2,000

[xaoshaen]

I don't discredit the opinions of the majority of the military (even though I made fun of your meathead friends) just like you shouldn’t discredit the many (yes more than 2 or 3) people who disagree with yours.

My point wasn't that the situation was fucked up or that it was super peachy keen. My point was that Xao claimed we, as civilians, are not able to formulate a proper opinion since we weren't there. I just pointed out that the opinion of those who where wasn't universal.

Take it as a slight against your government if you want, but that wasn't my point.

Poll a few hundred thousand people on any issue and you're bound to come up with dissenting opinions. Their mere existence doesn't lend them credibility, particularly when faced with the weight of the opposing concensus.

[Martrae]

EVERYONE KNOWS that Zanchief has no clue what he's talking about.

[Zanchief]

I don't discredit the opinions of the majority of the military (even though I made fun of your meathead friends) just like you shouldn’t discredit the many (yes more than 2 or 3) people who disagree with yours.

My point wasn't that the situation was fucked up or that it was super peachy keen. My point was that Xao claimed we, as civilians, are not able to formulate a proper opinion since we weren't there. I just pointed out that the opinion of those who where wasn't universal.

Take it as a slight against your government if you want, but that wasn't my point.

Poll a few hundred thousand people on any issue and you're bound to come up with dissenting opinions. Their mere existence doesn't lend them credibility, particularly when faced with the weight of the opposing concensus.

Considering the vilification that follows with having such an opinion, I do lend it credibility, far more than the opinion of the heard.

[xaoshaen]

Considering the vilification that follows with having such an opinion, I do lend it credibility, far more than the opinion of the heard.

The problem with that is that you're discounting the overwhelming mojority of the eyewitness accounts in favor of a handful of dissenters solely because you agree with them. Disagreeing with the majority is fine, and often necessary, but it requires a reason beyond mere comfort.

[Zanchief]

I'm not disagreeing with the majority, I'm acknowledge the minority.

[xaoshaen]

I'm not disagreeing with the majority, I'm acknowledge the minority.

You're absolutely disagreeing with the majority by giving a disproportionate weight to the minority opinion. You're giving credence to a diametrically opposed viewpoint without an explanation as to why it should be considered more valid. The two points of view are, as summations of the conditions in Iraq, mutually exclusive. You can't endorse one without disagreeing with the other.

[Zanchief]

Well considering us lowly civilians are unable to properly formulate an opinion about what’s going in Iraq (your words), we have to rely on the second hand knowledge of those who have served (I don't believe this, but since you do...). So yes I can most certainly entertain two completely differing opinions without discrediting either.

I have never stated my preference anywhere in this thread, or any other like it, all I said was there was an opinion from the people who have served that is different from your own.

[Phlegm]

Don't forget the 15,220 soldiers who've been injured.

[DangerPaul]

Everyone misses the point, war and violence are stupid.

[xaoshaen]

Well considering us lowly civilians are unable to properly formulate an opinion about what’s going in Iraq (your words), we have to rely on the second hand knowledge of those who have served (I don't believe this, but since you do...). So yes I can most certainly entertain two completely differing opinions without discrediting either.

That's not quite what I said Zan. A civilian can certaintly have an educated, informed opinion about Iraq as long as they've been there or have reliable information from those who have experienced it first-hand. Relying on media outlets for a description of the conditions and events pretty much disqualifies any opinion ventured.

You can entertain two diametrically opposed ideas, but not profess them or consider them both valid as a summation of a situation.

I have never stated my preference anywhere in this thread, or any other like it, all I said was there was an opinion from the people who have served that is different from your own.

And I've pointed out that there's no reason to credit that dissenting opinion over the overwhelming concensus to the contrary.

[Zanchief]

That's not quite what I said Zan.

Don't think I wasn't thinking about your Babcock paraphrase when I was writing that~

And I've pointed out that there's no reason to credit that dissenting opinion over the overwhelming concensus to the contrary.

And I've pointed out that there is.

[Lueyen]

Everyone misses the point, war and violence are stupid.

And tragic. Unfortunatly when you are dealing with someone who only understands violence, you end up exhausting all other reasonable options and aren't left with any other choice. Of course what is "reasonable" is a matter of perspective, and what you are willing to concede to avoid conflict.

[Minrott]

That's not quite what I said Zan. A civilian can certaintly have an educated, informed opinion about Iraq as long as they've been there or have reliable information from those who have experienced it first-hand.

So it's not possible to have an educated, informed opionion on a war without first hand knowledge?

That sounds like the history professor that berated me in class for my opinions on Vietnam, I wasn't alive then, I couldn't possibly understand anything see. I think someone without first hand knowledge has the ability to step back and be completely independent in their evaluation. They have the opportunity to be undeniably unbiased by other peoples educated or uneducated opinions.

I do agree though that if the mainstream media is your only source of information, whatever opinion you've formed is invalid at best.

[xaoshaen]

So it's not possible to have an educated, informed opionion on a war without first hand knowledge?

First of all, I never said that. Secondly, even if I had, you're drawing a general inference from a specific case.

That sounds like the history professor that berated me in class for my opinions on Vietnam, I wasn't alive then, I couldn't possibly understand anything see.

There's a significant difference between a war thirty years ago and one ongoing. In the former case you have access to the collection and analysis of the collective first-hand experiences of those involved at all levels. That's not an opportunity afforded us over the course of a conflict.

