Isn't that amazing? We only hear about the "surge is working" rhetoric and ignoring the suffering of the Iraqi people. Who are we supposed to be fighting this war for? Bush?
The surge is working is only so much more bull crap which probably fool some of the people again.
I posted this to show there really is insignificant progress with this so called surge; certainly not enough to call it a success. Time will tell soon enough.
Meanwhile
Terrorist Alerts
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist
threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved."
Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or
even "A Bit Cross." Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the
blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists themselves
have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance."
The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was
during the great fire of 1666.
Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised
its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in
France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by
a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively
paralyzing the country's military capability. It's not only the English and
French that are on a heightened level of alert.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to
"Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: Ineffective Combat
Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance"
to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher
levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only
threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy.
These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish
navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
--Anonymous
Advocate, Very funny! Had my good belly laugh for today. Thanks.
You are welcome. We have to occasionally lighten up.
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
Quote:
> the burden of proof always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement
I never made this statement.
You injected the word 'always' into one of my statements. Why must you resort to paraphrasing, Ican? Why can't you address people's actual arguments?
...
Cycloptichorn
There is no difference in the meaning of these statements:
the burden of proof belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement.
the burden of proof
always belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement;
You did not qualify the word
belongs with the word
frequently or one of its equivalents, so I logically inferred that you believed your statement to be unqualified. In my paraphrase, I merely made that explicit by adding the word
always.
This is a great example of how you get in to trouble by paraphrasing, ICan.
I'd like you to quote my original post where I stated - without any other qualifiers - that 'the burden of proof belongs to the maker of an affirmative statement.'
Though, now that I think about it - can you posit an instance in which someone makes an affirmative statement of fact, and the burden of disproving this falls upon someone else - and not the person making the statement and providing no evidence for it?
Cycloptichorn
No! But I can posit an instance in which someone makes an affirmative statement followed by a non-affirmative statement by someone else disagreeing with the affirmative statement, such that the burden of proof falls on both.
For example:
Able: The sky is falling.
Baker: The sky cannot fall.
Both thereby carry a burden of proof even though the second is not an affirmative statement.
The second statement is of the same form (not content) of:
The earth is not the center of the universe. At least initially, the claimant possesses the burden of proof. Depending on what the rebuter says, that burden may or may not have to be shared. If the rebutter says: you're nuts, wrong, evil, or whatever, he immediately picks up a burden of proof. If he says, why do you think so, the claimant retains the full burden of proof.
When you accused my paraphrase of being a straw man, you picked up your share of the burden of proof.
By the way, when you accuse me of something negative or positive, you pick up the burden of proof to prove your accusation true.
A statement is Affirmative if you are affirming something to be true OR not true; there is more then one definition for Affirmative, Ican.
If you are stating 'the sky cannot fall,' then you are AFFIRMING that it cannot fall, and have a burden of proof. It doesn't matter whether your statement is a positive or negative one.
You are correct that if the response is 'you're nuts,' a certain amount of burden of proof is on the maker of that affirmative claim. But, I didn't do that. I asked you what
your proof of your contention was, and then challenged the validity of using paraphrasing as proof.
Believe me, in re: the Gore argument, I have been careful to not make affirmative statements...
Cycloptichorn
The BBC and the AP have proven themselves to be no less unreliable sources of actual news than is Cheney.
ican711nm wrote:The BBC and the AP have proven themselves to be no less unreliable sources of actual news than is Cheney.
CORRECTION
The BBC and the AP have THEMSELVES PROVIDED EVIDENCE THEY ARE no less unreliable sources of actual news than is Cheney
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
...
A statement is Affirmative if you are affirming something to be true OR not true; there is more then one definition for Affirmative, Ican.
OK! I buy it!
If you are stating 'the sky cannot fall,' then you are AFFIRMING that it cannot fall, and have a burden of proof. It doesn't matter whether your statement is a positive or negative one.
OK! I buy it!
You are correct that if the response is 'you're nuts,' a certain amount of burden of proof is on the maker of that affirmative claim. But, I didn't do that. I asked you what your proof of your contention was, and then challenged the validity of using paraphrasing as proof.
NO! I do not agree because you also made your affirmative statements that my evidence (not my proof, since I will never claim I have proof of anything!) was a "straw man." As you know, I think the evidence I provided, is an accurate paraphrase of Gore's claims in his books (Earth in the Balance, Assault on Reason, An Inconvenient Truth). I also think Gore a fool because of his claims that the people who disagree with him about the cause of earth warming are bad.
Believe me, in re: the Gore argument, I have been careful to not make affirmative statements...
NO! You have not been careful to not make affirmative statements ... You have made them.
