THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Frank Apisa wrote:

We're gonna lose a lot of chips the way you are playing, Bill. And the top stack doesn't stay the top stack playing that way.

At some point we are gonna realize our only option is to fold 'em. Might just as well do that while our losses are still fairly small.

But I am a realist...and I realize that we are gonna tough it out.

How truly terrible this entire fiasco is. How very avoidable it was.

You need a new metaphor dude. Of all starting hands Qs offer the third highest winning percentage. Every expert in the field will tell you to play at least the top 10 starting hands very aggressively when you're behind the big stack. This is how you win tournaments, Frank. The only exception I can fathom, short a good read, would be if 2 other players beat you in... and even then it would be a tough lay-down. :wink:

Iraq is not Vietnam. There is no similarity between them that couldn't also be applied to any serious conflict. The first 7 points scored in a football game does not foretell the outcome. Nor does the first interception thrown.

If it were a fair comparison, then you would be advocating we stand down while the a couple million MORE people are exterminated... and leaving the other 20 million-plus worse off than when we started. Not a good idea Frank.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

We're gonna lose a lot of chips the way you are playing, Bill. And the top stack doesn't stay the top stack playing that way.

At some point we are gonna realize our only option is to fold 'em. Might just as well do that while our losses are still fairly small.

But I am a realist...and I realize that we are gonna tough it out.

How truly terrible this entire fiasco is. How very avoidable it was.

You need a new metaphor dude. Of all starting hands Qs offer the third highest winning percentage. Every expert in the field will tell you to play at least the top 10 starting hands very aggressively when you're behind the big stack. This is how you win tournaments, Frank. The only exception I can fathom, short a good read, would be if 2 other players beat you in... and even then it would be a tough lay-down. :wink:

Iraq is not Vietnam. There is no similarity between them that couldn't also be applied to any serious conflict. The first 7 points scored in a football game does not foretell the outcome. Nor does the first interception thrown.

If it were a fair comparison, then you would be advocating we stand down while the a couple million MORE people are exterminated... and leaving the other 20 million-plus worse off than when we started. Not a good idea Frank.

Bill, where would you draw the line .... or are you saying that we should fight to the last man standing? We are getting our asses whipped over there every day and do not advance our goal of 'getting out the vote' a single centimeter. The administration is playing by ear .... and a tone deaf one at that.
25 million people ... let us assume that one third are of the ages 15 through 40. What chance would our 150,000 troops have should that 1/3 decide to ask us to leave?
Right war .... wrong President.

Bill, where would you draw the line .... or are you saying that we should fight to the last man standing?

We are getting our asses whipped over there every day and do not advance our goal of 'getting out the vote' a single centimeter. The administration is playing by ear .... and a tone deaf one at that.
25 million people ... let us assume that one third are of the ages 15 through 40. What chance would our 150,000 troops have should that 1/3 decide to ask us to leave?

In reality we thanks to Bush and company are between a rock and a hard place. We can't cut and run that IMO is unthinkable. And we cannot win against the insurgency by continuing with our present course of action. The problem is as it has been from the beginning, not enough boots on the ground. It makes little sense to fight and win a battle by clearing a city of insurgents only to leave and allow the insurgents to return. You must hold what you win. For that you need sufficient forces.
All the bullcrap coming out of the administration regarding how well things are progressing is just that. The insurgents are becoming stronger and more organized as evidenced by the increased casualty count.

Like Frank, much of your position is built on the assumption we will fail. Objectivity demands that you consider other possibilities.

Well yes Bill, Pol Pot was a bad man, Saddam was a bad man too, but I was talking about a western nation using increased explosives against unprotected populations.

I do not, read back a few posts, advocate taking the military out until the country is well policed, by whatever means.

Oops, you beat me there.

I understand why you make the comparison... but short of a quick victory, I can't imagine why you wouldn't. It is an example of a failure, nothing more.

Aside: Frank, have seen the "Fog of War"? McNamara's candor is amazing.

There are a few of us usual suspects who do advocate just getting out of Iraq, I also suspect we know very well that we represent a very small minority of thought. It's not that we expect this to happen but rather, that we do offer another opinion. Which is not a bad thing. So we have represented on A2K those that would prefer to see the US turn Iraq into a parking lots as well as those of us that would like to see us come home, stopping the killing and the dying. It is interesting to note that the hardliners re the Iraq invasion seem to find it necessary to label the other extreme (me and a handful of others) as hating america. Sounds all too familiar to me. But as foxfyre says, it's good to have divergence of opinions.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Oops, you beat me there.

I understand why you make the comparison... but short of a quick victory, I can't imagine why you wouldn't. It is an example of a failure, nothing more.

Aside: Frank, have seen the "Fog of War"? McNamara's candor is amazing.

No I haven't, Bill.

Like a lot of people...I wish McNamara had seen the light back when he could have helped stop the carnage.

But...such is life.

Things have been so bad for me on the tables...I'm staying away for a while. And when I go back...my guess is I will stick to the Bad Beat Jackpot section!!!~

There are a few of us usual suspects who do advocate just getting out of Iraq, I also suspect we know very well that we represent a very small minority of thought. It's not that we expect this to happen but rather, that we do offer another opinion. Which is not a bad thing. So we have represented on A2K those that would prefer to see the US turn Iraq into a parking lots as well as those of us that would like to see us come home, stopping the killing and the dying. It is interesting to note that the hardliners re the Iraq invasion seem to find it necessary to label the other extreme (me and a handful of others) as hating america. Sounds all too familiar to me. But as foxfyre says, it's good to have divergence of opinions.

Revel, do you even know the game we've been referencing? When someone follows a point with their own, that doesn't mean they 'missed' anything. I seriously doubt Frank would elect you to speak on his behalf and I most certainly don't need you to illuminate his points for me. Thanks anyway.

dyslexia wrote:

There are a few of us usual suspects who do advocate just getting out of Iraq, I also suspect we know very well that we represent a very small minority of thought. It's not that we expect this to happen but rather, that we do offer another opinion. Which is not a bad thing. So we have represented on A2K those that would prefer to see the US turn Iraq into a parking lots as well as those of us that would like to see us come home, stopping the killing and the dying. It is interesting to note that the hardliners re the Iraq invasion seem to find it necessary to label the other extreme (me and a handful of others) as hating america. Sounds all too familiar to me. But as foxfyre says, it's good to have divergence of opinions.

I couldn't agree more, Dys. Don't mistake my frequent references to the Blame America First Club as being the same as the select group you just volunteered to be counted with... though you are probably a member of that one too. While related in many ways, the BAFC isn't a label for Bush haters or Anti-war folks... it is reserved for those who literally blame America first upon hearing bad news. McTag, for instance, disagrees with the cut and run strategy but remains nonetheless a prominent member of the BAFC. :wink: Similarly, you can accurately accuse we of Warmongering, but labeling me with the Partisan Republican groups who agree will frequently prove inaccurate. "America hating" is an extreme I've accused none of you of (that I recall). That's a very select group.

Don't be too offended, darlin. Just meeting your snicker with one of my own. No big deal. :wink: