Monday, September 12, 2005

A discusion with Wulfgar

Wulfgar and I have been having a discussion over at Left in the West. I am realizing that it is taking up too much for Matt's site, so I have decided to move it here:
Earlier, in a response to Squid, Wulfgar said:

# Wulfgar Says:

Squid, don’t you find something inherantly dangerous about having a lame duck President … 3 years before he leaves office … in war time? For all your tough talk about respecting the military, stances like the one you profess here proves that you really hate the troops, only slightly less than you hate Democrats.
# Squid Says:
September 9th, 2005 at 6:03 pm

Hey, I’m just stating a fact. You democrats can’t nominate one decent candidate, so you leave us with absolutely no choice at all. I voted for Ross Perot and helped elect Clinton, so I damn sure wasn’t going to vote for either Gore or Kerry. I totally disagree with Bush and his spending habits, ala shades of the democratic party that they are, and his failure to address the border situation is a disaster. I do agree with his position on terrorism and had Gore or Kerry been elected we’d still be taking it in the shorts from the radicals of Islam who can smell the odor of pacifism even with their noses in the sand. Your statement that I hate the troops is asinine and deserves no response, but here’s mine anyway. The vast majority of those serving believe in their mission, in Iraq, and I support them. They’re all volunteers and as much as the democrats(politicos)say they support our troops, they’re secretly hoping for their failure for the political advantage they anticipate will follow. The American people are not stupid, even though the democrats treat them as if they are. They will reject your next candidate for the presidency unless a miracle happens to the democratic party platform. And as they say in Japan, at least when I was there, neva happen boysan. Neva happen with the likes of Howard Dean and his ilk in charge.
. . . .
Then Wulfgar said:

Squid, you completely avoid the accusation, which I mean with all seriousness. If you support a lame duck president against any accusation (which you did right in this very post) then youi support an incompetant leading our fighting men and women inthe field. Well done. You hate our soldiers, and the proof is right here.

# Squid Says:
September 10th, 2005 at 10:32 pm

Wulfgar, you are hopeless. You’re on the wrong side and know it and you attempt to transfer your negativity of the war effort to those who support it. I admit I support GWB’s policy against terrorism, but I’ll also admit that Bush doesn’t go far enough in bringing this Iraq campaign to a conclusion by utilizing what ever means it takes. This I attribute to his appeasment of the pacifists in both the republican and democratic parties. That being said, I will continue to believe that this country is far far better off with him at the helm instead of either Gore or Kerry or for that matter any of the other candidates that the democratic party has chosen to consider for the presidency.

I will not support accusations until they are proven to be justifiable. The bull**t the democrats throw up against the wall, time and time again, hoping upon hope that one or more might stick, have not been proven to be justifiable so why in the hell would I support them.

Lastly, George Bush is not leading our troops in the field. Others have that responsibilty and even if he was, I’d rather have him there instead of someone who requested and was awarded a Purple Heart for having rice fragments penetrate his rear end.
# Steve Says:
September 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm

Wulfgar, you are starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. By your logic, if you oppose Bush, and are encouraging the terrorists to blow up Americans soldiers, then you are supporting the troops.
As a former troop, I would prefer that you not help.
# Wulfgar Says:
September 12th, 2005 at 8:00 am

Then Wulfgar said:

Former troop or not, Steve, your preference is hardly of any concern to me. What is is your poor understanding of logic, as well as survival of our combat forces. My logic is very simple and very clear: an incompetant CIC, who behaves as a lame duck (acts based on his non-concern for re-election, which is exactly what Squid favored) will hurt our troops. Supporting an incompetant CIC is, therefore, clearly anti-troops. That a rah-rah jingoist like Squid doesn’t understand that doesn’t surprise me at all. You, on the other hand, by pulling specious arguments from your butt surprise me quite a bit.

