Guess I've Been PwNed

I would like to publicly apologize to Dave Budge.  After all, I blew wind without accepting the due weight of his mighty argument.  Dave said:

If we lose (in Iraq) we will not engage for decades in matters of genocide or stopping international aggression in the third world. We will not, for a generation, be inclined to help in situations that resemble even our 50,000 ft attack above Kosavo. We will have despots the world over seeing us a paper tigers. We will have a world where we don’t even have the muscularity to protect international markets.

Shorter and more to the point:  If we lose, the neighbors won't respect us and we won't be able to show our face in public for at least ... years.  I am so deeply shamed for mocking such an adult and forthright stance as that.  'Course, if we really are as powerful as we think we are, and so not a paper tiger, then this little fracas in Iraq wouldn't matter much anyway, would it?

But I'm not certain that I deserved quite the thrashing that Dave handed out today, so allow me to retort.

Not that I thought there wasn’t some merit to some of the things either Rob or I had said, but because there are no substantive facts to argue in his thesis.

Now that I deserved.  After all, it is common knowledge that those who believe the Iraq occupation to be a complete clusterfuck of foreign policy and ruinous money pit must offer the proof of such things.  I didn't do that.  My bad.  I didn't show that we are now more internationally feared than al Queda.  I didn't show that the staggering debt of our continuing occupation might bankrupt the country.  I didn't prove that Iraq is in a civil war between the Shia'ai and the Sunni, with our soldiers caught in the middle.  I didn't prove that any day now, the Iraqis will come forth with flowers and praise.  Google doesn't work to show any of this stuff; I must do it if I want to even imagine these things as real.  These things must be shown to Dave or I must admit that my post lacks 'substance'.  I so admit.

I won’t rehash my position on whether or not we should have gone to war.

In Dave's defense, that's very easy to say, considering that he refuses to have one.  I might have implied that he hasn't thought the whole thing through, in my previous post.  If that's the case, then I am sorry.  Obviously, he has thought it through and accepted the most rational response possible:  don't ask, don't tell.

I will make two points: A) There is no proof that it ensured failure and, B) failure is a possibility - which I think a closer reading of the last sentence of my first paragraph allows.

Again with the request to prove the obvious, and the deep hope that denies consideration that any proof be necessary.  I will defend myself this much, Dave.  I didn't posit that failure is possible.  My thesis held that failure should be past tense.  Funny, I think I even posited that your post failed to grasp that as a possibility.  Maybe I imagined that ... yet here you do so again.

As to the question of “how” (to win in Iraq) one has to wonder if Rob assumes this position for all difficult problems for which there is no answer yet.

I am sorry.  I should be more transparent to idiots.  Allow me to assuage Dave's discomfort at my failure to root for the home team after the game is already lost.  I will put forth three possible scenarios for us to 'win' in Iraq.  I would offer up links to 'experts' who share these views, but Dave has already covered his ass poopooed the idea of dueling experts.  Hopefully, he will still find these ideas educational.

1)  We stay the course, send in *MORE* troops and force the sectarian fighting out of Baghdad.   That's a great idea, really.  When Baghdad is secure, kinda like Kandahar, we declare victory and come home.  Yay us.  We look like the badasses Dave wants us to appear and aren't we great!  Screw the rest of the country.  We win, 'cause we forced peace.  (Oww.  My brain hurt writing that sentence.)  Of course, the rest of the country would be a blood bath, but we are just too cool for school, just like in Afghanistan.

2)  We deport all the Sunni, and hand the country over to the Shi'ites.  Mission accomplished!  Except that they would like Iran more than us, and that would be bad.  It's winning, but maybe not so much.  I think I'd better think it out again.

3)  We leave our troops in the line of fire until the death squads (American trained and the best in the biz ... Hoowah!)  gain the upper hand, and then make an oil deal with the winner.  This is the most likely of all scenarios, and really punctuates our commitment.   Other nations will fear our muscular potency ... Fuck Yeah!  It might bankrupt us, but we got oil ... Fuck Yeah!

So, Dave, do any of those options look attractive to you?  You spoke of consequence; it might be time to accept a few, right?

First, it is specious at best to claim that they don’t share our desires without delineating all of the desires that we may or may not have in common - peace being a highly unifying factor which Wulfgar seems to discount for some strange reason.

Kumbaya, babe.  I'm with ya'.

As I said in my post, there is a good chance that we will fail.

No, you really didn't.  And you really haven't accepted the simple idea that we already have failed.  I'd apologize for that, but there's little I need to apologize for.

I’m not, however, willing to concede at this point that we have. Again, this is but a difference of opinion and neither his nor mine have enough facts to find a conclusion with certitude until we know the outcome.

You aren't even willing to consider failure, much less concede it.  You call it a difference of opinion.  Fine.  Reality is identity based, I guess.  Expert opinion?  Offensive to Mr. Budge, and damn the gits who attempt to bring it to bear.  Statistics?  Meaningless unless they are brought unto his sight.  Research is for the lowly opponent.  Apparently I didn't present enough.  I must yet again castigate myself.  Sorry Dave.

Not only is there a wrong assumption about those of us who are not ready to say “quit” but the arrogance of his assertion that we are not adult enough to hold that opinion reflects his unbound judgementalism. I might be wrong, as I’ve said, and I have no problem being told that I might be wrong.

Dave, you're the only blogger I've ever known who willfully derides someone who agrees with you.  Get real, just a little.  Self-reflection doesn't suck as much as you think it does.

To assert, however, that I lack maturity because of this opinion is yet another logical fallacy. I’m wrong because I’m immature? I might be wrong because my argument is weak but my maturity has no bearing on my logic from the standpoint reason.