I think someone without first hand knowledge has the ability to step back and be completely independent in their evaluation. They have the opportunity to be undeniably unbiased by other peoples educated or uneducated opinions.

Actually, each time data is related, the opportunity to form an unbiased opinion is diminished, not enhanced. Every individual in the chain of relation is one more opportunity to insinuate their own opinion.

I do agree though that if the mainstream media is your only source of information, whatever opinion you've formed is invalid at best.

There are essentially two sources of information during a conflict: the media and those who have been there. If you're not getting your information from the latter, you're either making shit up, or subject to media biases.

[Minrott]

First of all, I never said that

That's why it was a question. I wasn't trying to tear apart what you were saying, rather understand it.

Actually, each time data is related, the opportunity to form an unbiased opinion is diminished, not enhanced. Every individual in the chain of relation is one more opportunity to insinuate their own opinion.

So you're saying, that if an opinion is formed based on any collection of any data, it's impossible to be unbiased? Or that the more data used in the formation of a stance the more biased it becomes? I would think each time data is related, a third party with no first hand knowledge would be able to weigh all the sources against each other to formulate an opinion completely independant of the sources individually. Something like a jury selection out of county where a high profile murder occured.

[mofish]

IRAQ -

Infrastructure - F
Safety - F
Clear reason for going to war - F
Exit Strategy - F

People realize what a fucking disgrace this is turning into.

[Lueyen]

IRAQ -

Infrastructure - F
Safety - F
Clear reason for going to war - F
Exit Strategy - F

People realize what a fucking disgrace this is turning into.

Mofish can you honestly say that there would be any set of realistic achievable goals where you would have given A's?

Lets start with reasons to go to war, becasue thats where it all stems from right? I mean really I don't see you seeing any part of it as successful under any circumstances if you see absolutely no reason for the actions to start. At what point if any would you have finally said yes, we need to remove Sadam from power?

[Captain Insano]

This thread go do with a dose of racism to add flavor.

[Minrott]

Lets see.

60,000 Iraquis now provide security for their own people.

All of Iraqs 400 courts are now in function.

The Judiciary is fully independent of the gov't.

Power generation is at 4,518 megawatts, exceeding prewar average.

All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes are open.

Nearly all primary and secondary schools are open.

1,500 schools have been rehabed.

Teachers are paid 12 to 25 times their pre war salaries.

All 240 hospital and more than 1200 clinics are open.

Doctors salaries are 8 times their prewar average.

Pharmaceutical distribution is 1200% what it was.

22,000 children have been vaccinated against common ailments, that they never would have recieved before the war.

Yeah it pretty much all sucks huh.

[Harrison]

[DangerPaul]

This thread go do with a dose of racism to add flavor.

fuck you you jewish nigger loving cock smoking faggot

[xaoshaen]

IRAQ -

Infrastructure - F
Safety - F
Clear reason for going to war - F
Exit Strategy - F

People realize what a fucking disgrace this is turning into.

The Iraqi infrastructure in non-combat zones is generally better than it was prior to the war.

I'd be interested in knowing which parts of the country failed their safety inspection, or is the entire country a death trap?

It was clearly in the US's best interests to remove Hussein's regime from power.

I'm glad you have access to top level strategy discussions, because I don't. I'm extremely interested to hear what the exit strategy that you've failed is.

[Goose_Man]

I'm glad you have access to top level strategy discussions, because I don't. I'm extremely interested to hear what the exit strategy that you've failed is.

Its called MTV

[Scoota McGee]

I went to high school in Kuwait before the gulf war because my dad worked for McDonald Douglas on a project to train the Kuwaitis how to fly F-18 Hornets… in hind site it was too little to late. Then I went back to Kuwait and into to Iraq as a troop in the first Gulf War. I went back to that part of the world yet again for the last year whilst working for my current employer. In that last year I lived in Dubai (Awesome place. If you want to see the Middle East, this is the place to go) but traveled into Iraq and Afghanistan numerous times in support of the US military. These are my observations as someone who has been there as a student, a troop, a contractor, and who has spent a considerable part of his life in the region.

Removing Saddam Hussein was a just cause for war. He was a megalomaniacal despot with virtually unlimited capital. Human life meant nothing to him and he earnestly believed it was his prophecy to rule all the Arab lands. He had no hesitation to use chemical weapons and would not have had issue using nuclear weapons had he attained them. He was an oppressive and deeply entrenched forced that could not have been driven out of power by the people of Iraq. It is simplistic and unrealistic to say people can overthrow their rulers anymore… because of the realities of today’s technology, they cannot.

Saddam was also a globally destabilizing force. The world as a whole is dependant on oil today. Saddam was more than willing to destroy oil fields, dump oil into the sea causing ecological disaster, use oil as a weapon of commerce to ransom the world with. The UN was ineffectual in dealing with him, the failures of the “Oil for Food” program and other UN sanctions are coming out more and more.

Life in Iraq is improving far faster than it has in ANY war torn nation in the history of mankind. Yet according to some media outlets, the war has been a dismal failure. How would today’s media have reported on past wars I wonder? It’s easy to choose to ignore the wrongs of the world, and criticize those willing to make difference. But the fact is America has made a difference in the Middle East. This war and the sacrifices born by our troops is not in vain; regardless of what people who have never been there, and know only what the media feeds them have to say.

[Captain Insano]

This thread go do with a dose of racism to add flavor.

fuck you you jewish nigger loving cock smoking faggot

Thread earned an extra star for that post.