and members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Concealing the cost of the war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/09/MNGOU6IK1J1.DTL&type=printable).
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a hawk on defense issues, said in an interview that his concern is that the administration has not been including the war’s costs in the Defense Department’s regular budget, but instead has been seeking special supplemental appropriations, which it has asked for as late as possible to delay the public release of financial information on the war.
and to hide Bush's role in inflating the deficit (http://www.slate.com/id/2088318/).
Spending is rising so rapidly largely thanks to the chicanery of supplemental budget requests, through which the president has proposed spending more than $150 billion on the war alone. (note this is an old article; war costs are much, much, much higher by now.)

[California Tanker]

The fact that so many troops have signed up to risk their limbs and lives to further an unjust occupation for little personal gain indicates that they may not be the most reliable judges of what is and isn't in their own best interest.

As opposed to people who haven't got a personal stake in it or even a first-hand-experience of their own to go by?

NTM

[viscousmemories]

You mean like the Commander in Chief who just vetoed the troops funding?

[The Lone Ranger]

The troops may, on the whole, be seriously misinformed.

When asked why we're in Iraq, don't more than half the soldiers and marines typically answer "To avenge Iraq's 9/11 attack on the U.S." or something of that ilk?

Cheers,

Michael

[yguy]

You mean like the Commander in Chief who just vetoed the troops funding?I must confess to a certain curiosity as to what sort of medication one must ingest to achieve this level of stupidity.

[yguy]

The fact that so many troops have signed up to risk their limbs and lives to further an unjust occupation for little personal gain indicates that they may not be the most reliable judges of what is and isn't in their own best interest.

As opposed to people who haven't got a personal stake in itYou kiddin' me? Congressional democrats have a huge stake in this. Do you really think Reid can afford a US victory in Iraq at this point?

[Ari]

Curious.
Yguy, define "victory in Iraq"

[Belladonna]

The troops may, on the whole, be seriously misinformed.

When asked why we're in Iraq, don't more than half the soldiers and marines typically answer "To avenge Iraq's 9/11 attack on the U.S." or something of that ilk?

Cheers,

Michael

Well being married to one of those "troops" I can tell you they are not misinformed nor are they in general "stupid".

[davidm]

Curious.
Yguy, define "victory in Iraq"

That’s easy.

The victory we have achieved means taking away Osama bin Laden’s base of Iraq, from which he, in alliance with Saddam Hussein, planned and launched his attacks on the U.S. on 9/11.

It means that finally, we have found, itemized, and obliterated Iraq’s extensive weapons-of-mass-destruction program, including biological and nuclear devices that Hussein, in conspiracy with bin Laden, planned to use against the U.S., as Dick Cheney has repeatedly explained.

It means we have brought democracy to a key country of the Middle East, a democracy that will serve as a shining beacon for the other Arab nations, and particularly for the Palestinians, who are now rapidly democratizing, having recognized the primacy of Israel in the region.

Now that Iraq is stable, democratic, prosperous and peaceful, we shall soon bring to it and the rest of the Mideast the blessings of liberty, in the form of material abundance: superhighways, SUV’s, Wal Marts and professional celebrities, like the late Anna Nicole Smith, who are endowed with the monumental mammaries that function as an archetype of the American cornucopia.

Victory ultimately means the Chrstianization of the Muslim nations. Just consider how grateful Iraqis continue, four years after the U.S. liberated them, to strew Improvised Explosive Devices, I mean flowers, in the path of their liberators, thanking them again and again for invading Iraq and killing untold hundreds of thousands of their innocent friends and family members in the name of victory, democratization, peace, freedom, Christ, the G.O.P. , WalMart and oil for the U.S.

:shiftier:

[California Tanker]

When asked why we're in Iraq, don't more than half the soldiers and marines typically answer "To avenge Iraq's 9/11 attack on the U.S." or something of that ilk?


Those surveys notwithstanding (And I would dearly love to know where they're finding those people), I think even the most historically mis-informed troop can judge the overall atmosphere of the people and area around him.

You mean like the Commander in Chief who just vetoed the troops funding?

Yes. And the Congressional leaders who would only provide funding if encumbered with restrictions. Now, if your view of national policy is such that it is incompatible with what the troops think, then fine. That's why the military is subservient to the government, not the other way around. But at least just say it. As Ross points out, all this is 'For the troops', but nobody's asking the troops what we want.

Well being married to one of those "troops"

"Deep South." First two thoughts are Ft Rucker, or Ft Leonard-Wood?

NTM

[Belladonna]

Actually neither...think National Guard...although we did meet when we were both AD Army.:cool:

[Clutch Munny]

The fact that so many troops have signed up to risk their limbs and lives to further an unjust occupation for little personal gain indicates that they may not be the most reliable judges of what is and isn't in their own best interest.

As opposed to people who haven't got a personal stake in it or even a first-hand-experience of their own to go by?

All Americans have a personal stake in the fact that their elected representatives have launched a horribly destructive and unwinnable war.

And first-hand experience on its own doesn't mean much when it comes to strategy and broader context. It's as likely to lead to anecdotal and egocentric biases as to confer some special wisdom.

[Watser?]

And first-hand experience on its own doesn't mean much when it comes to strategy and broader context. It's as likely to lead to anecdotal and egocentric biases as to confer some special wisdom.

Oh, it's worse than that: The study also found that the more often soldiers are deployed, the longer they are deployed each time; and the less time they spend at home, the more likely they are to suffer mental health problems such as combat trauma, anxiety and depression. That result is particularly notable given that the Pentagon has sent soldiers and Marines to Iraq multiple times and recently extended the tours of thousands of soldiers to 15 months from 12 months.
And as a result of this: More than one-third of U.S. soldiers in Iraq surveyed by the Army said they believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed yesterday. Four in 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.

In addition, about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," the Army report stated.

About 10 percent of the 1,767 troops in the official survey -- conducted in Iraq last fall -- reported that they had mistreated civilians in Iraq, such as kicking them or needlessly damaging their possessions.Wapo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402151.html?hpid=topnews)
and also The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2073167,00.html).

Now add to that the following (http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/guest-comment-iraq-prognosis-canny.html): About 1400 British soldiers, well trained and adept at urban conflict, will leave the South of Iraq. As one can see by reviewing icasualties.org's latest listings, 13 (at least), British and/or Polish troops stationed in the South have been killed, almost all by hostile fire. Ths is a increase in British hostile fire losses, and comes when the prospect of Iraqi or American troops entering the fray in the south would pose a dilution of the surge forces. No Americans have really ever been stationed in the south of Iraq, among predominantly Shia populations. The methodology the UK forces have used has been learned in Northern Ireland, and is much more sophisticated than any approach Americans have used. As a result, units which may have been in Iraq previously, but are now peopled by a fair number of new grunts, will cut their teeth in the southern Iraq. Because of much more heavy handed approaches, lack of sophisticated skills in urban war, and an increase in various Shia militia more radical than Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, the Americans will cause one incident of cause celébre in the South;

And we can see another nightmare scenario looming...

