Deserting Petraeus

[dilligras]

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras OK.... JFK committed our country to always helping our allies whenever they were endangered, just as we had done during WWII. I was not privy to that decision, so please forgive me if I feel no obligation toward carrying it out.

It was not a decision, but rather an inauguration speech, in 1961.

(excerpt)
"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Each time we have failed to do so is a failure to keep our word as a nation and a black mark against us a people. Maybe you feel that way, but I certainly don't. I understand that "the American people" is made up of myriad individuals, each of whom has his own opinions and beliefs. For anyone to look at "the American people" only as a collective entity, let alone to hold every American responsible for the actions of "their" government, is to commit a gross logical fallacy. Quite likely such a person is also seriously deluded.

Waaal, pardner, perhaps President Kennedy may be forgiven the fallacy-- maybe even his delusion-- since he had just been elected to represent ALL Americans, without regard for their individual opinions or beliefs.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Bush 41 failed, when he feigned helping the Kurds and Shi-ites overthrow Saddam in '91, for example. Clinton failed, when he bugged out of Somalia, and Reagan failed when he did the same in Lebanon. This is a pattern of behavior that bodes ill for the reputation of America. Do you support the notion that the United States military should be the world's policeman? If so, do you base this support solely on the fact that JFK allegedly said it should be so?

No. I believe the US military should be the ultimate enforcer of American policy and interests. Of course, the parallels to local government's enforcement arm, the police, may not be denied, and so it's quite natural to make the analogy.

I could just as easily ask you if you thought the police were necessary to the proper conduct of a society, and if so, how do you then dismiss so cavalierly the need for a similar protection of our international affairs and interests?

Quote by: Autolykos As a side note, you'll find that when the US military pulled out of Iraq, Somalia, and Lebanon, there were no terrorist attacks upon US soil in response. It seems that no terrorists were emboldened by US military withdrawal from those countries. Why would this be so, if the terrorists wanted to "bring down" the US?

The US military has pulled out of Iraq? Damn, I knew that nap was too long! Funny, though, I should have expected some news coverage....

Your claims are ridiculous on their face, given that Hezbullah grew exponentially after bombing the Marine barracks in Lebanon, and Al-Qaeda used their, "victories" in Somalia to recruit even more fighters, some of whom later bombed our embassies. You are aware, aren't you, that our embassies around the world are considered US soil?

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras When our allies can no longer count on us, who will we be able to count on when the need arises? Perhaps it's foolhardy, then, to be willing to intervene in every "crisis" going on elsewhere in the world.

I think one's point of view might depend on how one views the world.... some see it as a rapidly shrinking group of islands, from which there is no escaping any viral components. Some, apparently deny the increased mobility which shrinks the natural barriers of oceans and mountain ranges unto nothingness, considering themselves safe from any danger from abroad...... right up to the time the next bomb goes off.

Hopefully, such folks are in the minority, and will be duly ridiculed for their foolish, ostrich-like behavior.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Or is this just a ploy of yours, to make work for others, while you sit back and parse each sentence from its context, in order to better facilitate the manufacture of your men of straw? Naw, that couldn't be it. Perhaps you can point out the strawmen I've manufactured? Thanks in advance.

Why? So we can argue the definition? No thanks, also in advance.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Please read the thread, before requesting that which has already been provided, lest thy buffoonery sail quickly past the, "unimaginable" indicator on the guage for such things. I have read the thread. I've seen no evidence of "unimaginable mass slaughter" in Vietnam after the withdrawal of US troops.

I suppose that could be true, if one has an inordinate ability to imagine mass slaughter.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Victory has apparently been replaced as an acceptable objective, in the lefty lexicon of political correctness. How is this a response to what I had written?

You wrote: "Perhaps "victory" was not the true objective of that conflict."

Followed by my observation: "Victory has apparently been replaced as an acceptable objective, in the lefty lexicon of political correctness."

While your statement doesn't necessarily warrant a response, I think any casual reader of the exchange would agree that my observation dove-tailed with it rather nicely.

I find your faux confusion rather boring and time-consuming, so if you would be so considerate as to pay closer attention, perhaps we can avoid such mindless diversions in the future.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras It only makes sense if you read it in the context of the rest of the post from which you parsed it, n'est-ce pas? Funny how that works, eh? No, it does not even make sense then, IMO.

