Progress. We are not making progress. It is painful for me to say that things are actually getting worse.
A friend of mine just returned after his second 12 month tour. (BTW, he's an intelligence officer.) During his first tour, his mission was to locate the insurgent leaders so our teams could go and kill them. They were pretty successful at that task taking down hundreds of insurgent leaders and henchmen. He was optimistic during his first tour. He saw problems, but he and other leaders believed things could work out under the right circumstances. He volunteered to go back a second time and found that the situation had changed 100%. The primary mission of intel over in Iraq now is to determine those factors that are preventing us from training Iraqi forces taking over security. The biggest obstacles are the inherent and ACCEPTED corruption of nearly all Iraqi military officers. He stated that most if not all Iraqi officers maintain an allegiance to some other militia or insurgent group that supercedes their allegiance to the Iraqi military. He told me about a situation where an Iraqi Battalion commander received food provisions for his troops from the U.S. supply channels (which is normal SOP), but then immediately diverted the shipment for his troops to HIS OWN PERSONAL RESIDENCE!!! And he wasn't prosecuted or forced to return the supplies. This was his entitlement or perk of being a unit commander.
My friend (who is a strong Bush supporter) stated clearly that there is no chance that we can fix the situation in Iraq, AND that our leaders already know and privately acknowledge that.
God I hope he's wrong, but I doubt it.
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
But I DO think that if a democracy can be established in Iraq, corruption will find it harder to flourish. There is nothing like the sunshine of transparency to flush that kind of stuff out.
If only we had fairies and pixie dust to make it so.
Feh. I wonder if the Iranians will put a picture of Bush on a stamp to commemorate his service to their nation. The hawk bloggosphere certainly did their part too.
No, Mike. Surely the unsegregated nature of the new Iraqi army will fix everything.
Why the "No"? Shouldn't that be a "Yes" as that accords with what I wrote?
You know, because having their military take over is a large part of "getting their crap together", as you obviously remember me saying or you wouldn't have mentioned it.
You really should try to control your hatred, it just makes you look stupid.
So what's your plan? Do we just stick our fingers in our ears, humming loudly while we "stay the course"?
If what we're doing now isn't working, we need to change it. Right?
Mike: Hatred? No, saddened by the predicted mess actually becoming the mess that was predicted, frustrated that the idiots who made the mess are still in charge, and annoyed that the blanket-biting bedwetters who cheered them on at every misstep still feel qualified to offer arrogant opinions on things they obviously know nothing about.
The funniest part for me? I've been in this conversation before and it always goes the same way.
You will say that you have already explained it.
I'll ask where.
You'll call me a moron for not knowing.
I'll ask again, "Where?"
You'll call me stupid again.
It'll go around for as long as I feel like playing but you will never, ever link to where you said what you claim you said.
So how about it, why is that so wrong? Is there no precedent in the Islamic world for such a thing?
Personally, I don't think we can pull out now, but we need to definately set a timetable. This would quell the violence long enough to at least get the nation's infrastructure a chance to be set up without car bombs and IEDs going off all over the country. At least, that would be my hope.
There are some well-documented problems with this approach. The Shia Iraq would be pretty much a new Iranian province that brings a lot of oil with it. As well, the Shia would have the only Iraqi access to the Gulf. The Sunni would be getting the worst deal, and we'd likely see a huge escalation in conflict, and a further destabilization of the region, as the Saudis would likely intercede, both to put down any national aspirations their own Shia might be enertaining, and to aid the Sunni.
Lastly, Turkey and Iran are already shelling and bombing Kurdish territory in Iraq. If Kurdistan goes its own way, I think we'll see a major escalation of violence there, as well as a further chilling of relations with Turkey.
Sadly, it may be the best option.
That may be because you usually want to just piss all over people (a la the disgusting and embarrasing "wog" comments) rather than discuss things, but here goes:
Tim explains exactly why integration isn't a solution by iteself. Right here:And that's probably even more true for non-officers. Think that just because Sunni are trained alongside Shia that they're going to forgive family members being massacred by a Shia militia? Especially is they know that other members of the military are connected to that militia?
I think the problem with security at the moment is that there are Sunnis with blood on their hands from the Saddam days and the Shia are taking their revenge.
Some Sunnis for their part, knowing they are ultimately toast anyway, fight the Shia because these Sunnis really are dead enders.
I'm not sure why you mention this, Ted.