In no argument I have ever given, nor any that has ever been proven does opposing Bush = encouraging terrorists to blow up American soldiers. And obviously, encouraging terrorists to blow up American soldiers != supporting the troops. So, your conclusion may be valid, if only one is goofy enough to believe the stupid premise you propose. Doesn’t it make much much more sense to posit that electing a competant CIC, who actually gives a crap in his final term in office, is a necessary condition for supporting the troops? Seems pretty clear to me. Why doesn’t it to you?
# Steve Says:
September 12th, 2005 at 3:26 pm

Wulfgar, I usually admire your reasoning, even if I do disagree, however, let me expand upon my premise.
The terrorists cannot win militarily, period. They are incapable of sustained military action that can drive us from the battlefield. Therefore, the only way that they can defeat us is to attack our will. In order to attack that, they exploit our communications systems, primarily television news. They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public. Those who succumb to the demoralization will bring pressure upon political leaders to end the war without a satisfactory military conclusion. Therefore, if you oppose the war, you are an instrument of the terrorists.
Now, let’s say that you in particular were to say “I oppose Bush, but the only way to end the war is to create a stable and freely democratic government that will allow us to withdraw when they have taken over their security.” This would prevent the terrorists from hoping that domestic opinion would be swayed and they would have to face the reality that they are not going to win.
I suppose that this will be considered rah-rah or jingoistic, but I don’t see an alternative. Since 1979 in Iran, ‘83 in Lebanon, ‘93 in Somalia, etc., we have presented the confusing image that we are unwilling to sustain a presence that is in our national interest. I am sure that there are many in the Middle East who have expected us to bug out a long time ago. However, we need to put a stop to that now, so that we won’t have to do this again. I know that you think Bush is incompetent, but I think that this could very well be the greatest geo-strategic move since the Monroe doctrine, and we couldn’t even enforce that at the time that it was enunciated.

September 12th, 2005 at 6:24 pm

The terrorists cannot win militarily, period.

Incorrect assumption, the first. They can win militarily if they can escalate the conflict beyond the reach of our resources or our resolve to commit immoral acts. We can win this thing today, by nuking the whole of Iraq. Is that winning? Are the bleeding and deseased remainders afforded the sweet sweet gravy of democracy? Or have we simply succeeded in destroying what Saddam could not? Yay us.

In the meantime, 1 billion muslims will watch our actions. Do you think we can win that war? Really?

Therefore, the only way that they can defeat us is to attack our will.


Incorrect assumption, the second. They can win by getting us to behave as immorally as they themselves do, or more immorally that the American people (who last I checked, still control our government) are willing to accept. They want to win, and are willing to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq (or elsewhere) to do that. We can win, if we’re willing to do the same (and impoverish our own while doing so). A victory of will? Putting oneself on the inevitable path of destruction, to claim a specious point? Excuse me? When was cutting off your nose to spite your face considered moral? When was sacrifising your children for your sense of (arrogant, prideful, the first sin) will an act of a “good people”?

They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public.


Incorrect assumption, the third. Which is more demoralizing, the thought that the media might show us bad stuff? Or the sure and certain knowledge that our own government, supposedly of, by and for the people, lied us into a war, and continues to do so until this very day? You can blame the Islamofascists for lying to us about their strength, but I will be far more horrified that my government did the same exact fricking thing. There was absolutely no reason, regarding national defense, that we invaded Iraq. None.

However, we need to put a stop to that now, so that we won’t have to do this again. I know that you think Bush is incompetent, but I think that this could very well be the greatest geo-strategic move since the Monroe doctrine

I would likely agree with you … if this had been performed even modestly honestly or competantly. It wasn’t. Our greatest threat in the ME remains Saudi Arabia … period.

And you still haven’t proven what you claim to be true …
that claiming that the CIC is incompetant is a support for the terrorists. It isn’t. For your argument to work, you must be able to show this, clearly. You can’t. Claiming that we have an incompetant CIC is quite obviously *NOT* a support for terrorists. It’s a statement of opinion (in my mind, fact). It doesn’t provide any foundation, at all, for your further argument that iopposition to Bush = encouragement of terrorists. None. Notta. Zip.

