British to Withdraw from Iraq - Page 3

Sundae · 10-16-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV

I think SG's point was "Please don't use the perjorative phrase "Pakis", not "Oh no, don't go to war with them because...". I could be wrong...

Oops, not being very clear there I guess.

Two separate points in a short post
1) Bear in mind some posters find the abbreviation Paki offensive
2) Britain's Pakistanis in general are friends and family. At least the ones I know. The local shops and restaurants in my area are run by Indians, so I can't comment on heinous Pakistani crimes of retail discourtesy

Undertoad · 10-16-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

It's not only the Brits who might break: US military stretched to breaking point

Says some guy at a think tank, not a General.

Wishful thinking in the Guardian.

Hippikos · 10-16-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Says some guy at a think tank, not a General.

Wishful thinking in the Guardian.

UT, like MaggieL and Bush (and Rumsfled) youre in a "State of Denial".

Another report by a retired Army officer under contract of the Pentagon.

I'm afraid no wishful thinking here, just hard reality... The wishful thinking is from your side.

PS: What wrong with The Graudian? Even MaggieL quotes from it...

Undertoad · 10-16-2006, 12:01 PM

Same report as the Guardian, dude.

Ooh they found someone to say bad things! (Good things are never reported.) Was it a recently retired General? No. An ex-officer- i.e., not high-ranking, not current, and not likely to have a great deal of special information. Working at a D.C. think tank. I'm so unimpressed!

And his report is not the headline, either. "If things don't change it's gonna get bad" is a more accurate headline. Problem is, that makes it too clear, it's not newsworthy. "If we don't stop for fuel we will run out." Yeah, so we'll stop for fuel. Duh!

MaggieL · 10-16-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippikos

PS: What wrong with The Graudian? Even MaggieL quotes from it...

I used the Guardian simply because they had the full text of the general's statement. No room to spin there. Otherwise the Guardian's at least as bad as BBC.

MaggieL · 10-16-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippikos

The title is more than adequate.

Must be some secret meaning of "adequate" that includes "false". Now who's dispensing "claptrap"?

Hippikos · 10-17-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Ooh they found someone to say bad things! (Good things are never reported.) Was it a recently retired General? No. An ex-officer- i.e., not high-ranking, not current, and not likely to have a great deal of special information. Working at a D.C. think tank. I'm so unimpressed!

Maybe you weren't impressed, but the top US commander in Iraq Gen.Casey acknowledged the result. Guess which opinion carries more weight here? "The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that".

Here's another report.

And another, recent one... May be you believe the US Army veterans from Iraq?

It isn't really a surprise if you remember Rummy the Great's estimate that US forces would be out of Iraq within a year.

UT, you and MaggieL reminds me so much of Bush. Don't bring the news I don't wanna hear...

Undertoad · 10-17-2006, 09:53 AM

Reading for comprehension: it's a pretty grand piano!

What did Casey say?

Quote:

"The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey said of U.S. armed forces deployed in large numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq. "But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units."

Ah, that word "but". It's a conjunction meant to indicate that there is a condition on the first part of the statement it joins. Let's construct it this way. If we don't stop for fuel, we will run out, but we are going to stop for fuel.

Stretched yes, breaking point no.

Flint · 10-17-2006, 10:06 AM

conjunction-junction, what's your function?!

Hippikos · 10-17-2006, 10:16 AM

UT, the difference is, that Casey's answer is purely political. He would never admit it, even if it was a fact. Dannett's statement was non-political, widely supported by his own troops in Basra.

Many reports of US Army stretched too thin are already from 2004. Current situation is even worse, don't you agree?

Undertoad · 10-17-2006, 10:37 AM

Riiiight, when you thought Casey was confirming your point, it was damning; when it turns out he confirms mine, it's meaninglessly political. Clearly I can't "win" this one, but one last point:

Follow:

If 2004 reports said it was stretched to the breaking point;

And it is worse now than it was in 2004;

And in the 2006 reports, the military is still "stretched to the breaking point" but not described as "broken", ever;

That would tell you the 2004 "stretched to the breaking point" reports were a bunch of bullshit; and

The same media is driving reports in 2006, and the similarity to 2004 is that they are both election years.

Flint · 10-17-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...still "stretched to the breaking point" but not described as "broken", ever;...

One thing, though. We aren't talking about a rubberband (a static capacity); this is a dynamic capacity, it's manipulable.

MaggieL · 10-17-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippikos

UT, you and MaggieL reminds me so much of Bush. Don't bring the news I don't wanna hear...

I read the same news you do...I just apply my own credibilty matrix to it, as I'm sure you do too. Look, I don't expect you to share my values; obviously that will never happen. But I know what the Genera said originally, what he said after that, and what various media wrote about it.

"Don't bring me news I don't want to hear" would include not adjusting your own credibilty matrix on the basis of how this story was reported by various media...including our own tw. (I'd tell you what my own credibilty matrix entry for tw on political topics is at this point, but IEEE floating point can't represent numbers that small. :-) )

When a thread is titled "British to Withdraw From Iraq" when in fact the British *aren't* about to withdraw from Iraq and in fact have announced no such intention, that's just bogus propagandizing. What was that word you used again? Ah yes..."claptrap".

You can wave around all the red herrings you like, but it's still BS.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-17-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

One thing, though. We aren't talking about a rubberband (a static capacity); this is a dynamic capacity, it's manipulable.

Good point, The US Military was stretched 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, but bigger and stronger each of those years.

Maybe were doing a rope-a-dope?

Flint · 10-17-2006, 01:21 PM

So...Bush is all like

and Terrorism is all like

but the Liberal media is all like

and the American public is all like

???

10-17-2006, 10:06 AM	#39
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	conjunction-junction, what's your function?! __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-17-2006, 10:16 AM	#40
Hippikos Flocci Non Facio Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In The Line Of Fire Posts: 571	UT, the difference is, that Casey's answer is purely political. He would never admit it, even if it was a fact. Dannett's statement was non-political, widely supported by his own troops in Basra. Many reports of US Army stretched too thin are already from 2004. Current situation is even worse, don't you agree? __________________ Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.

10-17-2006, 01:21 PM	#45
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	So...Bush is all like and Terrorism is all like but the Liberal media is all like and the American public is all like ??? __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-16-2006, 12:01 PM	#34
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Same report as the Guardian, dude. Ooh they found someone to say bad things! (Good things are never reported.) Was it a recently retired General? No. An ex-officer- i.e., not high-ranking, not current, and not likely to have a great deal of special information. Working at a D.C. think tank. I'm so unimpressed! And his report is not the headline, either. "If things don't change it's gonna get bad" is a more accurate headline. Problem is, that makes it too clear, it's not newsworthy. "If we don't stop for fuel we will run out." Yeah, so we'll stop for fuel. Duh!

10-17-2006, 10:37 AM	#41
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Riiiight, when you thought Casey was confirming your point, it was damning; when it turns out he confirms mine, it's meaninglessly political. Clearly I can't "win" this one, but one last point: Follow: If 2004 reports said it was stretched to the breaking point; And it is worse now than it was in 2004; And in the 2006 reports, the military is still "stretched to the breaking point" but not described as "broken", ever; That would tell you the 2004 "stretched to the breaking point" reports were a bunch of bullshit; and The same media is driving reports in 2006, and the similarity to 2004 is that they are both election years.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)