I am not disputing what is, but what will come. They have to get their crap together, that means working together to make their country better. We need to make that very clear to them. If they really aren't making any progress in that direction, I'm starting to think that a timetable might be necessary. They need a kick in the pants if they (the military) aren't already trying to work together. And I'll have to admit that they are just too backward to rule themselves. That depresses me.
Creating a Kurdistan will probably spark a serious war with probably Turkey and Iran fighting against it. Neither of them want a Kurdistan as their sizable Kurdish population will immediately want to join.
That's a very interesting idea. Now, do we want that war? There are definite pros:
1. We get a war with Iran with some help and at a time of our choosing. 2. We show Turkey, and the world, that dissing the US is not cost-free.
3. We get an immediate ally in the region that won't constantly blame us for all of their shortcomings.
Cons:
1. We get a war with Iran and Turkey and you know Iran will at least try to drag in Syria and Israel (might be a pro, but it will be very messy).
2. It would probably drive Turkey even farther away from Europe and into Islamist terrortory.
3. What about Shia Iraq and Sunni Iraq? Will they join the war? I sincerely doubt either of those two want to fight the US ever again but I wouldn't be surprised if they did as, IIRC, much of the oil is in the Kurdistan area so they wouldn't want to lose it all. And much of the rest is in one of the regions (shiite?) and the third country would be pretty peeved.
4. Does the Shiite part join with Iran? That's pretty scary.
5. Does the Sunni join with Syria? That's pretty scary too.
What I see with the partition of Iraq would be more war. The big kind, not the Low Intensity Conflict kind we have now. That could be a good thing as the terrorist supporters really need to get their butts kicked, instead of just killing their foot-soldiers.
I am pretty surprised that you guys, of all people, are so interested in sparking such a conflagration. Interesting.
You'll find me doing that when you don't put offensive and inaccurate statements in my mouth.
And I'll have to admit that they are just too backward to rule themselves. That depresses me.
They aren't backward. Democracy is a strong and resiliant political system once in place, but getting it in place is tricky. This is a culture with no experience with democracy, that does not have the same cultural roots that gave birth to the notions of liberal democracy, and (as Juan Cole pointed out several years ago) does not even have Arabic translations of thinkers like Thomas Jefferson.
Add to that the cultural and ethnic tensions, the political mistrust, and the competing external forces, and you have an unstable foundation on which to build a fragile political infrastucture.
I for one have never said that it was impossible for the Iraq to become a democracy. I have said, however, that for it to happen a great deal of things would have to go perfectly, and that with a large number of people and forces opposed to it and trying to sabotage it, it was pretty unlikely to happen.
I also thought that the consequences of failure were so great that it was unwise to try this.
That could be a good thing as the terrorist supporters really need to get their butts kicked, instead of just killing their foot-soldiers.
Foreign policy is a pretty complex topic, and needs to be handled in a way that doesn't sound like a guy with a dozen beers in him who doesn't like the guy across the barroom. Simply trying to smash in someone's face doesn't always work. See Iraq. See Lebanon.
I am pretty surprised that you guys, of all people, are so interested in sparking such a conflagration. Interesting.
Ah, back to putting words in mouths. Well, it was nice while it lasted.
That would imply that there was a low-level civil war occurring in Kurdistan seven years ago. There wasn't.
The rest of Iraq has very different circumstances than Kurdistan. I wouldn't use it as a model.
It works far more than it doesn't, see Germany, Japan, Carthage, Mexico, Appomattox...
I would suggest that many of the problems in Lebanon are the result of not kicking the right people's butts. That's what I was thinking of when I wrote that. You see, the Israelis were fighting the foot soldiers (Hezbollah) and not their backers (Syria, Iran).
See also, Vietnam and Korea.
And why do you suppose that Israel was not fighting Syria and Iran? Because it did not occur to them that these are the political forces supporting Hezbollah? Or might they have another reason?
Again, different circumstances. If Hitler invades Poland sometime soon, then yes, I urge massive military retaliation. Similarly, if those Carthaginian bastards start sucking up all the Mediterranean sea trade, I say take them out.
A thriving commercial sector (manufacturing and trading) is also pretty important for building the sort of cultural institutions that help foster democratic ones. Economies based upon extractive industries and low-intensity agriculture don’t tend to develop those institutions.
