D2, when Bill Safire writes a column, you don't see too many people saying "The New York Times today said that Russia's experiment with democracy is dead."; they say Safire wrote it.
The paper you are quoting (why you bring it up before actually reading it?), was written by one man giving his opinion based on his extremely knowledgable background. It wasnt a group study by the Army War College, as you seem to imply.
Here is the link...it is an extremely long paper so I hope you know how to speedread.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm
Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
Dr. Jeffrey Record
December 2003
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
SUMMARY
The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.
The paper you are quoting (why you bring it up before actually reading it?), was written by one man giving his opinion based on his extremely knowledgable background. It wasnt a group study by the Army War College, as you seem to imply.
Here is the link...it is an extremely long paper so I hope you know how to speedread.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm
Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
Dr. Jeffrey Record
December 2003
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
SUMMARY
The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.
Shotgun,
Thanks for posting.
Just the fact that the document is posted with an army.mil address shows that he was comissioned by the Army to conduct this study - he certainly didn't hijack the URL.
So basically, we have a situation where the US Army War College commissions a study and the current Administration disagrees with the conclusions that are unfavorable towards the current administration - not too surprising.
So current administration conmtinuesn to discredit any critical thinking like they just did with Paul O'Neill - just business as usual.
Thanks for posting.
Just the fact that the document is posted with an army.mil address shows that he was comissioned by the Army to conduct this study - he certainly didn't hijack the URL.
So basically, we have a situation where the US Army War College commissions a study and the current Administration disagrees with the conclusions that are unfavorable towards the current administration - not too surprising.
So current administration conmtinuesn to discredit any critical thinking like they just did with Paul O'Neill - just business as usual.
Once again, I said it was released by The Army War College, which is absolutely and precisely correct. If I had said Dr. Jeffrey Record released it, that would have been false because he did not release it.
And it wouldn't be uncommon for someone to say.." a NYT editorial claimed that...".
And it wouldn't be uncommon for someone to say.." a NYT editorial claimed that...".
Senditin is clearly implying that one is in favor of having Saddam in power if he opposed the war. That premise is a complete fallacy because it is very concievable (to most of us) that you can believe Saddam to be an SOB, but at the same time realize that more good could have been done by not going to war.
Senditin does not need to imply that. It is a given. Unless there is a way to remove Saddam from power without a war, a theory I have yet to hear, then by opposing the war then by necessity you must still support Saddam still being in power. For some reason, you seem to be trying to squrim your way out of a perfectly reasonable position.
You're trying to say: I was rooting for the Eagles to win Sunday, I just didn't want the Packers to be eliminated.
Agsin, I will say it outright so that even you might get it, although I seriously doubt it.
I oppose the war = If it were up to me, Saddam would still be in power
Unless of course you can find some alternative way of removing him, which I would love to hear.
Senditin does not need to imply that. It is a given. Unless there is a way to remove Saddam from power without a war, a theory I have yet to hear, then by opposing the war then by necessity you must still support Saddam still being in power. For some reason, you seem to be trying to squrim your way out of a perfectly reasonable position.
You're trying to say: I was rooting for the Eagles to win Sunday, I just didn't want the Packers to be eliminated.
Agsin, I will say it outright so that even you might get it, although I seriously doubt it.
I oppose the war = If it were up to me, Saddam would still be in power
Unless of course you can find some alternative way of removing him, which I would love to hear.
Iget, send and others -- do you support going to war with N. Korea today? If not, then you must be in support of that brutal dictator Kim Jong Il being in power. You sure you want to support him?
p.s. clearly I'm just picking up on your guys' logic.
Here's a better one -- let's say we know there are Al Qaeda in New Jersey but have no idea who or where they are and can't get them. Do you support nuking or blowing up the entire state? No? Well then you must support them remaining free...because there is no way to eliminate them withoyt blowing up the state. Therefore, by opposing blowing the state up then by necessity you must still support their freedom. You sure you want to support Al Qaeda?
p.s. clearly I'm just picking up on your guys' logic.