"See.... now there you go again... "[/Pres. Reagan]

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Yes, I am reminded of the existence of mistakes too often.... could you not post quite so frequently? If my response appears flippant, it's because I can't seriously entertain the idea that you actually thought it necessary to remind us that such things exist.... but I suppose such histrionic flailing about is natural when defending one's cohorts in crime. I was not aware that I was defending anyone per se. What I was doing was merely pointing out the fact that a person can make a decision at one point in time, and regret it later. That's typically called a "mistake" in that person's opinion. What you call "flip-flopping to appease the Left" could simply be regret of past decisions. My point is, you appear to have no authority on which to make such a definitive pronouncement.

Your point is unfounded, as your perception of my authority is of little consequence, since I claim none.

And your attempt to excuse the flip-floppers is laughable.

"....regret of past decisions", indeed! ROFLMBFAO! Tell it to Cindy Sheehan, and maybe she'll stop biting Hillary's ankles!


As you were.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras For the poll? As I said, it was an informal poll, asked of an audience of a cable news analyst's website.... barely worth mentioning, except that I doubt the MSM's pollsters even considered asking the question, which makes it an inherently interesting one, if for no other reason. I see. So you have no source for this informal poll. Forgive me if I find it hard to believe, then.

No problemo, pardner.... but could you be so kind as to find another source that addresses the question asked in the FoxNews poll? You know, the question about whether the public believes Gen. Petraeus is telling the truth? Bishop says they don't and the only poll I knew of that did ask the question showed that they do, and rather overwhelmingly at that. I await with bated breath.

As a matter of curiosity, I don't recall ever having seen a poll answered so difinitively before.... normally, I would question the need for a poll whose outcome is so remarkably one-sided.

Of course, folks like yourself who did not see or read the General's report, should not have been able to respond, and maybe they didn't, if they didn't know what, "truth" was actually being questioned.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras I disagree. Just my opinion, but since opinions are as valuable to you as facts, you must necessarily agree with me when I say you are wrong. If you need corroborating evidence of what I say, allow me to repeat it.... I think you are wrong. Please read this: Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia More specifically, value does not equate to agreement. Nor does repeating something equate with corroborating evidence.

Poppycock, I say. Value does most certainly equate to agreement, when you are deciding the value of a source. If you place the value of one source higher than another, you are in effect deciding to more readily accept as true, or agree with, anything derived from said source. I am ashamed for you, that you actually needed someone to point out the rather obvious fallacy in your thinking. Can you say schadenfreude?

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Yes, I could probably find the text of the report online.....but don't you think you'd appreciate it more if you located your own treasure, instead of sending others out to look for it? You were the one who first mentioned the report. Those of us who have not read it lack sufficient context to gauge your remarks concerning it. Therefore you have two options: 1) Provide the text of the report so that we may have sufficient context, or 2) Choose not to do 1), at which point those of us who lack sufficient context will simply ignore your earlier statements in that regard, and ignore any attempts on your part to bring up the matter again. The choice is yours, mon frere.

My choice? Allrighty then! I choose to point out that it was Bishop who said, "...the public doesn't support Petraeus's rosy report....", so maybe you should ask him to do the search for you.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras As for your level of concern over the situation in Iraq, thank you for sharing. Frankly, I had wondered why this info was not a part of your profile.... Somehow I think that, if you were interested in debate and not mere self-congratulation, you would not be nearly so oblique.

What a coincidence! By some vagary of circumstance, I was just thinking that if you were interested in debate, you would not spend nearly so much time discussing my numerous attributes.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras And your reason for mentioning this? If you think that I will be intimidated by your, "I'm telling mommy!" tactics, you should first have a frank discussion with my siblings.... I feel confident that they could dissuade you from such a notion. I beg your pardon. There was no intention of intimidation on my part. Rather, I was giving you the courtesy of a fair warning before moderation likely came down on your head.

Yeah, and I'm Tinkerbell, and I need you to clap for me, 'cause I'm dyin' here! ROFL.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Why no, why don't you just continue taking the word of the enemy stringer "journalists", who are daily quoted by your precious MSM..... that seems to be working so well for you. Where did I say that I took the word of "the enemy stringer 'journalists'"? That looks like a gross assumption on your part -- and a false one, I might add.

The only assumption was that you are not immune to the perfidious agenda of the lamestream media, who are known to use enemy propaganda against our efforts in Iraq.

Quote by: Autolykos Quote by: dilligras Lemmeseenow..... how best to respond to your opinion as to what constitutes a credible source?? Oh, yeah...... DILLIGRAS? What? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

It's an acronym...... Do I Look Like I Give A Rat's ASs?


As you were.