I also forgot to mention another prime ingredient on which to build the foundations of democracy -- a healthy economy and a large and well-off middle class. Iraqi unemployment is what, about 50% right now? Man, that juicy paycheck from the Shia militias must look pretty sweet.
Well, they were. But I assume you mean "Why weren't they fighting in Syria and Iran?" I would guess they were trying to avoid a huge war at this time. But that's just me.
But that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Even though they kicked the crap out Hezbollah and destroyed much of southern Lebanon, there are questions of "Who won?" that wouldn't be bandied about if they had taken out Syria. Of course, you can't always just go around blowing up everybody.
Again, different circumstances.
I'm gonna have to disagree on that. I used examples of defense against an invasion, response to an attack, attacking an economic rival, an invasion to take the land and a civil war. At least one of which appears to match up to the conflicts we're discussing.
Notice that in Korea and Vietnam we didn't totally kick the crap out of the people we wer fighting and those are still sore points. Korea for the world, Vietnam for the poor serfs living there.
Mike the Second: Well, they were.
Please clarify.
I used examples of defense against an invasion, response to an attack, attacking an economic rival, an invasion to take the land and a civil war. At least one of which appears to match up to the conflicts we're discussing.
Really? Which one?
In June 41% of Iraqis thought Iraq was headed in the right direction and 35% thought the wrong direction.
a civil war. It seems to me that you're saying we're involved in their civil war.
To end a war the loser has to know he's lost. That's just elementary warfare. Ask Sun Tzu or Clausewitz. Hell, ask Mao, Ho Chi Min or any of a dozen Afghan warlords who fought the USSR.
Really?
You don't do obtuse very well.
I was pointing out that they were fighting Hezbollah directly. Hezbollah was being supplied by Iran and Syria. They weren't fighting Syria and Iran directly. As I said before.
Was that obtusity on purpose? I doubt it. I have a feeling you were trying to get a reaction out of me. Did you succeed?
Your point seems to me to be that Iraq is in a civil war.
Are you saying that Iraq isn't in a civil war?
I get confused when people tell me that Israel was fighting the wrong people by not fighting Syria and Iran, and in the next comment says that they were.
Doo-doo head.
Nah, I'm sorry. It is far, far too simplistic to simply look around for a historical event that is slightly similar to something current, and then say that they should be responded to in the same way.
This would be where I tell you to go fuck yourself, and start ignoring you again.
Good show and all that. I especially liked the way you got off the point (totally defeating the enemy) into mocking my comparisons and pretending that you didn't understand.
That tactic never ceases to make me laugh.
Stop writing as if you think you know what ++ungood is thinking. If you think you know what ++ungood is thinking, you are wrong. If you don't think you know what ++ungood is thinking, then stop writing like it.
I hate it when you do that. So does ++ungood. So he retaliates. Then you both degenerate into a truly stupid pissing match. I know you can both piss. I've watched you both piss. You can both piss a long way. So can a horse. Or an ass.
And you were going so well!
Yours,
Wince
Mike reminds me of those leftist/liberals. They can make decent arguments, and sometimes do, but generally can be safely ignored.
Yours,
Wince
The last time when you told me that ++ used the socratic method I ignored you even though that was one laughable assertion. The socratic method involves you asking questions that forces the listener to prove your point for you. ++ begs questions to avoid having to explain himself (I'm assuming ++ is a man as ++ has claimed that).
I did what I did because I could see where he was going. He had stopped trying to respond and was trying to get me off into irrelevancies instead of the point. He mistakes sophistry for intellect and, after a point, debates merely to score points and not to find out who's right.
Sometime between 1 and 2 years ago I decided that I have absolutely no desire to deal honestly with dishonest debaters. When they are addressing points and backing up assertions I'm fine with them, when they start to try to deflect the debate and avoid points, I stop being polite.
I treat people the way I feel they deserve. At times ++ deserves respect, at time he doesn't.
I hate it when you do that. So does ++ungood.
I do it for a reason. I hate it when people who act superior avoid having questions and backing up assertions. Notice that I treat ++ differently from the way I treat shep. shep is a DNC talking points spewer. ++ I try to treat honestly, but I reward bad behavior with bad behavior. Notice that on Dean's World I rarely attack people, there's a reason for that. I only do it to people who deserve it.
So perhaps my pessimism is misplaced.
"Huh, maybe they are making progress in Iraq."
Bwahahahahahahahah! Too funny, Mike! Thanks.
