Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    The whole War on Terror is going to be endless, so what's the difference? As long as their are extremist factions that want to see the end of the western world, there are going to be terrorists bent on killing you.

    So we leave Iraq, what next? Do we stay in Afganistan? Do we go into Iran/Syria? Or do we just bring all our troops home?

    No matter what the answer, those extremists are going to follow, and be 10x stronger. They're going to have a country, Iraq, which they can call their home base to train, to organize, to sipher monetary funds to back their missions, just like they had in Afganistan prior to Sept. 11 2001.

    But this finger pointing from the left about how Bush is this great manipulator is a bunch of bull****. This fight is going to be dirty no matter where we go or what we do, so why the freaking world do we need to switch things up?

    We're fighting them more out in the open than we could ever hope for, if we bring all our troops home. Soldiers won't be fighting them in the streets, civilians will be dying becase they will be blowing us up in their market bombs, or using planes to take down buildings again.

    If you would like to hide under your Winny the Pooh security blanket while your head is buried in the sand and think this endless war is going to be over because we leave Iraq, then forgive me when I tell you "I told you so," because it won't be a matter of "if" another attack comes here, but "how soon."
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

      Yes, here is the lefts, or atleast one of their answers.

      In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

      Obama says the war in Iraq has left Americans more in danger than before 9/11.

      “The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war,” Obama will say. “He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn’t exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training recruits in Pakistan.”
      So basically he wants Iraq to be up for grabs for the strongest, which will most likely be a regime like the Taliban, and go back to Afganistan and include Pakistan. We're going to be on a teter toter for the rest of time if people in power act/believe like this.

      This is just an opinion, but I think he understands the job that needs to be done in Iraq and that we are fighting Al Queda there, among other terrorist organizations. But he also understands that the American majority don't want to be in Iraq, so he just changes the name from Iraq to Afghanistan, and that's going to fool everyone. Sadly, I think that will work because of the stigma attached to Iraq.
      Last edited by Since86; 08-01-2007, 01:35 PM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post

        But this finger pointing from the left about how Bush is this great manipulator is a bunch of bull****.
        Yeah - Bush's problem was never what evidence he did or didn't offer. At the time everyone was saying the same thing - even France and Germany believed Saddam had WMD's. And the Dems were so afraid of appearing to be weak that they played Hawk as much as anyone.

        Bush's problem is the utter incompetence with which the war was waged the first 3.5 years - mainly because of some wierd sort of man-crush he had on Rumsfeld and his unwillingness to tell him, "It isn't working - do something else."

        We actually appear to be waging a competent war/occupation now - the problem is, we're starting from a much worse place than we were in 4 years ago. It's a bad enough place that it may be unsalvageable - but right now that's more up to the Iraqi's than anyone. If they want to have a true unity government they can do it - but they have to want to and the evidence for that is very lacking right now.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

          Arcadian, of course there were many voices warning of just exactly happening what has evolved in Iraq prior to the invasion. One of the more notable voices was Brent Scowcroft, National Security advisor under Bush I who penned this prescient editorial for the Wall Street Journal in Aug. of '02:
          http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110002133

          Since86, I hide under an Eeyore blanket not Pooh, but it is a lot less scary knowing big, brave manly men like yourself are going overseas to take on all the boogeymen for me. You are going, right? Since this is the apocalyptic battle to end all battles, in which the fate of Western Civilization hangs in the balance and you are of fighting age? Make sure you send us some pictures from the frontlines, toughguy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

            I suggest either reading comprehension courses, or just for you to quit putting words in my mouth.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

              As I read it Scowcroft said Iraq had WMD and that the invasion would not be a cakewalk. Both points are wrong.