A question: When you swear alligience, do you swear to a king, or a flag and a country for which it stands? Just askin’? ‘Cause if you posit that discent against the CIC is anti-American, we might as well have a fricking king. Get it, yet?


Okay, maybe I should start with the beginning.

When Wulfgar said "Squid, don’t you find something inherantly dangerous about having a lame duck President … 3 years before he leaves office … in war time? For all your tough talk about respecting the military, stances like the one you profess here proves that you really hate the troops, only slightly less than you hate Democrats."

It raises concerns on many levels. 1. Does any lame duck president escape this charge? If so, why? 2. The comment that Squid proves his hatred for the troops would be objectionable because it assumes facts not in evidence, is inflamatory, and generally unworthy of response. 3. Maybe Squid just disagrees with Democrats, does that actually mean he hates them? I don't know Squid, but I would be willing to wager a cup of coffee that Wulfgar doesn't either.

When Wulfgar said in response to Squid: "Squid, you completely avoid the accusation, which I mean with all seriousness. If you support a lame duck president against any accusation (which you did right in this very post) then youi support an incompetant leading our fighting men and women inthe field. Well done. You hate our soldiers, and the proof is right here."

I renew mhy objections above. But, as to his accusation that Bush is incompetent, I know that it is considered an article of faith that Bush is incompetent among the so called intelligentsia and Democrats in general. However, to test a theory, you don't look to prove your theory, you look to disprove it. I would offer as evidence to disprove it, that Bush has pretty well gotten everything that he has said that he wanted with the exception of Social Security reform, and contrary to some opinions, I don't think that is is dead yet. As to the proof being "right there" I must be too obtuse to see anything but an assertion, without supporting facts.

When Wulfgar said: "Supporting an incompetant CIC is, therefore, clearly anti-troops. That a rah-rah jingoist like Squid doesn’t understand that doesn’t surprise me at all. You, on the other hand, by pulling specious arguments from your butt surprise me quite a bit." Okay, taking this one at a time. First, the assertion that Bush is incompetent, is just that, and as noted above open for dispute. So, if Wulfgar's assertion is found to be false, is not the rest false as well? Second, I repeat that making an assertion is not a fact. If the argument is specious, how so specifically? Is it because I disagree with you that I make specious arguments? Usually Wulfgar is above that, except when he becomes angry.

Then we get to the fun stuff. In response to my clarification, which needed to be done, Wulfgar set out to dissect my argumnet, which is fair, since I am doing the same.

The terrorists cannot win militarily, period.

Incorrect assumption, the first. They can win militarily if they can escalate the conflict beyond the reach of our resources or our resolve to commit immoral acts. We can win this thing today, by nuking the whole of Iraq. Is that winning? Are the bleeding and deseased remainders afforded the sweet sweet gravy of democracy? Or have we simply succeeded in destroying what Saddam could not? Yay us.

Okay, Wulfgar says that I am wrong that the terrorists cannot win militarily, because they can escalate the conflict beyong the reach of our resources. I suppose he means that they are going to be bringing in 10-20 armored divisions, plus a few thousand Migs and Sukhois. Ain't gonna happen. They don't exist. In fact, when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" he was technically correct. There were no organized enemy units above the platoon level. There was no functioning chain of command that could coordinate the attacks nor were there any organized supply and support structures available to draw resources like replacements or supplies. Now, after April 2003, the enemy changed, but it wasn't the one we went into in March of that year, they were gone.
As to us committing immoral acts, I disagree that there is any organized policy to commit immoral acts. In fact, there have been prosecutions of our soldiers for violating the rules of war. Not to say that they don't exist, but that is also not to say that they are condoned, much less encouraged. As to the only way to win being nukes, I disagree, as I have said before about the utility of nukes. So in review, my statement that the terrorists cannot drive us from the battlefield still stands. One down.