Either way you proved my characterization.
If you had followed the link and yet only guffawed without saying why you show that you only believe DNC approved material and anybody who disagrees is so obviously wrong that you need not even point out why.
If you didn't follow the link and guffawed, it showed that you already know the right answer and anybody who disagrees with the proper, DNC-approved viewpoint only deserves laughter.
Yup, you're far too amusing for Karl Rove, I'm going to have to believe you're a FrnakJ production until proven otherwise.
There I go again, mind-reading with a cracked crystal ball. Doh!
Wince, as always, while we have seldom agreed on politics you remain the very model of respectful, intelligent and constructive discourse.
Back to the topic, because delving into Fisher's judgmental capriciousness is hopeless ...
Look, the only "Mission" we "Accomplished" in Iraq is to forever change the dynamics of the Middle East. That's a done deal. What that dynamic looks like is now the struggle.
New goals? 1.) Leave the region no worse than we found it at the very least -- but leave we must, eventually. 3.) Avoid Armaggedon.
Item #2 I leave up to the Underpants Gnomes, who have a much better track record than the current crop of magicians in charge of DOD.
More and more folks are coming to the stated position of Kerry and Murtha, some very reluctantly, some of whom will never do so precisely because it came from Kerry and Murtha.
We're dealing with bureaucrats over there. Most of those bureaucrats are well armed, and many use those weapons at the slightest provocation, but the entire political structure remains, in essence, bureaucracy. Sadr, Sistani, Maliki, are at the top of their own heirarchy, each with dififering degrees of rigidity or loosness in structure. Yet each of them, as well as every militia and party or political faction over there responds as all such organized groups.
Understanding this premise, the Laws of Life apply, especially Parkinson's Law:
We still have a window of opportunity. The Iraqi system is too young for Peter Principle* bureaucrats rising to the level of their incompetence to become an issue, and the government has yet to gain enough power for the Gall's Large System Analysis to become dominant except the 12th and 15th Axioms which are universal and not time dependant:
*(Peter Principle: in a hierarchically structured organisation people tend to be promoted to the level at which they are first able to demonstrate their incompetence)
Currently we're witnessing Le Chatelier's Principle in action: The ineffectivness of a military solution to the political problems of the occupation is part of the hubris and stubborn fear of classifying the Administration's actions since "Mission Accomplished" as a failure is not the fault of our men and women in uniform, but rather the inevitable bureaucratic pressures of Phillips' Law (high profile systems embarrassments are invited by any society which allows its vision to exceed its "craftsmanship") and of course the ubiquitous Murphy and Finagle working their gremlin-like magic.
The ONLY way at this juncture to bring form out of chaos is to implement a structure addressing the aforementioned Parkinson's Law: (Work expands to fill the time available.) ie., a timetable.
Mind you, a timetable without consequences is worthless. The Iraqi's had, and blew, the timetable for amending their constitution. However, the consequences of that failure -- disolving Parliament and calling for new elections -- flies in the face of the primary goal of all heirarchial bureaucracies. Their allegience first and formost is perpetuation of their power, perks and position. Self-imposed termination of their power as a voluntary punishment for their failure to address the core political problem of the country is inconceivable, goes against everyone's self-interest, and could result in the same kind of chaos feared from an abandonment of the country by our troops.
An example of this bureaucratic survival mechanism is the phenomenon of an agency always spending each and every dime appropriated to it (regardless of the efficiency of the expenditure) in order to secure equal or greater funding the next year. This has nothing to do with providing adequate services and everything to do with perpetuation of the agency and advancement of those within it.
The mutually exclusive incentives facing the Iraqi government leaders is A.) the hoped-for dream that someday they will be at the top of the food-chain represented by a unitary government in Baghdad, or B.) the current reality that the militias, and not the government are the arbiters of power there. A few men like Chalabi and Sadr are trying to play both sides, hedging their bets while they consolodate their power (to quite different degrees of success).
A timetable will result in galvanizing the bureaucratic survival instinct, forcing them to face the concept that if they don't get their act together, those without an army of thugs to lead will be left with nothing unless they can assert government control over the fighting factions.
If you can explain to me some other carrot or stick that will trigger the self-interest of those in the Iraqi bureaucracies to act to our mutual benefit -- standing up so we can get out -- I'm all ears. It's that or McCain's plan to double or triple our presence there instead of the whack-a-mole game we've been playing the last two years.