              What I was asking was there any one talking about sectarian violence, insurgency and Iran after the invasion. I don't think anyone really saw this coming when it should have been fairly obvious. I'm not saying this makes the Bush's choices anymore valid but that both sides were equally clueless as to what would follow. If more thought about the occupation were given i think America would have made a better decision.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                What I was asking was there any one talking about sectarian violence, insurgency and Iran after the invasion. I don't think anyone really saw this coming when it should have been fairly obvious. I'm not saying this makes the Bush's choices anymore valid but that both sides were equally clueless as to what would follow. If more thought about the occupation were given i think America would have made a better decision.
                Man, you can't be serious. The CIA issued not one, but two reports to the administration before the war warning of almost exactly the scenario that has ensued. Everyone that voted for the Iraq War Resolution has to answer for trusting the Bush administration to use it with any responsibility, but remember not everyone did vote for it and congressional reps weren't out front predicting an easy victory. The Administration had the latitude and the only capability in our government to manage the timing, the international consensus building and the responsibility to ensure that what came after Saddam for the Iraqi people wasn't even worse and they failed miserably. They essentially took all post war planning away from the State Department and allowed the Pentagon/Rumsfeld to mind-boggling defy any facts on the ground and just turn Iraq into a tinderbox:

                In a move sure to raise even more questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will on Friday release selected portions of pre-war intelligence in which the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.

                Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

                In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”
                It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."
                None of those warnings were reflected in the administration's predictions about the war.

                In fact, Vice President Cheney stated the day before the war, “Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

                A second assessment weeks before the invasion warned that the war also could be “exploited by terrorists and extremists outside Iraq.”

                The same assessment added, “Iraqi patience with an extended U.S. presence after an overwhelming victory would be short,” and said “humanitarian conditions in many parts of Iraq would probably not understand that the Coalition wartime logistic pipeline would require time to reorient its mission to humanitarian aid.”

                Both assessments were given to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees.

                Even more warnings
                And according to the Former CIA Director George Tenet’s new book, “At the Center of the Storm,” the reports to be released Friday were not the only ones out there.

                One of Tenet’s clearest arguments regarding the administration's dismissal of all but the rosiest assessments of post-war Iraq comes in his description of a White House meeting in September 2002. There, a briefing book on the Iraq war was laid out for policy makers.

                “Near the back of the book, Tab 'P', was a paper the CIA analysts had prepared three weeks earlier,” Tenet writes. “Dated August 13, 2002, it was titled, ‘The Perfect Storm: Planning for the Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq.’ It provided worse case scenarios:

                “The United States will face negative consequences with Iraq, the region and beyond which would include:

                Anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq Region-threatening instability in key Arab states

                A surge of global terrorism against US interests fueled by (militant) Islamism

                Major oil supply disruptions and severe strains in the Atlantic Alliance

                “These should have been very sobering reports,” says Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst at the Brookings Institution. “The administration should have taken them very serious in preparing plans for a difficult post-Saddam period. And yet the administration did not do so.”

                William Harlow, part of Tenet’s senior intelligence staff and co-author with Tenet on his book, added: “Although the intelligence got the WMD case in Iraq wrong, it got the dangers of a post-invasion Iraq quite right. They raised serious questions about what would face U.S. troops in a post invasion Iraq. The intelligence laid out a number of issues of concern. It’s unclear if administration officials paid any attention to those concerns.”

                It is likely that Democrats and Republicans on the Hill will question how the administration could have predicted a short, easy war given these warnings and why it has taken more four years for them to surface.
                http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/
                Last edited by McClintic Sphere; 08-01-2007, 07:10 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                  Those were reports were not in the public debate leading up to the war. I'm talking about the information that was used in the public debates.

                  I still believe that either A) American hubris was high enough that nothing would have prevented it or B) had the debate been about the post Sadam Iraq we would have moved more wisely.

                  Of course it could be argued too that these things came about only because of the gross incompetence of the admin. that lead to the mess that is Iraq today.
                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                  "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                    As I read it Scowcroft said Iraq had WMD and that the invasion would not be a cakewalk. Both points are wrong.

                    What I was asking was there any one talking about sectarian violence, insurgency and Iran after the invasion. I don't think anyone really saw this coming when it should have been fairly obvious. I'm not saying this makes the Bush's choices anymore valid but that both sides were equally clueless as to what would follow. If more thought about the occupation were given i think America would have made a better decision.
                    Actually the invasion itself WAS a cakewalk (I'm sure not for those on the ground at the time but overall). It was after the cakewalk when the trouble started.