Cycloptichorn
I accept this. A couple of posts ago, I wrote:
Quote:
You are correct, in that my estimation that your paraphrasing of Gore's statement is a strawman, represents my opinion. A careful examination of his books may reveal exactly, or functionally, the same phrase as what you have described.
When asked for proof to back up my affirmative claim, I indicated that it was my opinion and I did not have proof that it was definitely a straw man.
This is a perfectly proper response to a request for confirmation evidence for an affirmative claim.
Now, let's move on from this discussion back to Iraq...
Cycloptichorn
About 95% of the information from Cheney is unreliable. About .05% of the info from the AP and BBC is unreliable. There's no comparison.
ican shows even he can be funny :
Quote:The BBC and the AP have THEMSELVES PROVIDED EVIDENCE THEY ARE no less unreliable sources of actual news than is Cheney
i do detect some SLIGHT unhappiness with vice president cheney's pronouncements
!
there is hope for all of us now !
hbg
Quote:Iraqi progress 'disappoints' US
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said he is disappointed by the lack of political progress in Iraq.
(i do wonder if his language - off camera - was really that civilezed ? hbg)
The Bush administration had probably underestimated the depth of mistrust among Iraq's various factions, he said at the end of a Middle East tour.
Recent developments were discouraging, he said, citing the withdrawal of the main Sunni Arab bloc from government.
A recent surge in US troop numbers was designed to provide a breathing space to pursue reconciliation, he added.
Mr Gates's comments have been seen by many as a vote of no confidence in the abilities of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki.
see for complete report :
U.S. DEFENCE SECRETARY "DISAPPOINTED"
The Joint Campaign Plan
A strategy for stability in Iraq.
by Richard S. Lowry
Daily Standard
08/02/2007 12:00:00 AM
THE JOINT CAMPAIGN PLAN was developed and has been approved by the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and Multinational Force-Iraq as a top-level strategic planning document for both the Embassy and Multinational Force-Iraq missions. The Joint Campaign Plan certainly does not contain all the answers for the U.S. strategy in Iraq, but it is a living document and will be modified and amended as the situation there continues to develop. Still, the original strategy is a comprehensive plan that has both near-term and long-term goals in four critical areas--political, security, economic and diplomatic.
Since his installation as the Multinational Force commander in Iraq, General Petraeus has repeatedly stated that the solution in Iraq is not completely military. And, with the Washington clock ticking faster than the Baghdad clock, accomplishments in the Iraqi political arena have become the paramount issue. Thus, the main emphasis of this new plan will be along the political line, with supporting efforts in the other three areas.
Colonel Steve Boylan, General Petraeus' personal Public Affairs Officer, pointed out to me in a recent set of emails that the Joint Campaign Plan is focused on "efforts to build governance capacity, communicate strategically, spread the rule of law and bring about reconciliation between competing factions." The initial focus will remain on bringing security to the people of Iraq, while assisting Iraqi reconciliation wherever possible.
The surge is part of the overall strategy defined within the Joint Campaign Plan. Additional forces were brought in to Iraq to bring stability and security to the Iraqi people, primarily in Baghdad. The original plan was modified as the Coalition forces started clearing neighborhoods--insurgents, or "squirters," left Baghdad and moved into the surrounding belts. Operation Phantom Thunder has worked to secure not only Baghdad, but the surrounding areas in Babil, Diyala, and Salah ad-Din provinces. Now, with the surge forces in place, the Coalition's attention is turning to reconciliation.
Colonel Boylan went on to say that "The campaign is intended to maintain a sustainable security capability throughout Iraq, starting with local security We are trying to set conditions for them to negotiate a power-sharing agreement where they decide to quit fighting."
The nature of this conflict is complex. It is a "communal struggle" for power and survival. There still remain elements of a Sunni-based insurgency and a radical Islamist terrorism intent on winning their cause through violence and intimidation. If that were not enough, Iraq's neighbors, particularly Syria and Iran, are stoking the fire, while the government in Baghdad is "chronically unable to fulfill its obligations to its citizens."
This unique conflict requires a unique solution. Colonel Boylan stated, "One way to end the conflict would be to let them fight it out. The other way is to negotiate a power-sharing agreement..." The Joint Campaign Plan is focusing on power-sharing and reconciling the reconcilables. The military element of the plan will deal with the irreconcilables.
Picture several guys fighting; none of them can stop or they risk getting "popped" by one of their opponents. Such is the case with the several competing factions in Iraq. Our forces have to reach in and separate them. Once that happens, other elements of coalition power can be applied. This is where the political, economic and diplomatic facets of the Joint Campaign Plan will come into play. By addressing each "fighter's" concerns in a secure environment, the plan aims to "convince them to stop fighting on a more-or-less permanent basis."