[Clutch Munny]

The troops may, on the whole, be seriously misinformed.

When asked why we're in Iraq, don't more than half the soldiers and marines typically answer "To avenge Iraq's 9/11 attack on the U.S." or something of that ilk?

Cheers,

Michael

Well being married to one of those "troops" I can tell you they are not misinformed nor are they in general "stupid".
Nobody said "stupid", that I can see. As for misinformed, of course I believe you, as far as the one you married! But if TLR's recollection is accurate, and it seems to be (http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075), then yes -- a substantial portion of this large and apparently representative sample of troops was misinformed.

[California Tanker]

All Americans have a personal stake in the fact that their elected representatives have launched a horribly destructive and unwinnable war.

Which is a stake that those soldiers also have to no less an extent, before they get into the issues of personal safety or time away from family.

And first-hand experience on its own doesn't mean much when it comes to strategy and broader context. It's as likely to lead to anecdotal and egocentric biases as to confer some special wisdom.

Which I can understand. The issue is that the politicians of both sides are claiming to be acting in the best interests of a specific subset of the voting population, whereas that particular subset has its own opinions of things and appears not to be being asked. If the Democrats (or whoever) want to say "It is in the national interest to get out now", then fine. Say it. But I don't buy the 'for the troops' argument.

NTM

[Watser?]

The issue is that the politicians of both sides are claiming to be acting in the best interests of a specific subset of the voting population, whereas that particular subset has its own opinions of things and appears not to be being asked. If the Democrats (or whoever) want to say "It is in the national interest to get out now", then fine. Say it. But I don't buy the 'for the troops' argument.

NTM

I think it is both in the national interest and in the troops' interest (as well as in the interest of Iraq and the wider interest of the whole world)

But I can see why the Democrats are emphasizing this point, the Republicans have been playing the 'support the troops' card from the start of the war, it only makes sense for them to be pointing out the hypocrisy of that when they have not given them a clear mission, are stretching the army to the point of breaking and are letting conditions in the hospitals deteriorate to disgusting.

[Belladonna]

The troops may, on the whole, be seriously misinformed.

When asked why we're in Iraq, don't more than half the soldiers and marines typically answer "To avenge Iraq's 9/11 attack on the U.S." or something of that ilk?

Cheers,

Michael

Well being married to one of those "troops" I can tell you they are not misinformed nor are they in general "stupid".
Nobody said "stupid", that I can see. As for misinformed, of course I believe you, as far as the one you married! But if TLR's recollection is accurate, and it seems to be (http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075), then yes -- a substantial portion of this large and apparently representative sample of troops was misinformed.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq
You consider 944 respondents a substantial portion of the troops who have served in Iraq? The fact that the survey was conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies doesn't send some red flags up for you?

My comment that the troops are not stupid was in response to the comment that they were apparently not the best judges of what is in their best interest.

[Ari]

If it was a sufficiently random sample then that seems like a reasonable number.

[Belladonna]

The details of how the random sample was selected is not detailed in the report I looked at...nor does it include how many surveys were declined.

[California Tanker]

You consider 944 respondents a substantial portion of the troops who have served in Iraq?

In fairness, the mathematics of polling is such that 944 is probably a pretty reasonable number to get the adequate sensing of the large population of those polled in response to the questions asked.

What is unstated is just who was polled, and how the questions were presented. For example, looking at the former number: Unless the questioners went out and about and walked up to troops on the streets mid-patrol, they probably ended up talking to rear echelon guys at the PX (or wherever) on the major bases. The people who interact with the locals, and who get out and about to see what's going on and may have a more hopeful outlook are the very people who are not likely to be around to be asked. I lived on a tiny little outpost in the desert for a month, and a tiny little outpost in a city for a month. When I was on a major base, my life consisted of patrol, motor pool, and accomodation; I would have about as much opportunity to interact with a pollster as the finance clerk working in the post bank would have to interact with the locals who lived a mile from him on the other side of the wire.

NTM

[Belladonna]

My husband was there for 17 months...primarily in Baghdad. They interacted with the locals on a daily basis....but not any "pollsters"...but in all fairness...if someone had asked...most wouldn't have taken the survey anyway. Their philosophy by and large was they had a mission to accomplish...taking surveys wasn't part of that mission.

[Clutch Munny]

Well being married to one of those "troops" I can tell you they are not misinformed nor are they in general "stupid".
Nobody said "stupid", that I can see. As for misinformed, of course I believe you, as far as the one you married! But if TLR's recollection is accurate, and it seems to be (http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075), then yes -- a substantial portion of this large and apparently representative sample of troops was misinformed.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq
You consider 944 respondents a substantial portion of the troops who have served in Iraq?
No, which is why I didn't call it a substantial portion. I consider it sufficiently large to get a representative sample, which it absolutely is, provided the sample is not selection-biased in some way.

The fact that the survey was conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies doesn't send some red flags up for you?
I'm open to any evidence of misrepresentation or shoddy technique that you might present, regarding the specifics of Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies. But I can't see assuming the results are delusive merely on account of the word "peace" (or "global"? "studies"?) occuring in the title of the institution that collaborated with experienced pollsters Zogby.

A much clearer red flag is the danger of seizing on a pretext to dismiss an unwelcome conclusion.

My comment that the troops are not stupid was in response to the comment that they were apparently not the best judges of what is in their best interest.
That's your leap, though. The suggestion was pretty clearly not that troops are in general not the best judges of their own interests, but one applying specifically to the politics and conduct of the war. I expect that virtually everyone fails to be the best judge of his or her best interests on some matter or other. It does not follow that virtually everyone is stupid.

[Belladonna]

Seeing as I'm the new kid on the block...I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

[Clutch Munny]

What is unstated is just who was polled, and how the questions were presented.

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months....

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more... Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.
So there is some explicit information about who was interviewed, and what method was used, and the implicit information that random sampling -- of which there are several techniques -- was employed. Clearly they also were aware of divisions in the armed forces and apparently made efforts to sample widely enough to enable drawing conclusions about the different branches -- suggesting that the difference between a shelf-stocker at the PX and someone on active patrol might not have been entirely unclear to them.

Unless the questioners went out and about and walked up to troops on the streets mid-patrol, they probably ended up talking to rear echelon guys at the PX (or wherever) on the major bases. The people who interact with the locals, and who get out and about to see what's going on and may have a more hopeful outlook are the very people who are not likely to be around to be asked.
First, why assume that the people with the more hopeful outlooks are those who weren't interviewed. Is there evidence that more patrol experience in Iraq is correlated with a more optimistic outlook?