                    And I'm not going to do a lot of looking this up but there were two groups - the Rumsfeld/Chaney group which pretty much wanted to remove Saddam and figured they could install Chalabi and his cronies and walk away. Then there was the Powell group who warned about a long-term occupation and possible problems. In fact, I believe Powell was quoted as warning Bush that if they invaded "You will own this country until you can fix it."

                    The problem is, Bush went with the Rumsfeld plan, discounted the Powell group completely and here we are. If we'd taken firm control right away and not sent most of the troops scurrying around looking for nonexistent WMD's, we'd have still had problems but nothing like what's going on now. McCain's been saying we needed more troops for years. I thought it was pretty well known from Viet Nam that if you leave the enemy with a sanctuary where he can regroup and resupply that guerilla warfare can last pretty much forever. Evidently we forgot that until this January.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                      Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
                      Arcadian, of course there were many voices warning of just exactly happening what has evolved in Iraq prior to the invasion. One of the more notable voices was Brent Scowcroft, National Security advisor under Bush I who penned this prescient editorial for the Wall Street Journal in Aug. of '02:
                      http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110002133
                      Ah yes, prescient voices, dating back to Bush I's presidency. Just as there were politically opportunistic voices dating back to September 1992 (just over a month before that year's presidential election), in which then-VP candidate Al Gore bashed then-president George H.W. Bush for being insufficiently tough on known terrorist Saddam Hussein. Gore pledged that, if elected, the "Clinton Gore administration would get tough on Saddam.

                      It didn't quite work out that way, but it is telling that the same certain, self assured critics of Bush II include the same guy who, a decade earlier, and when seeking election to national office, was on precisely the opposite side regarding the danger presented by Saddam. It is very entertaining to watch this video, for those who, in describing Bush, toss around terms like "arrogant":

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
                      Last edited by Bat Boy; 08-01-2007, 11:42 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                        There's certainly been some improvement in the areas of the troop surge, but nothing is being done to seal the borders to keep foreign fighters from turning Iraq into an international battlefield.

                        Vietnam had good days, too.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                          There's certainly been some improvement in the areas of the troop surge, but nothing is being done to seal the borders to keep foreign fighters from turning Iraq into an international battlefield.
                          How do you know this? "Insurgents" from outside Iraq -- from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, etc. etc. -- having been coming across borders to fight in Iraq for 5 years, and there has been much commentary and much attention paid to that phenomenon both by the military and the media. Yet you think "nothing is being done to seal the borders"? What makes you think the problem is lack of effort or concern, rather than, as reported, the highly porous nature of those borders, and the difficulties in spreading enough troops over hundreds of miles to interdict foreign fighters intent on getting in?

                          Vietnam had good days, too.
                          Indeed. And then as now, the predominently left wing media is refusing to report on those good days. We know that in Vietnam, CBS news anchor Walter Chronkite took it upon himself one night after an overwhelming, smashing American victory in the Tet Offensive, to falsely report it as a defeat, and moreover proof that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. The effect of this lie was to undermine support for that effort among gullible, trusting Americans, who could not conceive that their media institutions would lie to them. Yet lie they did, then as now. The difference is that the lefties no longer have a monopoly in news reporting, and Americans who want to know the truth are able to learn it from alternative sources. Check some of them out sometime, E. For what is really going on in Iraq, I recommend this on-the-ground reporter, Michael Yon, who unlike lots of so-called Main Stream Media types does not hang out in the echo chamber saloon at the Baghdad Hilton, and instead writes about what he witnesses: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/...rt-i-of-ii.htm

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                            What a complete load of BS that post was Bat. If anything it was the so-called "left leaning media" that helped enable this war more than anyone. Judy Miller at the NY Times was the gullible tool who spread the WMD line of lies fed to her by the Bush admin., Thomas Friedman, probably the best known of the NY Times editorialists was on board for the invasion from the outset as well as just about the entirety of the Washington Post op-ed crew.
                            Viet Nam was sold time and time again as the duckboard against the "domino theory" that if America didn't stop communism there, all of SE Asia and then the world would fall to communism. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AFTER WE LEFT. That famous surrenderist William F.Buckley has stated that we likely wouldn't have won the cold war had we continued on in Viet Nam.