Contrary to Republican mythology, no Democrat is really calling for a wholesale abandonment of the region. Even that radical Dennis Kucinich has called for a PLAN for withdrawal (over a year ago). Rhetorical devises aside (advocating the extreme "out now" position in hopes that the resulting compromise with "stay-the-course" advocates moves them towards that goal), it's long past time to either raise or fold because we've been called while holding a lousy hand.
Oh, and Mike V., your "great" link indicating the stupendous progress the Iraqi Defense Forces have made by "standing up" their new headquarters is testimony to Jenkins' Law:
We have a new outfit moving into new quarters so they fall outside of Jenkins' Law.
Which you could have figured out by reading this
After more than three years of training and assistance for the Iraqi military, the government of Iraq has created the conditions for the Iraqi military to begin reporting directly to its government for orders, rather than relying on Coalition command structures, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the Multi-National Force – Iraq senior spokesman, said.
That would be like applying Godwin when I call you a nitwit.
Yeah Mike, I followed the link...to the Pentagon's (aka the White House) Iraq propaganda site (I particularly enjoyed the "Freedom Facts" under the “Fight for Freedom” pulldown).
"...you show that you only believe DNC approved material..."
Please stop now, you’re killing me dude. Bwahahahahahahaha!
Oh, and it's the Multi-National Forces site and not the Pentagon. I know, to you DNCers all them military types look the same.
diverted from levee repairappropriated another 20 million bucks for more of the same. Stay tuned.They are assuming the responsibilities from the Multi-National-Forces. That's progress. Real progress. They are taking control of their country. Exactly what I was saying they weren't doing that they have to do.
"They are taking control of their country. Exactly what I was saying they weren't doing that they have to do."
Look at the contacts; it's CentCom. You really shouldn't be accusing other people of spewing talking points, no less acting like some hard-eyed realist, when you obviously don’t know a goddamn thing about official propaganda.
You're an entertaining fellow Mr. Fisher.
No, I wasn't thinking of you. You inspire other thoughts. ;)
Mike Veeshir,
If you skip the last paragraph of this comment, you'll miss out on a compliment.
I know I wasn't involved. You were having a nice, interesting and useful discussion, for a change, and then you put words in ++ungood's mouth and started speaking to his motives. Where I come from, those are either honest mistakes, bad habits or dishonest debate tactics. Since I've seen you do this more than once, I'm guessing bad habits.
Now I suspect that ++ungood has bad habits. And I suspect that Mark Adams has bad habits. And I'm completely certain that I have bad habits. They mostly involve laziness, perfectionism, fear and pride. The ones involving lust and gluttony don't usually come up in these discussions and are generally none of your business.
Thanks to Mark, we are now having nice, interesting and useful discussion again. Including your responses to him. I really like your point about new outfits and new quarters.
Yours,
Wince
What do we have above? shep doing its usual mocking without really saying anything and Mark misapplying some 'rule' and refusing to admit that it was misapplied.
Wince, do you see why I treat them like the nitwits they are? They have no response to what I wrote except to call me naive and make fun of me. They deserve insults and derision and not polite responses. ++ is much better, but when it comes right down to it he reacts in much the same way. He's just quite a bit more intelligent than either of them so his stands are correspondingly much more intelligent.
In the post of what I expect Rose to look like, I got to thinking of how I picture shep. shep is between 12-17 and a product of the worst our public school system has to offer. I figure it's a boy, but I assume nothing with nitwits like that. shep gets Ds and Fs in math and science but straight As in Self-Esteem and Social Consciousness.
Without built-in loyalty to the (new?) leadership (with largess to be distributed downward), or an iron hand imposing discipline downhill from above, the system will break down without a complete reordering from the ground-up.
The entropy (chaos) of the Iraqi Security System will increase as it does everywhere in the universe. The existential F.L.A.W. in taking the DoD's attempt to paint lipstick on this pig at face value violates Gall's 9th Axiom:Increase in complexity in the security situation is not progress, preventing a civil war while acknowledging it is closer than ever only indicates the direction of the "progress" is towards chaos, not away from catastrophe.
It was never about "wogs," although the previous order was due entirely to a strong-man. The orginal model was to replace it with more of the same until Chalabi was exposed. But is was simple and it worked. It's been patch-work ever since.