Second Wulfgar said: Incorrect assumption, the second. They can win by getting us to behave as immorally as they themselves do, or more immorally that the American people (who last I checked, still control our government) are willing to accept. They want to win, and are willing to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq (or elsewhere) to do that. We can win, if we’re willing to do the same (and impoverish our own while doing so). A victory of will? Putting oneself on the inevitable path of destruction, to claim a specious point?

So, I think that Wulfgar leaps here to the idea that we will act as immorally as the terrorists. I guess then, he agrees with the idea that as long as we do not act immorally then we will win. Well, I am in agreement with that. He says that we can win if we kill every man woman and child just like the terrorists do, thereby consigning us to the level of the terrorists. I am sure that this is just anger, and do not believe that anyone (rational) believes that we are the same as the terrorists. Here is an alternate version of victory that differs from his: We establish a functioning Iraqi democratic government that uses its own security apparatus, and relies on the intelligence gleaned from their fellow citizens who are not afraid of the terrorists, nor willing to tolerate them, and their attacks on innocents. Again with the specious points. I am beginning to wonder if that is just a macro. Oh well, two down.

Next: They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public.

Incorrect assumption, the third. Which is more demoralizing, the thought that the media might show us bad stuff? Or the sure and certain knowledge that our own government, supposedly of, by and for the people, lied us into a war, and continues to do so until this very day? You can blame the Islamofascists for lying to us about their strength, but I will be far more horrified that my government did the same exact fricking thing. There was absolutely no reason, regarding national defense, that we invaded Iraq. None.


Okay, let's take this one step at a time. It's not that the tv shows us bad stuff, it is the context. Are 30 new hospitals, 200 new schools, clean water, worth a suicide bomber that kills children? Apparently not. It is only in the lack of perspective that the media fails us. It's not their fault. If it bleeds it leads always sells more commecials than real progress. As to the "Lied us into war," we have already had that discussion. here. I realize I may be unique, but I still believe that there is a difference between a lie and a mistake. As to the reason regarding national defense, I think that it shows a failure of imagination. I wrote about that here. In fact, I would argue that Wulfgar's argument reinforces my original one that we can only be defeated by ourselves.

Lastly, (I know, you are thinking thank God) he said "And you still haven’t proven what you claim to be true …
that claiming that the CIC is incompetant is a support for the terrorists. It isn’t.
For your argument to work, you must be able to show this, clearly. You can’t. Claiming that we have an incompetant CIC is quite obviously *NOT* a support for terrorists. It’s a statement of opinion (in my mind, fact). It doesn’t provide any foundation, at all, for your further argument that iopposition to Bush = encouragement of terrorists. None. Notta. Zip.

A question: When you swear alligience, do you swear to a king, or a flag and a country for which it stands? Just askin’? ‘Cause if you posit that discent against the CIC is anti-American, we might as well have a fricking king. Get it, yet?"

Well, it's getting late so I may just skim this argument, although I should admit that Wulfgar deserves full and serious consideration. My assertion is that the terrorists have hope that they can persuade us to throw in the towel. Attacking the President is as American as apple pie, or chop suey for that matter. But if you attack the President, whether Bush or Clinton or whoever, you have to acknowledge that our enemies also attack the President, and you need to seperate yourself from them. How do you do this. Ah, there's the rub isn't it. It requires a deft and intelligent approach that is difficult, as it should be. Otherwise, you start to sound like the country's enemies.

And, when I swore all of my oaths, they were to the Constitution of the United States and the lawful orders of the President, and the officers appointed over me. During our military law classes, we are taught that it is illegal to obey an illegal order, but you better be right, becuase if you aren't you will pay the price.

I look forward to Wulfgar's response.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

MazdaSPEED 6 delayed
You may have noticed that the 2006 MazdaSPEED 6 you were expecting to arrive at dealerships this past June didn't come.
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a make money site. It pretty much covers make money related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Anonymous said...