Anbar Province stands out as an example of what we might be able to do throughout Iraq in the coming months. In 2005, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Starling characterized the province as a cross between the "Wild West" and "Mad Max." As late as last year, some politicians and media commentators were claiming that Anbar was a lost cause. But then, last fall, the sheikhs of Anbar began to turn on al Qaeda. The sheikhs went to the U.S. Marines and asked for help in ridding their neighborhoods of the al Qaeda scourge. They brought their sons to serve in the Iraqi Army and local police forces so that they could fight al Qaeda themselves and eventually maintain their own security.
Lieutenant Shawn Mercer, a Public Affairs Officer for the coalition commanding general in Anbar Province, Major General W. E. Gaskin, told me in a recent correspondence, "On July 7th, about 200 municipal leaders and professionals gathered for the Anbar Covenant, or 'Promise of the People' Conference in Ramadi, hosted by the Alwani Tribe. They all pledged to fight al-Qaeda and they pledged to support the Coalition." They pledged to rebuild their society and to do it all through the Iraqi government and the rule of law. And the Marines pledged to provide a protective umbrella until the people are able to maintain their own security. On the next day, Mercer continued, "the Albu Issa tribe hosted tribal and municipal leaders for the Thawr al Haq, or 'Uprising of the Right,' conference in Fallujah." Again, "this gathering was held to build cohesiveness and celebrate unity with Coalition Forces and the provincial and national governments. Attendees pledged to fight terrorist forces across Iraq." Even with an ever-present al Qaeda threat, the cities of Anbar are all now relatively safe places to live and work.
Still, success in Iraq is anywhere but certain. It is dependent on the Iraqis coming to the realization that they can't achieve their goals through fighting and that the competing forces are Iraqi first and Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and Christian second. If this weren't enough, General Petraeus is working to bring peace to Iraq with a limited number of forces and a timeline that is much shorter than he would like.
The new Joint Campaign Plan addresses all these issues and its implementation will attempt to return stability to the Iraqi government and people. Colonel Boylan is quick to caution, "There are no absolutes in this endeavor, but rest assured we are all in, and are and will do all that we can to ensure continued progress for a successful conclusion."
Richard S. Lowry is the author of Marines in the Garden of Eden. He served in the U.S. Navy Submarine Service from 1967-1975.
When will people get it through their heads that nothing can be done without a viable government. It's not about the military, stupid!
looking at ican post "The Joint Campaign Plan " and secretary gates' comments , it seems that the two are not talking about the same iraq .
as an aside :
in canada's "involvement" in afghanistan , canada's minister of defence , gordon o'connor , stated that "in another 4 - 5 months suffient afghan troops would be trained to take much of the load off the canadian contingent" .
the head of canadadian forces - general hillier - shortly thereafter spoke of "many years " . his comments were quickly repeated by generals and senior officers on the ground .
so the defence minister now states that he has been "misunderstood" .
the canadian prime minister has told his cabinet members to be in canada starting mid-august - no more holidays !
a major cabinet shuffle is expected and mr. o'connor may be "kicked upstairs" - if he is lucky . that means , he might be appointed to the senate - somewhat similar to the british house of lords , were he would be permitted to "warm the bench" .
it's a strange world - was tempted to say : FUNNY , but it isn't !
hbg
From the article.
Quote: "They pledged to rebuild their society and to do it all through the Iraqi government and the rule of law."
The Iraqi government is broken. It's been broken since the elections. Do you understand anything?
cicerone imposter wrote:From the article.
Quote: "They pledged to rebuild their society and to do it all through the Iraqi government and the rule of law."
The Iraqi government is broken. It's been broken since the elections. Do you understand anything?
That did not work, did it? Other strategies and/or tactics did not work, did they? So now we shall try another stategy and/or set of tactics.
Do you not understand anything about problem solving. A problem solver keeps trying until the cost (e.g., life and treasure) of trying to solve the problem exceeds the cost of failing to solve the problem. We're a long way from that condition, so we shall keep trying to solve the problem.
I understand that you think the problem not solvable. I understand you think the cost of trying to solve the problem already exceeds the cost of not solving the problem. I disagree. I think the cost of not solving the problem to be roughly equivalent to what the cost to us would have been had we not solved the Nazi problem. I think that cost would have been intolerable. When faced with such a problem, a rational problem solver persists until he succeeds or dies.
Consequently, I have zero respect for all your negative opinions and your postings of other people's negative opinions. If you were to have an idea or two about how to solve the problem, I'd be interested. Otherwise, what you post is worthless to me.
By the way, your slanders of me and others who wish to persist trying to solve the problem are evidence that you have not had any ideas worth discussing. In brief, you act like a pseudo-liberal; that is, like a fake liberal. True liberals are people who are open minded and not strict in the observance of doctrines that do not work. They look for solutions and not ways to criticize those trying to find a way to make things work.