Here's a better one -- let's say we know there are Al Qaeda in New Jersey but have no idea who or where they are and can't get them. Do you support nuking or blowing up the entire state? No? Well then you must support them remaining free...because there is no way to eliminate them withoyt blowing up the state. Therefore, by opposing blowing the state up then by necessity you must still support their freedom. You sure you want to support Al Qaeda?
Well spoken Iget....at least D2 took a reasonable shot at an answer...though I have not seen a proposed alternative yet. Lander would have sent a letter to Sadaam declaring him to be a SOB...then he would have taken the money saved by not going to war and given it to Hillary to invest in the futures market...and used the proceeds to eliminate the deficit.
"Iget, send and others -- do you support going to war with N. Korea today? If not, then you must be in support of that brutal dictator Kim Jong Il being in power. You sure you want to support him?'
If it were feasible then yes I would. North Koreans deserve basic rights just as much as Iraqis and Americans (even Lander)do. No brutal dictator deserves to be in power.
"Here's a better one -- let's say we know there are Al Qaeda in New Jersey but have no idea who or where they are and can't get them. Do you support nuking or blowing up the entire state? No? Well then you must support them remaining free...because there is no way to eliminate them withoyt blowing up the state. Therefore, by opposing blowing the state up then by necessity you must still support their freedom. You sure you want to support Al Qaeda?"
If you are attempting to compare that situation to what is going on in Iraq, then it is a flawed comparison. Besides that problem, there is no need to speak hypothetically, there most likely are some Al Qaeda sleeper cells in many states.
No I dont support blowing up NJ because it is not the only alternative to apprehending them. That is why I support the PATRIOT Act to help do just that, so that there are options other than letting terrorists roam free in this country plotting their next attack, or blowing up everyone.
If it were feasible then yes I would. North Koreans deserve basic rights just as much as Iraqis and Americans (even Lander)do. No brutal dictator deserves to be in power.
"Here's a better one -- let's say we know there are Al Qaeda in New Jersey but have no idea who or where they are and can't get them. Do you support nuking or blowing up the entire state? No? Well then you must support them remaining free...because there is no way to eliminate them withoyt blowing up the state. Therefore, by opposing blowing the state up then by necessity you must still support their freedom. You sure you want to support Al Qaeda?"
If you are attempting to compare that situation to what is going on in Iraq, then it is a flawed comparison. Besides that problem, there is no need to speak hypothetically, there most likely are some Al Qaeda sleeper cells in many states.
No I dont support blowing up NJ because it is not the only alternative to apprehending them. That is why I support the PATRIOT Act to help do just that, so that there are options other than letting terrorists roam free in this country plotting their next attack, or blowing up everyone.
IGetPMS2,
Please take your self-claimed "logic" to any philosophy professor and ask him to critique your reasoning. Your arguments are faltered and massively unsound.
D2 is making a mockery out of your absurd beliefs, yet you falsely stand by them ...
please, take my advice and have a professor explain to you the terrible mistakes in your logical deductions.
Frankly, I'm embarrassed that the American educational system has produced people like you and Senditin that fail to understand the most basic principles of logic and reasoning.
Please take your self-claimed "logic" to any philosophy professor and ask him to critique your reasoning. Your arguments are faltered and massively unsound.
D2 is making a mockery out of your absurd beliefs, yet you falsely stand by them ...
please, take my advice and have a professor explain to you the terrible mistakes in your logical deductions.
Frankly, I'm embarrassed that the American educational system has produced people like you and Senditin that fail to understand the most basic principles of logic and reasoning.
I recommend that begin your search here - www.deanforamerica.com - the site should contain sufficient information regarding the upcoming fund raisers in your area. Perhaps Governor Dean would entertain your inquiries after a fundraising dinner?
No thanks, I don't throw money away to losers who are so far removed from reality they might as well not even bother waking up in the morning. Besides, if he wins he'll just take my money anyway with or without my consent.