Hi there! Nice post. I appreciate the time you took to post about timely topics. How long have you been blogging? Glad I found your site.

I blog about something totally unrelated, but it puts bread on the table. network marketing.

Again, thanks for the nice blog. I am sipping my latte at Calistoga enjoying their free WiFi and catching up on reading blogs. Dave Jackson, Naples, FL

Wulfgar said...

I certainly don't blame you for it, Steve, but I'm really hating this insipid, falsely personal comment spam ... 'just sayin'. These people need to die. Now, on with the show.

First, I think you read too much into my Squid baiting. I don't think he "hates" the troops, I rather think he trolls Matt's site, rarely considering any implication of the crap he spouts. That being the case, you miss a great deal by not exposing Squid's first comment, in which he sarcastically implies that Bush shouldn't care what the electorate think, because he cannot run again. The implication of that is crystal clear: Squid thinks that it's okay for a President to be disengaged from the people, if it doesn't affect his political chances. I strongly disagree with that, and in good logical form, brought up a counter example that I knew would needle Squid. If you favor Presidential disengagement, then you do not favor the ones under his command. Squid's responses are, as usual, pointless and lacking of any basis in reality. He pulls out the usual talking points:

1) Gore or Kerry would have gotten us killed (completely speciuos and unsupportable eccept through fantasy).

2) The vast majority of troops support their mission in Iraq. (Unproven, implies that they also support George Bush, and is completely beside the fricken point.)

3) The troops are really to blame for anything because they volunteered, and besides the Democrats really hate them anyway. (Hmm, a profession of disrespect for the troops, in order to project that disrespect on others. Do I really need to dissect that further?)

4) The American people agree with Squid. (The implication being, agree with Squid or you're un-American. This is the biggest load of crap, and the most germaine to further points.)

I then give the first pertanent argument of this debate:

p1: The President is incompetant.
p2: The President is a lame duck. (No political motivation for engagement in his job).
p3: If the President is incompetant, and is a lame duck, it endangers the troops (does not support them.
Conclusion: Squid's agreement with these premises proves his disrespect ("Hate") of the troops.

Now Squid doesn't appear bright enough to even consider p1, he agrees with p2, he doesn't understand p3, so he flails about in rejection of the conclusion. p1 is the questionable plank; I freely admit that. In support of p1, I offer this: Any President who consistently lies to encourage the nation to engage in a war is incompetant. Any President who consistently changes rationals for why we went to war is incompetant. Any President who supports the use of immoral tactics in war, and then attempts to hide those from the US public is incompetant. Any President who engages the enemy without a clear plan for victory is incompetant (funny, Bush himself said that about Clinton's spectacularly successful foray into Bosnia).

Regardless, the CIC's competance could well be an argument for another time. My argument to Squid may indeed rely on that, but strangely, it isn't my argument that you and I are engaged in, Steve, but rather yours. You profess that you don't understand what argument you made that was so easily labeled specious, and yet the bulk of your post is meant to bolster the very specious argument you are confused that I indicate. Your counter argument to mine is a reductio ad absurdem.

By your logic, if you oppose Bush, and are encouraging the terrorists to blow up Americans soldiers, then you are supporting the troops.

Let's plank that out.

p1: The contrary to supporting Bush is opposing Bush. (I agree).
p2: opposing Bush is the same (equal to) encouraging terrorists to blow up American soldiers. (In case you missed it, that's the terribly specious part.)
Conclusion1: Not supporting Bush is encouraging terrorists to blow up American troops.
p3: implied; encouraging terrorists to blow up American troops is not supporting the troops.
Conclusion2: by reductio ad absurdem: Not supporting Bush is not supporting the troops.

AS far as I'm concerned, your entire argument relies on Conclusion1, which I consider to be as false as the idea that the stork brings babies. And so we go forward.

It raises concerns on many levels. 1. Does any lame duck president escape this charge? If so, why?

Easily answered. If a President is competant, then he will be more concerned with doing the job than his electability requires. So, yes, a lame duck can easily escape this charge. It goes back to the very idea of competance.

2. The comment that Squid proves his hatred for the troops would be objectionable because it assumes facts not in evidence, is inflamatory, and generally unworthy of response. 3. Maybe Squid just disagrees with Democrats, does that actually mean he hates them? I don't know Squid, but I would be willing to wager a cup of coffee that Wulfgar doesn't either.

Both of those questions are simple legal avoidance. There is no jury here. My argument was made, refute it or don't. But some kind of appeal to definition, (disgree != hate, "unworthy") those are cop-outs. No, I don't know Squid ... and that matters not even in the least. He made his claims, I made my argument based on those. Refute them or don't. It's a small matter, either way.

And then the obfuscation begins. No, Bush's incompetance is not an article of faith, certainly not for me (and I thank you for the veiled insult). It's a matter of verifiable fact. If you wish to discuss that, then let's have at it. But your dismissal of the idea means nothing.

However, to test a theory, you don't look to prove your theory, you look to disprove it. I would offer as evidence to disprove it, that Bush has pretty well gotten everything that he has said that he wanted with the exception of Social Security reform, and contrary to some opinions, I don't think that is is dead yet.

Yet another misconception. Success of agenda does not equal competance. Il Duce impressed the mighty hell out of the Italian people by getting the trains to run on time. He also, due to incomptant leadership, got their country bombed right back into the middle ages. yeah, there's a success. America owes more, with less to show for it, thanks to George W. Bush. Our troops are fighting a war that they have no idea why they're fighting, except for the excuse de jour from the administration. Our people are losing their civil rights. And, because the vile and horrid Patriot act was passed, you want to call this Presidency a success? Get real!

Steve, quite simply, the rest of your arguments are really specious crap. Can the terrorists make us over extend? Hell yes! They don't need tank divisions, they just need us to spend more money than we can afford ... something our current President seems more than willing to do.

I don't need to assume that our military will behave as immorally as the terrorists. Our current administration has already proven that we will. Blame it on a few bad apples if you wish, but Gonzales penned the legal justification for us to be assholes. Yay us.

We establish a functioning Iraqi governement. Terrific. One that holds the laws of Islam above all others. That's a win, I'm sure ... Saudi Arabia/Iran 2.0

And in the realm of gross assumption, what makes you think that their will is to break the resolve of Americans, as opposed to breaking the will of Iraqis and Afganis? Seems to me that they aren't trying to motivate the 300 million Americans even one iota as much as they are trying to motivate the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Is this really the war you wanty to fight? Let me know, 'cause it seems pretty damned significant from over here.

Regardless, these are all tactical dicisions. The penultimate point is that you have done little to refute my p1. Bush is incompetant. I hope to have this debate with you many times in the future. Further, you have done little to support your Conclusion1, that opposition to Bush is the same as encouraging terrorists. The terrorists have their agenda, and little we do can stand in the way. Opposition to an incompetant leader,in this time of trial, is not a traitorous act, but wisdom. GW could not get us through a hurricain and flood; why do you expect him to get us through a "War on Terror"?

There is one more small argument to be dealt with here. Bush is the President, not a king. What is implied, clearly, by blanket support of the President, as CIC, is that support of himself equals support of the nation. That is a monarchistic thought, and has no place in American politics. The Shrub is not infallable, period. Today, for the very first time in 5 years, I have heard him admit error. Supporting a man who can err does not, ever, equal support for the nation. I defy any to show that it does.

Steve said...

Wulfgar, I haven't forgotten abouut you, nor do I as yet concede. I have a trial today agains the oppresive bullies of the State, and your response deserves more than I can give at the moment.

KarbonKountyMoos said...

I was going to type something - but my finger is too tired from scrolling down.

Steve said...