                            The successes in "the surge" are a whitewash. We have cut a deal with the devil and made the Sunni Militias our best buddies and built them up and their primary goal is to destroy the predominantly Shiite and Kurdish government we have built as a represention of democracy, significantly reducing their willingness to engage in political reconciliation as evidenced by their withdrawal from the goverment this week.

                            The whole thing is just an effort by Bushco to kick the can down the curb to a Democratic administration because they don't have the guts to admit they made a colossal mistake with the invasion just like they didn't have the guts to join the military when it was their turn to serve
                            Here's a quote from Michael Ware who has been in Iraq since the beginning of the war and didn't just do a drive by like the authors of the oped:

                            ...there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.

                            The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.

                            And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created.
                            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...d_b_58769.html

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                              How do you know this? "Insurgents" from outside Iraq -- from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, etc. etc. -- having been coming across borders to fight in Iraq for 5 years, and there has been much commentary and much attention paid to that phenomenon both by the military and the media. Yet you think "nothing is being done to seal the borders"? What makes you think the problem is lack of effort or concern, rather than, as reported, the highly porous nature of those borders, and the difficulties in spreading enough troops over hundreds of miles to interdict foreign fighters intent on getting in?

                              Indeed. And then as now, the predominently left wing media is refusing to report on those good days. We know that in Vietnam, CBS news anchor Walter Chronkite took it upon himself one night after an overwhelming, smashing American victory in the Tet Offensive, to falsely report it as a defeat, and moreover proof that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. The effect of this lie was to undermine support for that effort among gullible, trusting Americans, who could not conceive that their media institutions would lie to them. Yet lie they did, then as now. The difference is that the lefties no longer have a monopoly in news reporting, and Americans who want to know the truth are able to learn it from alternative sources. Check some of them out sometime, E. For what is really going on in Iraq, I recommend this on-the-ground reporter, Michael Yon, who unlike lots of so-called Main Stream Media types does not hang out in the echo chamber saloon at the Baghdad Hilton, and instead writes about what he witnesses: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/...rt-i-of-ii.htm
                              You're taking my meaning out of context. I'm not saying absolutely nothing is being done. I'm saying that if there's going to be a "troop surge", it should be at the borders, not in Baghdad. Conservatives are very keen on saying "we fight over there, so we don't have to fight here". Well, why are we fighting in Baghdad when we could be fighting in the desert? We're not extending the same courtesy to Iraqi citizens as we do to ourselves. Face facts, we CANNOT have peace as long as the borders are open enough for Saudis to come fight for Al Quaeda in Iraq and as long as Iranian EFPs are being trucked in daily.

                              And don't tell me "Iraq has too much border". Install a "death zone" at the border if you have to, and fly sorties, and destroy anything moving in that zone, no questions asked. If that's too bloody for you, then it's time to ask other countries, beg them even, for help supplying the manpower neccessary to completely seal the borders. This isn't Vietnam. We have the ability, in theory, to keep most of the people who want to fight from being able to fight. But just like Vietnam, we're unwilling to take the neccessary steps in the beginning to ensure victory.

                              Until that border is akin to a leaky dike as opposed to a sieve, we can not and will not "win" the peace.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

                                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                                nothing is being done to seal the borders
                                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                                You're taking my meaning out of context. I'm not saying absolutely nothing is being done.
                                E, it is apparent that we actually do not disagree all that much here. The problems with policing the borders in Iraq are serious, we agree on that. But you either own your own words or you don't -- I quoted you, and I did not distort your words. Either be more precise in your statements or don't get so irritated when your quotes are questioned. I do think you are trying to be intellectually honest here but were a little imprecise in making your point.