No thanks, I don't throw money away to losers who are so far removed from reality they might as well not even bother waking up in the morning. Besides, if he wins he'll just take my money anyway with or without my consent.
IGetPMS2,
Please take your self-claimed "logic" to any philosophy professor and ask him to critique your reasoning. Your arguments are faltered and massively unsound.
There's nothing wrong with the logic, at least nothing that you've shown it to be faulty. Just because it proves how illogical and stupid you sound doesn't make it illogical. If you dont understand something about it, I'll be happy to explain.
By the way, I see your still stuck on the name calling thing. Igetpms2. Brilliant. What is it now, six months with the same childish garbage. Its getting a little stale, try thinking of something new. Oh wait, I forgot. Thats beyond your capabilities.
D2 is making a mockery out of your absurd beliefs, yet you falsely stand by them ...
He asked a question and I answered it, pretty well I believe. I'll wait for him to reply. If there's something specific in the reply that you have a problem with I'll gladly reply. Otherwise go jerk off or something
Please take your self-claimed "logic" to any philosophy professor and ask him to critique your reasoning. Your arguments are faltered and massively unsound.
There's nothing wrong with the logic, at least nothing that you've shown it to be faulty. Just because it proves how illogical and stupid you sound doesn't make it illogical. If you dont understand something about it, I'll be happy to explain.
By the way, I see your still stuck on the name calling thing. Igetpms2. Brilliant. What is it now, six months with the same childish garbage. Its getting a little stale, try thinking of something new. Oh wait, I forgot. Thats beyond your capabilities.
D2 is making a mockery out of your absurd beliefs, yet you falsely stand by them ...
He asked a question and I answered it, pretty well I believe. I'll wait for him to reply. If there's something specific in the reply that you have a problem with I'll gladly reply. Otherwise go jerk off or something
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Igetp2s:
I do appreciate D2Bets question though. It challenges me as to my opinions, as well as gives me an opportunity to demonstrate whether I am in fact consistent with them or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your arguments consistantly defy the principles of logic deduction and proof, however that certainly does NOT make them correct, or that manner even remotely sensible.
"Senditin is clearly implying that one is in favor of having Saddam in power if he opposed the war. That premise is a complete fallacy because it is very concievable (to most of us) that you can believe Saddam to be an SOB, but at the same time realize that more good could have been done by not going to war.
Senditin does not need to imply that. It is a given. Unless there is a way to remove Saddam from power without a war, a theory I have yet to hear, then by opposing the war then by necessity you must still support Saddam still being in power. For some reason, you seem to be trying to squrim your way out of a perfectly reasonable position."
One of the most popular theories of philosophy is, in simple terms, "making decisions for the greatest good". The war in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, it has increased hostility towards the United States that will likely results in future conflicts and subsequently deaths, Iraq is likely break into civil war when we actually do leave, history has shown us that regime change does not work (Al Queda) and may in fact breed terrorism.
On top of this lets consider that the war has cost upwards of $180,000,000,000 (billions, by some estimates - nobody knows the actual amount). You could take that money and feed millions and millions of people, you could educate millions, provide healthcare to millions ...
Do you think the people that could be helped globally would hate America if we actually helped them in an altruistic manner (not the usually $$$ hidden US agendas? Do you think this type of humanity would breed terrorism?
No, of course it wouldn't. There are countless ways to use our resources that help more people. The problem with your assinine assertions that "if you oppose war then you support being in power" is that we simly do not have infinite resources. If you truly want to help people (as you are falsely stating your reasoning for supporting war) then common sense, philosophy and basic logic dictate that you should maximize your efforts. The war in Iraq does minimal good, and arguably it reverses your self-asserted goal of "helping people."
Have you worked with the mentally retarded? I doubt it as it might interfere with your video games and FOX TV, but I highly recommend that you do such. I suspect it will elighten you a bit, and open your eyes that there's nothing humorus about degrading people with the word 'retard'. School bus insults aren't that funny when you understand the reality behind them.