I lived on a tiny little outpost in the desert for a month, and a tiny little outpost in a city for a month. When I was on a major base, my life consisted of patrol, motor pool, and accomodation; I would have about as much opportunity to interact with a pollster as the finance clerk working in the post bank would have to interact with the locals who lived a mile from him on the other side of the wire.
Second, I'm not sure where you got your information about what access the interviewers had (and didn't have) to personnel of various sorts. I don't see it in the article myself, and again, it's worth being careful not to tell a Just-So Story about how the poll must have been flawed. But suppose you're right, and the poll was curiously restricted to those not really in the know. Do you have in mind a subset of the troops who are the true well-informed ones, who should have the role you suggested? Is it just a matter of having the right opinions?

[Clutch Munny]

Seeing as I'm the new kid on the block...I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
You don't have to go easy on me! Certainly not because you're new. Anyhow, I assure you we don't disagree over whether military folks are stupid. A good chunk of my own family is or was in the military, and I know they're not stupid.

And there's not really much room to disagree over, e.g., what I actually wrote, or how statistics work. Between what we don't disagree on, and what we really can't disagree on, we must be nearly on the same page. :wink:

[Belladonna]

I was going to make a comment on your deft display of verbosity while still making little to no sense at all...but figured that might earn me a bad rep on my first day.

[California Tanker]

So there is some explicit information about who was interviewed, and what method was used, and the implicit information that random sampling -- of which there are several techniques -- was employed.

But that information does not reflect probably the most important question of them all when it comes down to the 'whole point of the expedition', that being "Who is in a position to know?"

For example, look at the first question in the poll article:
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately

On what basis are they making their opinion of a year? How does a maintainance sergeant whose world consists of the Motor Pool, MWR, Chow Hall, and billets know any better than you watching CNN at home what the conditions are outside the wire that they think they should leave within one year and not more? Now, that poll was taken in early 2006. What do you think the chances are that if the same poll were taken of the same sample set today that the figures would be almost identical? My guess is fairly high.

Why assume that the people with the more hopeful outlooks are those who weren't interviewed. Is there evidence that more patrol experience in Iraq is correlated with a more optimistic outlook?

Only annecdotal, from friends and websites.

Put it this way, the question of staying vs going is a cost-to-benefit one. The average Fobbit (No disrespect to any REMFs) is doing pretty much his same day job as he would have in the US in an office, the motor pool, warehouse, wherever. No great benefit there for him. Only difference is that the weather sucks, his accomodation sucks, he's not seen his wife in months, people lob mortars at him on occasion, and there is nothing except maybe second-hand-information from the people he may interact with to give him anything like a positive feeling. The only influence that person has receives is negative.

On the other hand, line troops go out and about and get to experience a lot more. On the one hand they get the increased cynicism caused by the fact they they get directly targetted, and the intel which says that the person you're smiling and shaking hands with is probably going to try to kill you when it gets dark, on the other hand they also get to experience the positives of seeing if towns are cleaning up, if there is more merchandise available or even a simple 'What sort of atmosphere is in the town when you drive in.' Speaking solely for myself, I'm either very forgiving of the car bombs, mines and RPGs that attacked us, and the sniper who missed me by about two inches, or there is enough 'positive' out there which I experienced which I think outweighs it all. The impression I get from others is that mine is not a totally unique perspective.

I'm not sure where you got your information about what access the interviewers had (and didn't have) to personnel of various sorts.

Common sense. People simply have less access to the line troops because (a) we're not on the base as much, and (b) when we are, we're too damned shattered to go very far. Unless the pollsters made a deliberate effort to physically go and find line troops, the chances are they got a disproptionate sample.

Do you have in mind a subset of the troops who are the true well-informed ones, who should have the role you suggested? Is it just a matter of having the right opinions?

No. Simply going outside and about isn't a nice neat divider, because it leaves out people like the trainers or intel types, and the truckers who go out and about a lot never stop and see what's going on.

I think you should be careful as to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the opinions of those polled is in any way invalid. I'm cautioning you as to avoid putting too much weight on any conclusion you may draw from the poll's data, beyond that a large portion of the troops surveyed (and I believe even that portion was unlikely to be a representative sample) believed a year ago (Before the current round of inter-ethnic violence, I should add) that the US should be able to get out in the next year.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

I was going to make a comment on your deft display of verbosity while still making little to no sense at all...but figured that might earn me a bad rep on my first day.
Not if it's true it wouldn't. Feel free to argue it. Merely grousing won't garner much respect, though.

[Clutch Munny]

So there is some explicit information about who was interviewed, and what method was used, and the implicit information that random sampling -- of which there are several techniques -- was employed.

But that information does not reflect probably the most important question of them all when it comes down to the 'whole point of the expedition', that being "Who is in a position to know?"

For example, look at the first question in the poll article:
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately

On what basis are they making their opinion of a year? How does a maintainance sergeant whose world consists of the Motor Pool, MWR, Chow Hall, and billets know any better than you watching CNN at home what the conditions are outside the wire that they think they should leave within one year and not more?
Good question. I suppose the more basic question is what inexpressible knowledge of events is gained outside the wire, which would not propagate to the support staff. Clearly there's no problem with negative information about the wider Iraq finding its way back. Is there some sort of optimism-omerta among the patrol troops that leads them to keep these grounds for optimism to themselves?

Why assume that the people with the more hopeful outlooks are those who weren't interviewed. Is there evidence that more patrol experience in Iraq is correlated with a more optimistic outlook?

Only annecdotal, from friends and websites... The impression I get from others is that mine is not a totally unique perspective.
Fair enough. The fraught nature of such reasoning is well known.

I'm not sure where you got your information about what access the interviewers had (and didn't have) to personnel of various sorts.

Common sense. People simply have less access to the line troops because (a) we're not on the base as much, and (b) when we are, we're too damned shattered to go very far. Unless the pollsters made a deliberate effort to physically go and find line troops, the chances are they got a disproptionate sample.
Getting a representative sample of a stratified population is precisely a matter of not leaving it to chance. They went all the way to Iraq to talk to soldiers. Why wouldn't they walk over to a barracks?

Anyhow, I'll try emailing someone at Le Moyne and asking whether they thought to include front-liners.

I think you should be careful as to what I'm saying.
I agree. In particular I realize that you didn't make the original suggestion, but merely said it wasn't completely outlandish.

I'm not saying that the opinions of those polled is in any way invalid. I'm cautioning you as to avoid putting too much weight on any conclusion you may draw from the poll's data, beyond that a large portion of the troops surveyed (and I believe even that portion was unlikely to be a representative sample) believed a year ago (Before the current round of inter-ethnic violence, I should add) that the US should be able to get out in the next year.

One can conclude much more than that, since they responded to many, many more questions than that. One of the more important data to jump out is the astonishing proportion who saw links between Saddam and Al Quaeda, and between Iraq and 9/11, as explaining the invasion. But Dave Ross's (tongue-in-cheek) proposal didn't make any of your distinctions between (arguendo) the relatively informed patrollers and the relatively ignorant support staff.