                                MS, on the other hand, would have us believe that he is somehow rebutting my claim that the media is biased, often dishonest, by asserting that the NYT was biased and dishonest in the run up to the Iraq War. At least we can both agree that the media is often biased and dishonest in its reporting.

                                MS ignores the point I actually made, namely, that Walter Cronkite falsely reported to the American people the outcome of an overwhelming American victory in the Tet Offensive. And, the effect of that false reporting was to turn the American people against supporting that very noble effort by thousands of American troops in Vietnam.

                                MS then actually invokes the very same "it didn't happen" argument as John Kerry was caught lying about this past week. As MS puts it:

                                Viet Nam was sold time and time again as the duckboard against the "domino theory" that if America didn't stop communism there, all of SE Asia and then the world would fall to communism. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AFTER WE LEFT
                                "It didn't happen after we left?" I guess it all depends on the meaning of "it." If by "it" you mean the domino theory, whereby all of SE Asia would fall to communism if we were not successful in drawing the line in Vietnam, then indeed "it" didn't happen. But if "it" means that no SE Asian countries would fall if American troops withdrew, then MS is spectacularly wrong.

                                Here is what did happen:

                                In 1973, the U.S. withdrew its troops from Vietnam, as Mr. Kerry had urged. In December 1974, the Democratic Congress ended military aid to South Vietnam. In April 1975, Saigon fell.

                                According to a 2001 investigation by the Orange County Register, Hanoi's communist regime imprisoned a million Vietnamese without charge in "re-education" camps, where an estimated 165,000 perished. "Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed," the Register reported.

                                Laos and Cambodia also fell to communists in 1975. Time magazine reported in 1978 that some 40,000 Laotians had been imprisoned in re-education camps: "The regime's figures do not include 12,000 unfortunates who have been packed off to Phong Saly. There, no pretense at re-education is made. As one high Pathet Lao official told Australian journalist John Everingham, who himself spent eight days in a Lao prison last year, 'No one ever returns.' "

                                The postwar horrors of Vietnam and Laos paled next to the "killing fields" of Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge undertook an especially vicious revolution. During that regime's 3 1/2-year rule, at least a million Cambodians, and perhaps as many as two million, died from starvation, disease, overwork or murder. The Vietnamese invaders who toppled the Khmer Rouge in 1979 were liberators, albeit only by comparison.
                                http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010382

                                So, to recap, and contrary to what MS would have you believe, not only did Vietnam fall to the Communists following the American troop withdrawal, but neighboring countries of Laos and Cambodia fell (to the Communist Khmer Rouge) too, and in the next few years. No, not all of SE Asia fell to the Communists, only the vast majority of it, and to this very date, 30 years later, Laos and Vietnam, as well as North Korea and China in the same region, remain Communist. But, to take MS's argument, because only 3 countries fell to the Communists in SE Asia, resulting in millions of murders, then the domino theory is somehow discredited, or worthy of his ridicule.

                                The Communists takeover -- which American troops had successfully resisted until the Democrats in Congress forced a withdrawal and abandonment of the people in that region -- resulted, contrary to the great John Kerry's confident prediction on the Dick Cavitt show in 1971 (2 years before the Dems succeeded in the very same argument they are now making in Iraq) in the deaths of MILLIONs.

                                The Dems' game plan in Iraq is the identical game plan they followed successfully in Vietnam -- undermine public support for the war, use their allies in the left wing media to distort the true picture of what is occurring there (Scott Beauchamp, anyone?) and then take NO RESPONSIBILITY for the carnage that follows.

                                MS, we disagree about the wisdom and morality of the war in Iraq, but if you are going to make the same claims about what we ought to do in Iraq as were made by the Left during Vietnam you'll need to start talking honestly about what happened there. And while not every SE Asian nation fell to Communism, several did. The domino theory was hardly deserving of the scorn you would bestow on it, and, after all, it is no small or good thing that millions were murdered following America's abandonment of the region, and if you want to persuade lots of Americans that we should abandon the Iraqis you might do better to honestly differentiate what happened in Vietnam than simply to pretend the predictions made then as now by the likes of John Kerry bear any resemblance to history.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X