I do appreciate D2Bets question though. It challenges me as to my opinions, as well as gives me an opportunity to demonstrate whether I am in fact consistent with them or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your arguments consistantly defy the principles of logic deduction and proof, however that certainly does NOT make them correct, or that manner even remotely sensible.
"Senditin is clearly implying that one is in favor of having Saddam in power if he opposed the war. That premise is a complete fallacy because it is very concievable (to most of us) that you can believe Saddam to be an SOB, but at the same time realize that more good could have been done by not going to war.
Senditin does not need to imply that. It is a given. Unless there is a way to remove Saddam from power without a war, a theory I have yet to hear, then by opposing the war then by necessity you must still support Saddam still being in power. For some reason, you seem to be trying to squrim your way out of a perfectly reasonable position."
One of the most popular theories of philosophy is, in simple terms, "making decisions for the greatest good". The war in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, it has increased hostility towards the United States that will likely results in future conflicts and subsequently deaths, Iraq is likely break into civil war when we actually do leave, history has shown us that regime change does not work (Al Queda) and may in fact breed terrorism.
On top of this lets consider that the war has cost upwards of $180,000,000,000 (billions, by some estimates - nobody knows the actual amount). You could take that money and feed millions and millions of people, you could educate millions, provide healthcare to millions ...
Do you think the people that could be helped globally would hate America if we actually helped them in an altruistic manner (not the usually $$$ hidden US agendas? Do you think this type of humanity would breed terrorism?
No, of course it wouldn't. There are countless ways to use our resources that help more people. The problem with your assinine assertions that "if you oppose war then you support being in power" is that we simly do not have infinite resources. If you truly want to help people (as you are falsely stating your reasoning for supporting war) then common sense, philosophy and basic logic dictate that you should maximize your efforts. The war in Iraq does minimal good, and arguably it reverses your self-asserted goal of "helping people."
Have you worked with the mentally retarded? I doubt it as it might interfere with your video games and FOX TV, but I highly recommend that you do such. I suspect it will elighten you a bit, and open your eyes that there's nothing humorus about degrading people with the word 'retard'. School bus insults aren't that funny when you understand the reality behind them.
Did you support leaving Vietnam? If so, you are a communist.
Ever hear of Boolean logic? According to the current administration their logic was like this: Saddam is in possession of WMD's and Saddam is a global threat and Saddam is a dictator and Saddam is linked to Al Qaida and we can set up a temporary government to provide security to Iraq and Iraqi's will greet us with open arms and the Kurds will give up their autonomy… go to war
Based on this statement, their entire logic is false. Saddam does not posses WMD's. Saddam is not a global threat. Saddam was a Dictator. Saddam has no links to Al Qaida. The temporary government w/o US support could not provide security to the region. Some Iraqi's are happy to see us there. The Kurds want their own State
To make it easier for you cons...
If A and B and C and D and E and F and G then we go to war.
If not A and B and C and D and E and F and G then we go to war. In the eloquent words of Premenstrual… that is some retard logic.
Ever hear of Boolean logic? According to the current administration their logic was like this: Saddam is in possession of WMD's and Saddam is a global threat and Saddam is a dictator and Saddam is linked to Al Qaida and we can set up a temporary government to provide security to Iraq and Iraqi's will greet us with open arms and the Kurds will give up their autonomy… go to war
Based on this statement, their entire logic is false. Saddam does not posses WMD's. Saddam is not a global threat. Saddam was a Dictator. Saddam has no links to Al Qaida. The temporary government w/o US support could not provide security to the region. Some Iraqi's are happy to see us there. The Kurds want their own State
To make it easier for you cons...
If A and B and C and D and E and F and G then we go to war.
If not A and B and C and D and E and F and G then we go to war. In the eloquent words of Premenstrual… that is some retard logic.
