How Do We Win in Iraq?

C.I., dont play a suckers [sic] game. you will be forced to document every single item and he is unwilling do the same for his position, and even then, as this weirdo just did to you, your documentation will be cast a side with a "so what?"

best force your adversary explain his definition of "winning" in iraq, how it relates to what was purported [sic] the reason bush invaded, have him define the measurement for "winning" and provide relavent [sic] benchmarks that are quantifyable [sic]. if he can't do that, then any claim of "winning" in iraq is just so much smoke being blown up your a$$ .

i just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered, you [sic] are wasting your breath and time on the likes of such. a lot of ego is riding on this for him and to admit he is wrong is simply too much for such a fragile mind.

give it up. you wil [sic] get more objectivity from your dog.

Success, to me, would be for American troops to leave Iraq in a sufficiently stable condition to maintain its democracy by itself, with only the ordinary difficulties that democracy normally brings. This would include either the destruction of the insurgency or its reduction to a level where it was merely a small anoyance, easily controllable by indigenous forces.

If you can't understand that as a criterion for success, then so be it.

Brandon wrote

Quote:

Success, to me, would be for American troops to leave Iraq in a sufficiently stable condition to maintain its democracy by itself, with only the ordinary difficulties that democracy normally brings. This would include either the destruction of the insurgency or its reduction to a level where it was merely a small anoyance, easily controllable by indigenous forces.

If you can't understand that as a criterion for success, then so be it.

Yes that would be a win for our side. The problem of course as things now stand there is not a snowballs chance in hell that those aims will be achieved. We are more likely to leave Iraq with our tail between our legs.

C.I., dont play a suckers game. you will be forced to document every single item and he is unwilling do the same for his position, and even then, as this weirdo just did to you, your documentation will be cast a side with a "so what?"

best force your adversary explain his definition of "winning" in iraq, how it relates to what was purported the reason bush invaded, have him define the measurement for "winning" and provide relavent benchmarks that are quantifyable. if he can't do that, then any claim of "winning" in iraq is just so much smoke being blown up your a$$ .

i just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered, you are wasting your breath and time on the likes of such. a lot of ego is riding on this for him and to admit he is wrong is simply too much for such a fragile mind.

give it up. you wil get more objectivity from your dog.

kuvasz wrote:

C.I., dont play a suckers game. you will be forced to document every single item and he is unwilling do the same for his position, and even then, as this weirdo just did to you, your documentation will be cast a side with a "so what?"

best force your adversary explain his definition of "winning" in iraq, how it relates to what was purported the reason bush invaded, have him define the measurement for "winning" and provide relavent benchmarks that are quantifyable. if he can't do that, then any claim of "winning" in iraq is just so much smoke being blown up your a$$ .

i just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered, you are wasting your breath and time on the likes of such. a lot of ego is riding on this for him and to admit he is wrong is simply too much for such a fragile mind.

give it up. you wil get more objectivity from your dog.

Well said, Kuvasz. Well said!

I like one line so much...I've gotta repeat it and extend it:

kuvasz wrote:

...I just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered...

I think that is the position so many people who initially supported this horrible misadventure are in.

Too bad that!

This would include either the destruction of the insurgency or its reduction to a level where it was merely a small anoyance, easily controllable by indigenous forces.

Success, to me, would be for American troops to leave Iraq in a sufficiently stable condition to maintain its democracy by itself. with only the ordinary difficulties that democracy normally brings. This would include either the destruction of the insurgency or its reduction to a level where it was merely a small anoyance

Diplomats in the Foreign Office are working frantically in private on what they refer to as the "exit ticket" from Iraq.

In contrast to the official line that British forces will remain until the job is done, the Foreign Office wants to engineer a set of circumstances in which both Britain and the US can begin to reduce troops next year. But the speed with which unrest and violence is growing is making this harder.

Ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private. A Foreign Office source said the goal of the US administration to turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East had long ago been shelved. "We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along," the source said.

Frank Apisa wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

C.I., dont play a suckers game. you will be forced to document every single item and he is unwilling do the same for his position, and even then, as this weirdo just did to you, your documentation will be cast a side with a "so what?"

best force your adversary explain his definition of "winning" in iraq, how it relates to what was purported the reason bush invaded, have him define the measurement for "winning" and provide relavent benchmarks that are quantifyable. if he can't do that, then any claim of "winning" in iraq is just so much smoke being blown up your a$$ .

i just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered, you are wasting your breath and time on the likes of such. a lot of ego is riding on this for him and to admit he is wrong is simply too much for such a fragile mind.

give it up. you wil get more objectivity from your dog.