Now, I don't think there's any danger of anyone taking Ross's modest proposal very seriously, and I also agree with you that the Dems shouldn't follow the Repubs into the cesspool of cynical "for the troops" rhetoric. My interest is more to do with what underlies Ross's suggestion, and what the poll suggests about it: the presumption that soldiers have any particular insight into the political, strategic, diplomatic or moral worth or conduct of the war. With some notable exceptions, police chiefs tend to favor the War on Drugs; yet that says precisely nothing about whether there should be a War on Drugs. It's a damned ineffective system that doesn't both preselect and socialize in favor of supporting its work.

[Belladonna]

My interest is more to do with what underlies Ross's suggestion, and what the poll suggests about it: the presumption that soldiers have any particular insight into the political, strategic, diplomatic or moral worth or conduct of the war.
Traditionally I don't believe the average soldier has made a habit of trying to determine such things. I think they have left that sort of thing to the politicians and academics. Of course the face of warfare has changed over the years...but I think the average soldier still goes by the credo "My country has asked me to fight this fight...that's what I'm here to do." That those who are out in the front lines might have a different perspective than those in the rear eschelons should not come as a surprise.

[California Tanker]

Good question. I suppose the more basic question is what inexpressible knowledge of events is gained outside the wire, which would not propagate to the support staff. Clearly there's no problem with negative information about the wider Iraq finding its way back. Is there some sort of optimism-omerta among the patrol troops that leads them to keep these grounds for optimism to themselves?

There are two issues here. One is the issue of 'why doesn't local information at least filter to local people'. The answer is simple enough: The two groups don't associate much. When you run into someone from another unit, the usual questions are 'Who are you with, how long have you been here, what do you do, and how long do you have to go?'. Typical in-theatre small-talk. The best chance I had of interacting with my rear-echelon brethren, for example, was advertised on the chow-hall board (the one time of day I was at the chow hall), advertising a Company Grade Officer's Pool Party. (LSA Anaconda has a pool). This would be great: An opportunity to interact in a social environment with my counterparts in the rear echelon roles. Except, although it was after 'business hours', I was on patrol outside the wire. (I've even had patrols extended so that we could keep the base safe for the MWR events like 50Cent's concert, but that's another issue)
The other issue is the level of mass disseminaton of positive information. The traditional "Bad news is good news" issue. This is related to the 'Army screws up' thread. The people who seem most inclined to report any good news seem to be the line troops. What's the big news from Iraq today? Suicide bomber kills 10 at army recruiting station. Negative, controversial, eyecatching. CNN has it here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/05/iraq.main.reut/index.html), for example. Similarly, the BBC has a leading article on the attack here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6628357.stm). What the BBC mentions as an aside in its article, and CNN doesn't mention at all is this bit.
The BBC's Andrew North, in Baghdad, says all the men killed in the suicide bombing are believed to be Sunni Arabs from the surrounding area.

They are also thought to be members of a tribe which has joined with others against al-Qaeda because of opposition to some of its extremist policies.

As part of efforts to combat the group, tribal leaders have been urging people to join police and army units in the area.

It is a complete reversal in position, our correspondent says.

In the past, many local Sunnis may have co-operated with the insurgency and worked against the security forces.

I think that piece of news is far more important on the strategic scale than 'ten people killed in recruiting station,' yet it's not something which is achieving front-page status on CNN. I think I saw an article about it in Time magazine a couple of weeks ago, not overly well publicised. It's also news which doesn't really have an emotional impact. Seeing people bleeding does, and it'll have a disproportionate effect to a picture of a well-dressed Shekh with his hand on the Koran saying "I agree to this alliance".

Similarly, looking at CNN's website today, I see a piece of good news. "Army thwarts plot to blow up girl's school." Can someone explain to me why it took the better part of a week for CNN to report this? I read it on 30APR on another site. But hey, it was a site in with a heavy military presence. I am routinely reading positive info on military-dominated sites, which I only see in passing (if at all) on the MSM.

So, coming back to Maintainance Sergeant Bloggs, his main source of news is going to be the same CNN internet site at the MWR which we are reading right now.

a representative sample of a stratified population is precisely a matter of not leaving it to chance. They went all the way to Iraq to talk to soldiers. Why wouldn't they walk over to a barracks?

I think more likely they contracted an AAFES employee to ask. But why would they walk over to the barracks? You tell a pollster "We need to poll 300 troops at this base", he's going to go to where the 300 troops are most likely to be found, with a bit of time to be polled. Where would you go? PX, MWR, chow hall, that sort of place. Unless they're particularly dilligent, and are aware of the problems of hanging out at the PX and expecting a truly representative sample, they're not likely to go knocking on doors in the hope that someone's in. (And most non-military types seem to have a problem telling a tank from an artillery piece, so I'm not convinced that they would be). And finally, even if they did try to look for line troops, and go to the billets, there's no guarantee they'd be there. The survey was taken in Jan/Feb 06 timeframe. The Jan/Feb timeframe I was there (05), they could have knocked on my door any hour of the day, and likely not have found me: I averaged less than 10 minutes in my room a day.

I'll try emailing someone at Le Moyne and asking whether they thought to include front-liners.

Go ahead, though I think you should probably go with 'actively seek' as opposed to 'include', since I'm sure they didn't exclude them.


In particular I realize that you didn't make the original suggestion, but merely said it wasn't completely outlandish.

In terms of determining who gets to speak for the troops, no, I don't think it is outlandish. In terms of dictating national policy, I don't think it's appropriate.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

So, coming back to Maintainance Sergeant Bloggs, his main source of news is going to be the same CNN internet site at the MWR which we are reading right now.
Thanks for the explanation.

I'd say an additional reason why the mainstream news media might be particularly cautious or slow in reporting positive news has been the relative likelihood that such news will turn out to be overblown or deliberately misleading. The Administration and the military have burned through their credibility by getting caught planting ghost-authored stories and fake news sections coproduced by PR firms, both at home and in Iraq. A wait-and-see attitude towards positive reports is pretty reasonable under those circumstances. Whereas the ten people killed by a car bomb are at least likely to remain dead.

Moreover, it's worth noting the difference between reporting bad news broadly, covering just the death and destruction angle thoroughly, and merely reporting bloodshed. At most the media have done the last of these three. The news media likes to report numbers killed in isolated incidents, but we haven't seen anything remotely like the graphic honesty (such as it was) of Vietnam war coverage -- the American public has been pleasantly shielded from the visual reality of its spasm of misdirected revenge -- nor has the media actually reported bad news tout court. The bad news includes things like that America's public purse has been slashed open and emptied to enrich a handful of oligarchs, under the cover of a war in which Americans have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, lost thousands of their own soldiers, and made radical Islam a much greater political problem in the Gulf than it had been. You don't very often see hard calls like that on MSNBC, either.

a representative sample of a stratified population is precisely a matter of not leaving it to chance. They went all the way to Iraq to talk to soldiers. Why wouldn't they walk over to a barracks?

I think more likely they contracted an AAFES employee to ask. But why would they walk over to the barracks? You tell a pollster "We need to poll 300 troops at this base", he's going to go to where the 300 troops are most likely to be found, with a bit of time to be polled. Where would you go? PX, MWR, chow hall, that sort of place. Unless they're particularly dilligent, and are aware of the problems of hanging out at the PX and expecting a truly representative sample, they're not likely to go knocking on doors in the hope that someone's in.
Again, they do seem to have carefully noted what kind of soldiers they were interviewing, so I doubt that the differences escaped them.

What proportion of 944 interviewees should have been line troops, in order for the poll to have been representative, in your view?

In terms of determining who gets to speak for the troops, no, I don't think it is outlandish. In terms of dictating national policy, I don't think it's appropriate.
It's unclear to me what speaking for the troops is supposed to mean in any case. But yes, in terms of even significantly influencing national policy, I think it would be daft.

[viscousmemories]

My comment that the troops are not stupid was in response to the comment that they were apparently not the best judges of what is in their best interest.
I didn't say (or mean to imply) that all military folks are apparently not the best judges of what's in their best interest, I said that demonstrating poor judgement (eg. joining the military specifically to participate in an unjust war at great personal risk with little personal gain) indicates that someone may not be the best judge of what's in their best interest.

Nevertheless, I do believe that most Americans are profoundly ignorant about world affairs and in my experience (I'm former Army too) military folks are no exception.

[Belladonna]

Joining the military to participate in an unjust war? Reality check...how many young people march themselves down to the Recruitment Office to participate in an "unjust war"? Is it possible that perhaps they feel that it's time to take action? The alternative is to sit back and wait to be a victim of yet another attack.

[California Tanker]

The news media likes to report numbers killed in isolated incidents, but we haven't seen anything remotely like the graphic honesty (such as it was) of Vietnam war coverage -- the American public has been pleasantly shielded from the visual reality of its spasm of misdirected revenge --

True, but I don't think people are that insulated that we don't realise that the events covered such as the bombings are a bad thing and rather unpleasant for all concerned. After all, if we were, there wouldn't be the current clamour.

Again, they do seem to have carefully noted what kind of soldiers they were interviewing, so I doubt that the differences escaped them.

They asked questions that they thought might be the relevant ones. Things like "How many tours have you done," "What branch are you" and "Are you a reservist." These are hardly questions which require any sort of thought towards daily workings.

What proportion of 944 interviewees should have been line troops, in order for the poll to have been representative, in your view?

Offhand, about a third, I think. The Army's tail-to-teeth ratio is horrible. More to the point than proportion though, should have been a divided response. For example, instead of dividing answers into groups like "86% of reservists think..." one of the subdivisions should be "X% of line troops think"

eg. joining the military specifically to participate in an unjust war at great personal risk with little personal gain

Without subscribing to Belladonna's argument about sitting back and waiting for the next attack, I'm curious as to what percentage of the forces in the military as a whole you think have enlisted since March 2003 specifically to go and fight in Iraq. I'll wager that the figures are pretty much standard in that most have been in since before then, and the majority of the rest have either joined for the traditional benefits of training/money/college fees, family heritage, or just generic patriotism.

NTM

[Angakuk]

I didn't say (or mean to imply) that all military folks are apparently not the best judges of what's in their best interest, I said that demonstrating poor judgement (eg. joining the military specifically to participate in an unjust war at great personal risk with little personal gain) indicates that someone may not be the best judge of what's in their best interest.
I let this one slide the first time you wrote it, but the argument does bug me a bit. Your argument assumes that the unjust nature of the war is a given. Since it would seem that this is a point which is the subject of some significant debate, treating it as an established fact and then using it to support a conclusion strikes me as being more than a little unsound. Perhaps it might better be stated as a conditional. i.e. If someone joins the military specifically to participate in an unjust war at great personal risk with little personal gain, then that would indicate that this someone may not be the best judge of what's in his/her best interest. Now, to make your case against trusting the judgement of the troops all you have to do is convincingly demonstrate that the 1) the war is unjust, 2) that they knew the war was unjust when they joined, 3) that they joined the military just for the sake of participating in this unjust war, and 4) that they had little to gain from doing so. Demonstrating the truth of all of those assertions ought to be mere child's play for you.

[Watser?]

Joining the military to participate in an unjust war? Reality check...how many young people march themselves down to the Recruitment Office to participate in an "unjust war"? Is it possible that perhaps they feel that it's time to take action? The alternative is to sit back and wait to be a victim of yet another attack.
That might be true if there was any connection to this war in Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. Since there isn't it makes no sense at all. On the contrary, reports (here's one (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17145574.htm)) show the war in Iraq has made terrorism worse.

Without subscribing to Belladonna's argument about sitting back and waiting for the next attack, I'm curious as to what percentage of the forces in the military as a whole you think have enlisted since March 2003 specifically to go and fight in Iraq. I'll wager that the figures are pretty much standard in that most have been in since before then, and the majority of the rest have either joined for the traditional benefits of training/money/college fees, family heritage, or just generic patriotism.

NTM
I agree with that. I doubt many people sign up specifically to fight in Iraq. In fact I think I read somewhere that enlistment is down since the war began. Or maybe not down, but the army is not enlisting as many people as they need (because they need more than before). For its part, the Bush Administration boasts of its plan to permanently boost the Army by 65,000 troops, to 547,000, over the next five years. Gordon Sullivan, a retired Army chief of staff and head of the Association of the U.S. Army, says the service's size "should be approaching 700,000" to do the job the nation expects of it. But where will such numbers come from?
True, the Army is making its recruiting targets — but only by accepting less qualified people.One response to difficulties in recruitment: stop people from leaving.The Army has been turning to its sister services for enlistees. About 20,000 "sandbox sailors" from the Navy and airmen from the Air Force are serving as "in lieu of" soldiers—driving trucks and providing security in Iraq and Afghanistan.link (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1606888-3,00.html)

[viscousmemories]

Perhaps it might better be stated as a conditional. i.e. If someone joins the military specifically to participate in an unjust war at great personal risk with little personal gain, then that would indicate that this someone may not be the best judge of what's in his/her best interest.
If you apply a little charity in reading my posts, you might realize that i meant exactly that.

Now, to make your case against trusting the judgement of the troops all you have to do is convincingly demonstrate that the 1) the war is unjust, 2) that they knew the war was unjust when they joined, 3) that they joined the military just for the sake of participating in this unjust war, and 4) that they had little to gain from doing so. Demonstrating the truth of all of those assertions ought to be mere child's play for you.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'd do if I intended to prove, through logical argumentation, that the judgement of a certain segment of the military population, on the matter of their own best interest, can't be trusted. If I were making a somewhat flip statement of personal opinion based on my personal belief that the war is unjust and that there is little to be gained that can balance the cost and risk of participating in it... well then, I'd probably say just what I did.