Keep dancing Lander...we've heard ad nauseum about you opposing the war but that wasn't the question...all that was asked was what your policy with Iraq would have been and where would Sadaam be today based on your policy. This question was posed several ways with no intentional underlying malice...yet all you do is attack. Mud, D2 and others have taken stabs at it, but you won't. Is that because you have no alternative? All you want to do is whine or answer different questions? People can't ask a hypothetical question because that means they aren't sensible.
Send,
I've taken the time to write detailed responses and you and your inane set of war hawk allies, but your group constantly replies with a brief paragraph of insults instead of offering anything remotely enlightening ...
it is not I that is dancing, it is you. It would seem that you seem incapable of debate. Perhaps you aren't clever enough to adapt past a loaded question and present a valid retort? I don't know ... but there have been dozens of insightful posts made by D2 and other, yet your responses seem to always boil down to the likes of, "ughhh .. so you like Saddam in power retard?"
I've taken the time to write detailed responses and you and your inane set of war hawk allies, but your group constantly replies with a brief paragraph of insults instead of offering anything remotely enlightening ...
it is not I that is dancing, it is you. It would seem that you seem incapable of debate. Perhaps you aren't clever enough to adapt past a loaded question and present a valid retort? I don't know ... but there have been dozens of insightful posts made by D2 and other, yet your responses seem to always boil down to the likes of, "ughhh .. so you like Saddam in power retard?"
Lander,
Your posts (at least in this thread) have dodged the issue. You have stated you oppose the war...fine....you want a US government that cares for people not invades them...fine...but that wasn't the question. Now maybe you have addressed my question in another post that I missed. And please don't include me in the name calling. I will respond if attacked, but I generally try and keep things civil and in perspective...though occasionally I have strayed
What's wrong with saying(if you believe it) that you would have continued the old policy of sanctions, no fly zones etc. and tried to neutralize him that way? I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean it's wrong. And bottom line it's the Iraqi people whose opinion counts the most as to our invasion.
Your posts (at least in this thread) have dodged the issue. You have stated you oppose the war...fine....you want a US government that cares for people not invades them...fine...but that wasn't the question. Now maybe you have addressed my question in another post that I missed. And please don't include me in the name calling. I will respond if attacked, but I generally try and keep things civil and in perspective...though occasionally I have strayed
What's wrong with saying(if you believe it) that you would have continued the old policy of sanctions, no fly zones etc. and tried to neutralize him that way? I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean it's wrong. And bottom line it's the Iraqi people whose opinion counts the most as to our invasion.
Senditin - I don't have time to read all of these posts but if Lander's idea to punish Saddam is to continue the old policy of no fly zones etc. The Iraqi people would continue to be murdered by a ruthless dictator.
The Libs need to put themselves in the shoes of the Iraqi's.....If they had relatives and friends murdered by Saddam, would they want the US to impose no fly zones, or take the SOB out??? That should be a rhetorical question.
KMAN
The Libs need to put themselves in the shoes of the Iraqi's.....If they had relatives and friends murdered by Saddam, would they want the US to impose no fly zones, or take the SOB out??? That should be a rhetorical question.
KMAN
Keep dancing Lander...we've heard ad nauseum about you opposing the war but that wasn't the question...all that was asked was what your policy with Iraq would have been and where would Sadaam be today based on your policy.
Thank you Senditin for briefly identifying the problem with talking with Lander. Thanks for the nice essay Lander. Now are you ready to answer the question we actually are dealing with?
Just to summarize, the question is basically:
If it were up to you, would Saddam still be in power?
The question is not:
Do you support the war, and why, using exagerations regarding the number of casualties and baseless predictions of gloom in its aftermath to support your opinion. Thanks.
Thank you Senditin for briefly identifying the problem with talking with Lander. Thanks for the nice essay Lander. Now are you ready to answer the question we actually are dealing with?
Just to summarize, the question is basically:
If it were up to you, would Saddam still be in power?
The question is not:
Do you support the war, and why, using exagerations regarding the number of casualties and baseless predictions of gloom in its aftermath to support your opinion. Thanks.