Well said, Kuvasz. Well said!

I like one line so much...I've gotta repeat it and extend it:

kuvasz wrote:

...I just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered...

I think that is the position so many people who initially supported this horrible misadventure are in.

Too bad that!

Speaking of intellectual capabilities, check out my correction of his deplorable English, which, apparently, your sensibilities were too course to notice in your first reading.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

C.I., dont play a suckers game. you will be forced to document every single item and he is unwilling do the same for his position, and even then, as this weirdo just did to you, your documentation will be cast a side with a "so what?"

best force your adversary explain his definition of "winning" in iraq, how it relates to what was purported the reason bush invaded, have him define the measurement for "winning" and provide relavent benchmarks that are quantifyable. if he can't do that, then any claim of "winning" in iraq is just so much smoke being blown up your a$$ .

i just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered, you are wasting your breath and time on the likes of such. a lot of ego is riding on this for him and to admit he is wrong is simply too much for such a fragile mind.

give it up. you wil get more objectivity from your dog.

Well said, Kuvasz. Well said!

I like one line so much...I've gotta repeat it and extend it:

kuvasz wrote:

...I just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered...

I think that is the position so many people who initially supported this horrible misadventure are in.

Too bad that!

Speaking of intellectual capabilities, check out my correction of his deplorable English, which, apparently, your sensibilities were too course to notice in your first reading.

If you would like me to see that you are low enough to actually handle a post like that by "correction of his deplorable English"...I am willing to do so.

Please furnish a link to the posting.

I could not find it.

Normally I wouldn't be low enough, but since both of you gratuitously insulted my intellectual abilities, I thought it fair to respond in kind. Odd that you two would be something to me, and then call me "low" for doing the same thing back. It's the first post on the previous page.

Normally I wouldn't be low enough, but since both of you gratuitously insulted my intellectual abilities, I thought it fair to respond in kind. Odd that you two would do something to me, and then call me "low" for doing the same thing back. It's the first post on the previous page.

Wow...that was a very fast edit, Brandon. You can save time by editing your comments before you post them...rather than posting them and then editing them.

(For those of you wondering about the above comment, Brandon originally posted:

Quote:

Normally I wouldn't be low enough, but since both of you gratuitously insulted my intellectual abilities, I thought it fair to respond in kind. Odd that you two would be something to me, and then call me "low" for doing the same thing back. It's the first post on the previous page.

As you can see, before I had a chance to post my response, it was changed to:

Quote:

Normally I wouldn't be low enough, but since both of you gratuitously insulted my intellectual abilities, I thought it fair to respond in kind. Odd that you two would do something to me, and then call me "low" for doing the same thing back. It's the first post on the previous page.

No big thing...I just wanted to acknowledge Brandon for being on his toes.)


In any case, I see that you apparently were referring to the several (sic)'s you entered into his comments.

Yup...he made some mistakes.

Yup...it is low to mention them

Thanks for directing me to the lowness.

Clicked the wrong button...and submitted before editing. Here is the way the post should have come up:

I'll do it by telling you a story...a parable if you will.

There was a guy who exited his subway stop each morning with a friend of his...and each morning, the guy would stop to buy a newspaper at a kiosk just up from the subway landing.

The fellow who ran the kiosk was a surly man...never had a smile or a kind word for anyone who bought a paper, magazine or any of the stuff sold in those kiosks.

Yet each morning...the guy buying the newspaper would graciously thank the kiosk proprietor for his change...and say, "Have a good day."

His friend...after seeing this go on for a long while finally said, "What is it with you? Why do you buy your newpaper here...and why are you so nice to that guy when he is so nasty to you?"

And the first guy said, "I buy the paper here because it is the most convenient newspaper kiosk on the way to the office. And I am nice to him because I am not going to allow someone else to decide how I am going to conduct myself."

Explain to me, please, how it is inappropriate to respond to a post in which a person specifically and explicitly insults my intellect by insulting his?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Explain to me, please, how it is inappropriate to respond to a post in which a person specifically and explicitly insults my intellect by insulting his?

Ummm... "Well he did it first" is the kind of excuse I'd expect from a third-grader. Grow up Brandon.

Frank, I thought this an interesting discussion of the idea you raise, but it aroused more misunderstanding than interest:

Thread