[viscousmemories]

Joining the military to participate in an unjust war? Reality check...how many young people march themselves down to the Recruitment Office to participate in an "unjust war"?
I didn't mean joining the military with the intent to participate in an unjust war. I do believe that most people intend to do what's right and just. I meant joining the military oblivious to whether the war is just.

Is it possible that perhaps they feel that it's time to take action? The alternative is to sit back and wait to be a victim of yet another attack.
Sure, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. As far as anyone knows, Iraq had little to nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. So anyone who joined the military to stop them attacking us again was probably not demonstrating good judgement.

Of course it's also possible that people join for the GI Bill, or for the opportunity to play that life-sized videogame the Army is constantly advertising. I don't think either of those reasons demonstrate particularly good judgement either.

[Clutch Munny]

I didn't say (or mean to imply) that all military folks are apparently not the best judges of what's in their best interest, I said that demonstrating poor judgement (eg. joining the military specifically to participate in an unjust war at great personal risk with little personal gain) indicates that someone may not be the best judge of what's in their best interest.
I let this one slide the first time you wrote it, but the argument does bug me a bit. Your argument assumes that the unjust nature of the war is a given. Since it would seem that this is a point which is the subject of some significant debate, treating it as an established fact and then using it to support a conclusion strikes me as being more than a little unsound.
That it's an unwelcome point in some corners does not make it the subject of significant debate, strictu dictu. Compare the loud opposition to evolutionary theory; yet one might fairly decline invitations like yours, to adduce the evidence in favour of common ancestry, every time one presents it as the only reasonable view.

The further presuppositions you list are more persuasive confounds, though. While some people no doubt joined the military as uncritical dupes of the lies and deceptions regarding WMDs, and Hussein-Al Quaeda collaboration, I can't see much reason to think that this would be a great proportion of the volunteers. Maybe the micro-practices of recruiters could be presented as more general evidence that some recruits are easily gulled, but that too may vary from county to county, state to state.

[Belladonna]

I see John Kerry was not alone in his belief that only the stupid people get "stuck in Iraq". Thank goodness we have "smart people" to know what is truly in our best interest...perhaps y'all should reconsider the name of this forum...IndoctrinateU2 would be apropos.

[ChuckF]

I see John Kerry was not alone in his belief that only the stupid people get "stuck in Iraq". Thank goodness we have "smart people" to know what is truly in our best interest...perhaps y'all should reconsider the name of this forum...IndoctrinateU2 would be apropos.
I don't think it took extraordinary wits to predict the current quagmire in Iraq and its danger to our national security. I will concede, however, that it took some serious effort and elbow grease to fabricate the pretext for war with Iraq. But hey, it's what daddy and his pals wanted.

[chick]

:popcorn:

[The Lone Ranger]

I see John Kerry was not alone in his belief that only the stupid people get "stuck in Iraq". Thank goodness we have "smart people" to know what is truly in our best interest...perhaps y'all should reconsider the name of this forum...IndoctrinateU2 would be apropos.

Kerry was misrepresented on that score.

What he made quite clear in his comments was that he was attacking Bush, not the people serving in Iraq. What he was saying (perhaps rather ineptly) was that if you're stupid-enough to start a war without a clear exit strategy, you're going to get stuck there -- exactly as happened to Bush.

Kerry's joke was not a slam on the troops, nor was it in any way meant to imply that the troops serving in Iraq are anything but the "best and brightest." The notion that it was is due to deliberate misinterpretation by conservatives with an axe to grind. When you listen to his comments in context, it's abundantly clear that he was attacking the Administration for being stupid-enough to initiate a war with no clear goals or exit strategy.

Cheers,

Michael

[California Tanker]

Still, it did provide amusement for the troops, who responded in good nature.

NTM

[Belladonna]

:popcorn:

Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony. :cool:

[Sock Puppet]

Wow. Who is Dave Ross? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Columnist/Opnionist of some sort. Heard him on the radio in the car.

He does have a point, though. Both sides of a nearly diametrically opposite debate are arguing 'it's for the troops'. They can't both be right, so why not let the troops decide? Even if foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by military fiat, at least they can sort out who speaks for whom.

NTMI used to listen to Dave Ross nearly every day. His tongue is firmly planted in his cheek in every one of his broadcasts. Lately his wit is getting a little frayed around the edges, but most of his suggestions are of the "Modest Proposal" variety.

[BDS]

Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony. :cool:


But is Heraclitus' opinion reason enough to invade another country?

[Belladonna]

"And what physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure." -- Niccolo Machiavelli

[ChuckF]

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -- Donald Rumsfeld, 7 February 2003 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm)

[BDS]

"And what physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure." -- Niccolo Machiavelli

I appreciate the analogy. However, the ills of Iraq were fully developed, and easy to diagnose. The problem: they are difficult to cure. Like chemotherapy, the cure is almost as bad as the disease -- sometimes it is fatal. In this case, it is our OWN ills (our mistakes, evils, limits on freedom, etc.) that are more difficult to diagnose, although, perhaps, they can be readily cured if we do diagnose them.

[Clutch Munny]

perhaps y'all should reconsider the name of this forum...IndoctrinateU2 would be apropos.

Because all your thoughtful arguments have been rejected dogmatically.

[Belladonna]

perhaps y'all should reconsider the name of this forum...IndoctrinateU2 would be apropos.

Because all your thoughtful arguments have been rejected dogmatically.

Actually they don't appear to have been rejected by all...just the more dogmatic.

[viscousmemories]

I think his point was that you have responded to reasoned arguments with curt dismissals, bogus talking points and personal insults. Hardly a strong case for us being the indoctrinated dogmatists.

[Belladonna]

Your idea of a reasoned argument and someone else's might not mesh. In case you missed it...I did suggest that we might have to agree to disagree and was encouraged to voice my opinion. Other than the verbosity comment- which some might consider an accurate description-I don't recall my throwing out a lot of personal insults. You on the other hand have characterized my responses as "bogus"...some might consider that insulting. Fortunately I am accustomed to a more challenging group of debaters...and hence have developed a thicker skin than the average sensitive academic type.

[Dingfod]

:lol:

[California Tanker]

I think his point was that you have responded to reasoned arguments with curt dismissals, bogus talking points and personal insults. Hardly a strong case for us being the indoctrinated dogmatists.

In fairness, by the dictionary definition of dogmatist (Which I just looked up to be sure), the term could apply to most everyone on this thread, including me. It doesn't infer in itself any correctness or incorrectness, merely an unfailing belief in correctness.

NTM

[D. Scarlatti]

Tough crowd.

[Angakuk]

If you apply a little charity in reading my posts, you might realize that i meant exactly that.
The fact is that I did give it a charitable reading, initially. However, when you reposted it, without substantial amendment, I thought it deserved to be challenged. Thus giving you the opportunity (of which you have availed yourself) to clarify your intent. All this without charge. How much more charitable can one be?:angel:

[Clutch Munny]

I think his point was that you have responded to reasoned arguments with curt dismissals, bogus talking points and personal insults. Hardly a strong case for us being the indoctrinated dogmatists.