The Iraqi populous is just as capable as any Mississippi school district of achieving a peaceful democratic order. But order HAS to come, either through irresistable force or removal of the institutional disincentives to create their own order -- one they can truly call their own.
That may indeed require a full fledged civil war before universally accepted order is achieved; but as long as we remain we are imposing an artificial order that merely increases the chaos and gives them no reason to begin anew with a simple, working system that can grow to success.
They have to do it one way or another. Not us, them.
I can't speak for ++UG, but at 44, I'm a kid compared to Shep and Wince, Ara too. As for me, dual majored in Poly Sci and Communications, minor in History, plus the J.D. Yet I'd never try to match shep in sheer encyclopaedic knowledge of history and current events.
How about you? Who is Mike Fisher and why should we ever discuss anything with him again?
Yes, I absolutely agree. That's why I am happy that we are turning over control to them. That's progress.
Your rules just don't apply. The security situation isn't a system, it's a state of being. The enemies of a democratic Iraq are naturally, and quite predictably, going to get more agitated as they see their chances for imposing their rule getting slimmer.
I'm not saying it's all happiness and flowers. I'm not saying that the development I cited is going to make it all better. I'm saying that it's progress in the right direction.
I said, and I quote, Huh, maybe they are making progress in Iraq.
So perhaps my pessimism is misplaced.
You're an entertaining fellow Mr. Fisher.
Coming after shep's post that sure looked as if you were calling me naive.
Who am I? I'm me. You can ignore me all you want. If I make good points, respond. If I don't, don't. Anything I say about me might be crap. I might be a 12 year old girl or a 95 year old man. You can have no idea as to whether or not I'm lying.
I have an AA in social sciences, an AAS in mechanical engineering and a BS in mechanical engineer with a minor in math. I used to tutor calculus but I haven't done math in 6 years so don't quiz me on it. Besides, calculus doesn't make any fricking sense. It just works. Some really smart people sat around for years figuring out what worked. Trig and algebra make sense and they work.
I mess with lawyers for a living but I'm not one.
I still picture shep as a young teenager or a 'tweenager' as it uses insults and avoids points like a pro.
Well, clearly I have taken the wrong approach with you. I don't know the right approach, so I'll shut the heck up. BTW, I don't know the right approach with shep either. It's very interesting that you should pick shep as your example, since your bad habits are noticably worse than his. Maybe that's why you two get along so poorly.
Yours,
Wince
49 years old, about a billion years of post-secondary education in science, English, political science, philosophy, art history, art school, and computer science (I didn't know what I wanted to be when I grew up). Currently a senior software developer (aka programmer) with about twenty years OOP experience.
Yup. I get annoyed when people lecture at me. Also, you appear to think that I should have immediately agreed that you were right and started acting as you want. Pretty funny.
I will say something though, you didn't respond to what I had written. I always try to explain exactly why I say what I say but you didn't. You say I used shep as my example, but I used Mark and ++ as well. shep is just the most glaring. You ignored what I wrote about being different on Dean's World but insulted me and have now three times lectured at me. I ignored you the first time, even though you laughably wrote that ++ used the Socratic Method. After the second time I still didn't insult you, I told you exactly why I acted the way I did. Now you are insulting me again by calling me worse than shep. Who, as I've pointed out, is the most dishonest debater here. shep never backs up its insults and never says why the other person is wrong, it just calls them stupid or brainwashed or naive or whatever.
Not once did you acknowledge what I had written. You don't say why I'm wrong, you merely insult me. That's rude and obnoxious.
You know how to handle me? Be honest. If you want to make a point, make it and back it up. It's really that easy. I always try to do that. Even when I'm calling somebody a moron or a nitwit or a jackass I explain exactly why. That's honesty. When I get into it with dishonest debaters I tend to be more rude.
You have insulted me more than once and now, you ignore what I wrote to insult me again. I specifically took time to explain to you exactly why I act the way I do but you ignore that and seem to get angry that I didn't immediately admit you are right and beg your forgiveness. Now, I could be wrong about that, but that's the way it appears to me.
Which reminds me, you accuse me of putting words into other's mouths, I do it for a reason. I want them to understand why I wrote what I wrote. If I don't explain where I'm coming from, then there are misunderstandings. Notice that I usually write, "You appear to be thinking..." or "You seem to be saying..." That might have been your first hint that I was trying to explain myself. But no, you just insult me. That rankles, especially since you are trying to act all reasonable.