I'm guilty of many things, but claiming immaturity on the part of someone who worries what others might think, and defends their actions because ... well, they're *OURS*?  Yeah, Id call that pretty junior high.  There is no Ad Hominem, here.  We have no special place in the world that gives us the righteous being to completely fuck up others, just because "we want"!  Your entire defense of winning was based on just such a pathetic assumption.  But I must, again, apologize.  Apparently I hurt your delicate feels.  Sorry.

I don’t doubt that Wulfgar is “getting tired” but as he insinuates, at least it seems that way to me, that he is somewhat less at perpetrating these offense than others, I would hope he would be rather speaking of himself.

Uh-oh!  Hypocrisy on Wulfgar!  Bad bad bad.  Finger pointing!

I never exonerated myself, did I, you prick?  I am tired of having to take out the garbage; and having 'persons' such as yourself think that they need to make me prove what I'm all about is really getting annoying.  Let's be plain and truthful, Dave.  You are the one who poked me with the stick.  Remember?  You did it willfully.  Terrific.  Aren't you special for having manipulated Wulfgar to point hits your way.  I really wish you had just told me to "piss off".  That would have shown that you actually had a pair, but I am ever so forced to apologize for your shortcomings as well.  Post this up:

You win the Internets, Dave Budge.

(To any of the stupidly sarcasm challenged who read this post:  I left it remarkably link free for a reason.  Do your own goddamned work, and look up the truth for yourself.)

Comments

[Nathan H.]

What a gasbag.

[Cece]

lol. I was on a conference call with McGovern tonight. He said:

{paraphrasing}
"This is not a problem that we can leave for the next President. This is Bush's War, and it should end on his watch. In my opinion, shipping out 20,000 more troops is an effort to prolong the war and take the problem to the next Presidency."
{/paraphrasing}

He used some sort of baseball analogy, but I couldn't write that fast.

[Nathan H.]

McGovern? Don’t the liberals have enough living losers without resuscitating mummies?

[Mark T]

Where there is Budge there is condecension, hostility, ugly feelings strewn about. He's best avoided unless you actually like having a turd in your punchbowl.

[Steve T.]

Don't let Dave fool you, he's been for this war from the beginning, and he's in favor of escalation now. He loves to use this holier than thou, "I can't take a position on this because I don't know all the facts" thing so that he can castigate those who take a position against the war for doing so on the basis of not enough information.

And I know he just loves your post, Wulfgar. He's bad enough when we don't show him the respect he thinks he deserves for his superior intellect. This kind of disrespect will really, really get his panties in a wad.

[Wulfgar]

I think what bothers me the absolute utmost is that there were those of us who were vociferously *against* the war before it ever started. To many of us the reasons were crystal clear:

1) It was a sidetrack standing against our ability to fight the real enemy, al Queda, and those who continue to shield, train and support them.

2) It would likely degenerate into a clusterfuck of a civil conflict, kind of like ... well ... it has. Experts on the region were coming out all over to tell us this, but that was just their 'opinion', of course. They were being 'un-serious', I guess.

3) It had quantum more to do with the motives of the administration than our national security. That makes for an expensive and piss-poor foreign policy.

I get real goddamned testy being told that I *must* consider the consequences 5 years after I did; especially by someone who won't even admit that they failed to do so when it actually would have mattered.

[Steve]

Sheesh, Middle School recess let you all get to a keyboard? I post a comment on the original post, and then I find this, a triumph of logic and rational argument "you prick" as an example.
This is an example of factual relativism, i.e. the world is round is just as true as another who asserts the world is flat. You offer nothing in support other than of course everyone knows that. . . .
sorry I drifted here.

[Eric Brooks]

Oh please. The "pulling out now means we will have more problems for years to come" is the latest NeoCon talking point. I've seen that said almost word for word by at least three pundits already.

We strengthen our home defenses and bomb the crap out of any country involved in messing with us. Problem solved.

[Steve]

Why is it better "to bomb the crap out of any country involved with messing with us"? Bombing by itself doesn't really do that much except destroy infrastructure.
But are you advocating a Fortress America where we ignore the rest of the world?
What if they don't ignore us?

[Wulfgar]

Sheesh, Middle School recess let you all get to a keyboard? I post a comment on the original post, and then I find this, a triumph of logic and rational argument "you prick" as an example.

Steve, my response to you is posted in the comments to the post below this one. Keep in mind that I'm trying very hard to be polite to you. Don't bring up the 'civility is proof of correctness' argument with me. I'll rip you a new one, if you do.

This is an example of factual relativism, i.e. the world is round is just as true as another who asserts the world is flat. You offer nothing in support other than of course everyone knows that. . .

Most of the opposition relies on exactly that, as a given dictum. Opinion equals fact equals opinion. Good luck with that. I've already addressed your concern below.

Why is it better "to bomb the crap out of any country involved with messing with us"? Bombing by itself doesn't really do that much except destroy infrastructure.

It seemed to work like a charm in Afganistan and the Balkins. Funny thing, that. People aren't so concerned with killing you if they have to find food for the winter. And please keep in mind, many of us aren't concerned with your value judgements. What's 'better' doesn't matter half as much as what's effective.

But are you advocating a Fortress America where we ignore the rest of the world?

Assumptions make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'mptions'. Eric posited that we strike back when struck, that we avoid and foil danger before it hits. That's hardly what you attempt to counter with, is it?

What if they don't ignore us?

"Bin Laden intends to strike within the US". Ignore that. It's just a historical document. "Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction capability." Ignore that. They're around Baghdad, and north and south and east and west of there. "We will be greeted as liberators". Right.

Better question, Steve: They aren't ignoring us, so why are we trying so desperately to ignore them?