In fairness, by the dictionary definition of dogmatist (Which I just looked up to be sure), the term could apply to most everyone on this thread, including me. It doesn't infer in itself any correctness or incorrectness, merely an unfailing belief in correctness.

NTM
I'm not sure what that means, and I'm fairly confident that you (or your dictionary) are missing the basic idea of a dogmatist literally as one whose beliefs are rooted in dogma rather than an appraisal of evidence, or (in a more common extended sense) as one with inflexible or arbitrary opinions. At the very minimum, the context of use on the thread makes clear that the issue is sensitivity to reasoning that's been offered, as opposed to mere indoctrination.

Of course you can speak for yourself in calling "dogmatist" a fair cop. But I'm certainly willing to be persuaded, or at least to have my perspective modified, by reasoning. It's happened to a degree on this very thread. So, thanks but no thanks for the lump-us-all-together idea.

[Clutch Munny]

Your idea of a reasoned argument and someone else's might not mesh.
Indeed. There are creationists and HIV deniers out there, all right. Fortunately the canons of good argumentation are studied by several disciplines, so we needn't rely on anyone's half-formed personal idea of an argument. I don't think any of these disciplines includes persistent evasion and silly misrepresentation in the "Good argument" category, though.

Other than the verbosity comment- which some might consider an accurate description-I don't recall my throwing out a lot of personal insults.
Relentlessly attributing stupid views that they have not defended to your interlocutors is rather an insult. But it's more tedious than offensive.

You on the other hand have characterized my responses as "bogus"...some might consider that insulting.
I agree. Some might. But you've reaped far less than you've sown on that front. Your misrepresentations and plain old errors have been explained at some effort, and pretty gently besides, given the signal-to-ad-hom ratio in your own posts.

Fortunately I am accustomed to a more challenging group of debaters...and hence have developed a thicker skin than the average sensitive academic type.
:laugh:

That's kind of interesting. Whatever they do to challenge you so, clearly it can't be producing arguments or taking your various assertions seriously by actually critiquing the reasoning or lack thereof. Maybe you could explain it a bit further. For example, when you say to them "I'm married to a soldier, so I know that soldiers in general are not misinformed about why America is in Iraq," we know that these challenging debaters don't point out the gross fallacy of hasty generalization. Because doing that just elicits evasion and ad hom. So what would they say, that would lead you to think: Wow... challenging!

I'd like to know, just for personal edification. As an "academic type", of course I am unaccustomed to having my views receive trenchant criticism; on reflection, I suppose it's high time that academics instituted some sort of system in which both as a student and a researcher one's views were constantly analyzed by rafts of experts seeking and publicizing weaknesses in them. In the meantime, though, your explanation of a true challenging debate would be valuable indeed.

[Belladonna]

Your idea of a reasoned argument and someone else's might not mesh.
Indeed. There are creationists and HIV deniers out there, all right. Fortunately the canons of good argumentation are studied by several disciplines, so we needn't rely on anyone's half-formed personal idea of an argument. I don't think any of these disciplines includes persistent evasion and silly misrepresentation in the "Good argument" category, though.

Other than the verbosity comment- which some might consider an accurate description-I don't recall my throwing out a lot of personal insults.
Relentlessly attributing stupid views that they have not defended to your interlocutors is rather an insult. But it's more tedious than offensive.

You on the other hand have characterized my responses as "bogus"...some might consider that insulting.
I agree. Some might. But you've reaped far less than you've sown on that front. Your misrepresentations and plain old errors have been explained at some effort, and pretty gently besides, given the signal-to-ad-hom ratio in your own posts.

Fortunately I am accustomed to a more challenging group of debaters...and hence have developed a thicker skin than the average sensitive academic type.
:laugh:

That's kind of interesting. Whatever they do to challenge you so, clearly it can't be producing arguments or taking your various assertions seriously by actually critiquing the reasoning or lack thereof. Maybe you could explain it a bit further. For example, when you say to them "I'm married to a soldier, so I know that soldiers in general are not misinformed about why America is in Iraq," we know that these challenging debaters don't point out the gross fallacy of hasty generalization. Because doing that just elicits evasion and ad hom. So what would they say, that would lead you to think: Wow... challenging!

I'd like to know, just for personal edification. As an "academic type", of course I am unaccustomed to having my views receive trenchant criticism; on reflection, I suppose it's high time that academics instituted some sort of system in which both as a student and a researcher one's views were constantly analyzed by rafts of experts seeking and publicizing weaknesses in them. In the meantime, though, your explanation of a true challenging debate would be valuable indeed.

Perhaps you could clarify what exactly it is that I misrepresented or was eroneous about? That you view my views as "stupid" does not bother me...although it does indicate a rather narrow thinking on your part.
Oh and my knowledge of what soldiers know and don't know does not stem only from my being married to one. I was one. My reference to my husband was made in the context of what the soldiers fighting in Iraq knew/know. Have you served in the military? No wait...you describe those who have volunteered to serve in the military as "dupes" "easily gulled"...so I imagine you haven't. If you had though it might have given you a better insight into what motivation drives someone to carry out their assigned mission.

Oh and my idea of a truly challenging debate would be one in which I found myself seeing my opponent's point of view...so why don't you give it your best shot? A word of advice...excessive use of obscure latin phrases only clouds the discussion and come across as pretentious. The most intelligent people I've had the pleasure to discuss things with have an almost uncanny ability to convey complex ideas in the simplest of terms.

[Sock Puppet]

Oh and my idea of a truly challenging debate would be one in which I found myself seeing my opponent's point of view...so why don't you give it your best shot?That's a bit problematic. Your prescription for someone else giving you a challenging debate seems to depend upon your own ability to follow it.

A word of advice...excessive use of obscure latin phrases only clouds the discussion and come across as pretentious. The most intelligent people I've had the pleasure to discuss things with have an almost uncanny ability to convey complex ideas in the simplest of terms.Similarly, it appears your assessment of others' intelligence is dependent upon your own ability to understand them. If you're really interested in being challenged, you might want to look up some of those "obscure" Latin phrases. Or perhaps just a list of argumentative fallacies.

[yguy]

Kerry's joke was not a slam on the troops, nor was it in any way meant to imply that the troops serving in Iraq are anything but the "best and brightest." The notion that it was is due to deliberate misinterpretation by conservatives with an axe to grind. When you listen to his comments in context, it's abundantly clear that he was attacking the Administration for being stupid-enough to initiate a war with no clear goals or exit strategy.An interesting claim which is echoed in this article (http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010012), which, while it does provide much in the way of post hoc rationalization, provides no context whatsoever which would lead anyone to believe the remark as actually delivered could reasonably be interpreted to imply anything BUT that the troops in Iraq are NOT "the best and the brightest."