I try to be exact and leave no misunderstandings. I am also an asshole who feels it my duty to be an asshole towards those who deserve it. I accept that others will then act like an asshole towards me, I am an adult and accept the consequences of my actions.
Now, if I was worse than shep, or even like you, I would have just said, "Screw you idiot.", but I take the time to explain myself because I understand that you think that you were being reasonable even though you weren't.
It was an act of the purest optimism to try, Wince. Thanks anyway...
Sorry if I struck a nerve. I'm sure it was only a nick.
Lecturing people for failing to argue in a genteel fashion is, in fact, one of my bad habits. It never works, not just with you. Isn't one of the symptoms of insanity that you keep trying the same theing over and over and expecting a different result each time?
Yours,
Wince
Mike:
What I find most "amusing" is that often it seems you are most amused when you can write in a manner that is irritatingly condescending.
Seriously. I mean this as an analysis, not a slam. Your style and penchant for personal attacks simply invites hostility. If anything it seems you would rather trade barbs and ad hominism than actually engage in an intellectual excersize.
It's a consistent thing with you. Not an occasional lapse. A couple of weeks ago I unapologetically did it to you and M-T-R when I was feeling especially devious and wanted to flaunt just how much of a vulgar asshole I can be; but I would be exhausted if I did it as much as you. Mostly, however, when I go after him or you in an unfair way, I'd given up on the idea of changing any minds and have surrendered to my inner asshole.
Since there are no judges here, the only way I perceive you can "win" a blog debate is to have a meeting of the minds, an agreement on a proposal or observation. That or educated someone to a different point of view. You are severly hampered in attaining those goals by consistently using such a condescending style.
Saying "screw you, idiot" isn't more or less honest with an added explaination. Try deleting the "screw you" part after you've typed it and got it out of your system, but leave the explaination. See if you get a more effective response. I guarantee that you'll be more persuasive in the long run (but yes, it lacks the cathartic gottcha aspect).
Look, this is meant as friendly advice, not a critique. Flies/honey, that sort of thing. You do yourself a great discervice, and deprive yourself of a very useful political ally by scoffing at Wince especially. You might want to experiment with a softer approach, what the hell?
Now, as for the meat of the debate. You're wrong! Wrong, wrong wrong. ;-) [I learned that technique in Persuasion class.]
Why? 'Cuz I said so. 'Cuz I don't understand what you mean by differentiating between the "state of being" of the Iraqi security situation and any other system imposed on a a society. Why is this "state" not a system? To my mind, referring to the situation as a "state of being" implies a steady-state structure where the reality is completely fluid. I reject any implicit idea of a snapshot analysis of this dynamic phenomenon.
[There I go again, trying to put the science in political science. No wonder I voted for the "quantum candidate."]
A political heirarchy is being imposed on a complex system/problem/"state of being" In such a situation, "Systemantics" most definitely applies.
Without a more detailed explaination of how your "state of being" cannot be described "systematically" (as Gall used the word), but is differentiated somehow from most other socio-political structures, I truly fail to see why the axioms are not relevant.
You can argue that I misinterpreted or misapplied them. That is an argument reflecting different perspectives of the same reality. But to say they aren't applicable is disingenuious.
For example, he says above: "Sometime between 1 and 2 years ago I decided that I have absolutely no desire to deal honestly with dishonest debaters." He gives himself an out here by judging anyone he's being dihonest with as dishonest themselves. As he's the one who decides on who's being honest, and we're all crackpot lying leftists, everything's fair game.
As, to my mind, the basis of any serious and sincere discussion is the assumption that the people you are talking to and listening to are honest and sincere about what they say, I have to wonder what he gets out of the discussions here.
I suspect that it the same thing that motivates griefers in on-line games.
The "wog" thing brings to mind the overuse of the "BusHitlerMcChimp" thing another commenter discusses with an imaginary antagonist. But to his credit, Fisher will at least comes back and defends himself. Not well enough to change minds, but as long as the student keeps trying, teachers will teach.
Thank you very much. The dogmatic adherence is a true strength. The bad habit is the lecture. It isn't polite. It's irritating. It's arrogant. It's impatient. And it doesn't work. The very best debaters and the very best persuaders are, in contrast, patient and humble.
Yours,
Wince
Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Now, I've NEVER heard of a lazy perfectionist.
Now you have.
Yours,
Wince
C'mon, Tim. The Army practically discovered them ;-)