Wulfgar, sorry for the delay. As to Squid's comments, I think, and I don't know, that what he meant to say, is that Bush is not beholden to the powers of the polls at the moment, and instead has the freedom to act as he wants and believes is correct, rather than appeasing the loudest voices. Unfortunately, when you were baiting Squid, you were chumming the waters and drew me in as well.
Now, as to your logical propositions. I know that you think that my reasoning is "specious" and it may well be, since I never claimed to be the smartest person on the Internet. However, your logic seems to be more of the "Superball" variety, circular and prone to huge leaps. For instance:
p1: The President is incompetant.
p2: The President is a lame duck. (No political motivation for engagement in his job).
p3: If the President is incompetant, and is a lame duck, it endangers the troops (does not support them.
Conclusion: Squid's agreement with these premises proves his disrespect ("Hate") of the troops.
Your presumption that Bush is incompetent, is attempted to be refuted later, but I disagree with you on that one. The fact that Bush gets what he wants, negates your first premise. As to P2, That is also debatable. Bush would have to have some concern for his party, otherwise he would be known for destroying it (ala Clinton).
Since both P1 and P2 are either false or suspect, then your conclusion could be true only by accident. But it has been a long time since I took any logic classes, so I could be wrong.
You said ". No, Bush's incompetance is not an article of faith, certainly not for me (and I thank you for the veiled insult)."
Sorry, I am not clever enough for veiled insults. I enjoy your reasoning, except when you get angry, but then, I am prone to that as well.
You said, "Our troops are fighting a war that they have no idea why they're fighting, except for the excuse de jour from the administration. Our people are losing their civil rights. And, because the vile and horrid Patriot act was passed, you want to call this Presidency a success? Get real!"
I disagree that the troops don't know why they are fighting. Among those who are there, they support the present dituation by 60-70% Now it could be that they are stupid, or it could be that they understand what they are doing better than we who sit here do. As in indicator, note that reenlistment rates are way up. If you were nearing the end of your term, and could get out, why don't you if you think it is a mistake. Now, this is not proff in itself, since soldiers hae a curious personnae in that if the task is difficult, they want to stay and get the job done. So, it is not becessarily proof, but it is an indicator.
I agree that the Patriot Act is a disgrace, but it was modelled under the old anti Mafia sections of the code. Too bad, no one ever complained when it was just a bunch of wops and guineas who were getting hosed by the government. And I would not call Bush's presidency a success, but I would still call him competent. If he is your opponent, to disregard him is to do so at your own peril.
Now, my favorite part: 'Can the terrorists make us over extend? Hell yes! They don't need tank divisions, they just need us to spend more money than we can afford ... something our current President seems more than willing to do."
So, terrorists funded by the old Oil for Palaces program sponsored by the UN. which has been out of existance for three years, are going to outspend us, while Bush is spending like crazy? I'm sure that their GDP is more than twice that of ours, oops, we have the largest economy in the world. So, maybe that argument was made in haste?
As to the question of will, I think that you may agree with me that there are several levels of attack by the terrorists, both domestically, and internationally, directed at the US populace and the Muslim population. Admittedly, outside of Iran, most of the Islamic world is Sunni, so attacking Shiites may be acceptable to some. But I have hope that the majority of Muslims are not of the sort that you have to adhere to my version or die.
My argument that carping about the president, whoever it is, is especially difficault in times of war still stands. republicans carping about Bosnia, (which is not an unqualified success, since we were supposed to be out by Christmas of 1996, but we are still there.) were and still are wrong. This is not to say that we need to create a royal presidency. Rather, that to criticize requires intelligence, a deft touch, and a certain amount of wit, all of which I believe that you possess. However, you don't seem to be demonstrating it to your full capacity in this argument.
I appreciate your thoughts, and your time. I apoligize for the delay, but between trials, my daughter coming home from Bostonwith her boyfriend, the Griz game, and Testy Fest, I have had a hard time sitting down to answer.