[Belladonna]

That's a bit problematic. Your prescription for someone else giving you a challenging debate seems to depend upon your own ability to follow it.
But see that is the challenging part...their argument must be so persuasive I cannot easily dismiss it. I have actually had that happen...can be truly annoying :tmgrin:
Similarly, it appears your assessment of others' intelligence is dependent upon your own ability to understand them. If you're really interested in being challenged, you might want to look up some of those "obscure" Latin phrases. Or perhaps just a list of argumentative fallacies.
I look words up all the time...although it is more challenging when they are in a "dead" language and the author slaps together different phrases to further befuddle.

[Clutch Munny]

Perhaps you could clarify what exactly it is that I misrepresented or was eroneous about?
Well, to choose one example, even though exactly nobody had suggested that American soldiers are "stupid", you responded as if they had. When it was furthermore clarified that nobody had said that American troops are stupid... you again depicted your interlocutors as holding that view. The first case is misrepresentative. The second case is relentlessly, willfully misrepresentative.

That you view my views as "stupid" does not bother me...although it does indicate a rather narrow thinking on your part.
Once again, a snarky response without reading. I didn't call your view stupid, not least because I don't believe that it is. (I think it's probably mistaken, and more probably based on fallacious reasoning, though.) If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I was talking about your projecting stupid views onto other people -- straw men, as the obscure fancy-pants term has it.

Oh and my knowledge of what soldiers know and don't know does not stem only from my being married to one. I was one. My reference to my husband was made in the context of what the soldiers fighting in Iraq knew/know.
Anecdotal evidence is not just a problem when one is generalizing from an anecdotal sample of 1. Unless you were keeping a methodologically proper tally of their views on the justifications for the war, in particular, this constitutes at most very weak evidence against the conclusions of the poll that was discussed.

Have you served in the military?
No. But then, the only appeal to personal experience that I've made was to explain why I do not believe (hence have never said) that soldiers are stupid. My military family members, for example, are not stupid. Remember me writing this stuff, addressed directly to you, on this thread, in English and everything?

No wait...you describe those who have volunteered to serve in the military as "dupes" "easily gulled"...so I imagine you haven't.
Again with the silly misrepresentation. Let's take a look at what I actually said, making sure to read the actual words and stuff. I'll put quotes around the bits you quoted, and let you reflect on the honesty of leaving out the bits you left out.

While some people no doubt joined the military as uncritical "dupes" of the lies and deceptions regarding WMDs, and Hussein-Al Quaeda collaboration, I can't see much reason to think that this would be a great proportion of the volunteers.

Maybe the micro-practices of recruiters could be presented as more general evidence that some recruits are "easily gulled", but that too may vary from county to county, state to state.

See, that would be another case of willful misrepresentation from you. This is adding up to outright dishonesty. Attempting an actually challenging debate means not trying such transparent tactics to score cheap points; being in such a debate means getting called on it if you do try.

Oh and my idea of a truly challenging debate would be one in which I found myself seeing my opponent's point of view...so why don't you give it your best shot? A word of advice...excessive use of obscure latin phrases only clouds the discussion and come across as pretentious. The most intelligent people I've had the pleasure to discuss things with have an almost uncanny ability to convey complex ideas in the simplest of terms.
I can only give arguments and explain my reasoning; whether those are practices that appeal to you is beyond my control. As for obscure Latin phrases, I can only find "ad hom" in what I've written -- which is abbreviated Latin, fair enough, but hardly obscure. There is no English label equivalent for the fallacy in question, in any case; conveying complex ideas simply is very often a matter of introducing specialized terms, and so it is in this case.

[yguy]

Is it possible that perhaps they feel that it's time to take action? The alternative is to sit back and wait to be a victim of yet another attack.
Sure, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. As far as anyone knows, Iraq had little to nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. However little Iraq had to do with 9/11, it was more than what the bolded claim has to do with the quote you responded to - which is nothing.

[Clutch Munny]

Where the "Thanks" button appears on everyone else's posts, could we just get a WTF? button on yguy's posts, so a single click could point out that he's utterly full of shit?

Never mind... I can just translate for myself.

[Watser?]

Is it possible that perhaps they feel that it's time to take action? The alternative is to sit back and wait to be a victim of yet another attack.
Sure, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. As far as anyone knows, Iraq had little to nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. However little Iraq had to do with 9/11, it was more than what the bolded claim has to do with the quote you responded to - which is nothing.

I will write slowly so you can understand it too :pat:

The grown-ups were talking about Iraq and the war that is going on there

The attacks on 9/11 were carried out by al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda is a Sunni fundamentalist group that hates secularists

Saddam Hussein's regime was a secularist regime that hated fundamentalists

The attacks on 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, the response had everything to do with Iraq

You are wrong as usual

[Sock Puppet]

That's a bit problematic. Your prescription for someone else giving you a challenging debate seems to depend upon your own ability to follow it.
But see that is the challenging part...their argument must be so persuasive I cannot easily dismiss it. I have actually had that happen...can be truly annoying :tmgrin:Given your capacity for dismissing valid statements in this thread, I for one won't be knocking myself out trying to get an argument past whatever goal posts you have set up.

[California Tanker]

If you're really interested in being challenged, you might want to look up some of those "obscure" Latin phrases. Or perhaps just a list of argumentative fallacies.

In fairness, she is right to an extent. Britain's greatest judge of the 20th century was lauded partially because his opinions were 'models of simple English'. Lawyers particularly love to throw latin phrases around, which I consider pretty ridiculous if the equivalent verbiage is available in English.

NTM

[Sock Puppet]

I'd agree in principle. However, we're discussing their use in this thread, which has been pretty mild. As Clutch mentioned, "ad hom" is about the extent of it.

[Clutch Munny]

If you're really interested in being challenged, you might want to look up some of those "obscure" Latin phrases. Or perhaps just a list of argumentative fallacies.

In fairness, she is right to an extent. Britain's greatest judge of the 20th century was lauded partially because his opinions were 'models of simple English'. Lawyers particularly love to throw latin phrases around, which I consider pretty ridiculous if the equivalent verbiage is available in English.

NTM

Can you point out the lawyers on the thread who were throwing around latin phrases having equally concise English equivalents?

Also, we might review some of the judgements of the judge you have in mind, to see whether his writing is simple by locally relevant standards. Simple prose, for a judge, for (say) early and mid-20th century Britons, might nevertheless contain the occasional abstruse term, and even embedded subordinate clauses here and there. Bertrand Russell too was lauded for the beautiful clarity of his prose, yet many students today complain that his writing is complicated and uses some big words.

[California Tanker]

Can you point out the lawyers on the thread who were throwing around latin phrases having equally concise English equivalents?

Mine was a general comment directed at the practise of using latin phrases in discussion, which is one often used by lawyers, as opposed to making a directed comment on specific use in this thread.

Also, we might review some of the judgements of the j