Troops in Iraq Are Coming Home!

[alienlovechild 75]

Why would anyone "jump in" with us on the war just because Bush et al are out of office?

For the same reason you claimed they opted out- Bush and his policies. Make up your mind.

I don't know where you've been over the last 5-6 years, but the foreign leaders that did throw in their lot with the US in 2003 took a hell of a lot of flak from their constituent populations, and the emphasis has very much been on extricating themselves from the situation and repairing political damage at home.

Mostly token support except for the UK. Pakistan's attempts to quell the Taliban supporters was thwarted due to intelligence leaks from sympathizers. Remind that the "coaliation of the willing" was always kind of a joke since there were few allies then or now. If that wasn't the case I'm sure you'd have listed the phantom contributions from the undiscovered countries.

The idea that the election of a new President will suddenly force some sort of policy turnaround is... strange, quite frankly.

Ask Kerry about that one. He claimed in 2004 he had the support of some shadowy world leaders. Even more strange was Obama's campaign tour of the Mid-East and Europe to appear as the worldly would-be leader with popular support on foreign soil for the consumption of voters back home. Also forgot the Gitmo release in a year was largely for gain some PR points abroad. No change and no policy turnaround- we've been had! (Well not me)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would anyone "jump in" with us on the war just because Bush et al are out of office?

For the same reason you claimed they opted out- Bush and his policies. Make up your mind.

You're just being pedantic. It was a divisive, unpopular policy. The fact that Bush is out of the picture isn't miraculously going to change that.

[alienlovechild 75]

You're just being pedantic. It was a divisive, unpopular policy. The fact that Bush is out of the picture isn't miraculously going to change that.

So your entire point about alienating allies that would never be allies had a point but now it's gone?

Obama can't win any friends abroad that will make a difference. We'll fall back on Sec. Clinton for that until she breaks into her nagging ex-wife tone with foreign leaders. That will bring them to their knees.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're just being pedantic. It was a divisive, unpopular policy. The fact that Bush is out of the picture isn't miraculously going to change that.

So your entire point about alienating allies that would never be allies had a point but now it's gone?

Obama can't win any friends abroad that will make a difference. We'll fall back on Sec. Clinton for that until she breaks into her nagging ex-wife tone with foreign leaders. That will bring them to their knees.

No - its there.

You feel free to employ all the circular reasoning you like. As I said earlier, I'm not obligated to convince you of anything. You can agree, or not - it really doesn't matter to me.

[alienlovechild 75]

You feel free to employ all the circular reasoning you like. As I said earlier, I'm not obligated to convince you of anything. You can agree, or not - it really doesn't matter to me.

I merely outlined your reasoning to you. If you want to call it circular then so be it.

It's not just a question of convincing me but of being able for you figure what you're saying. As a movie buff I'm sure you'll identify with "A man's got to know his limitations" but you rarely concede anything even after you're the one to bring up. No one is a subject matter expert in all fields even little ole' me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You feel free to employ all the circular reasoning you like. As I said earlier, I'm not obligated to convince you of anything. You can agree, or not - it really doesn't matter to me.

I merely outlined your reasoning to you. If you want to call it circular then so be it.

It's not just a question of convincing me but of being able for you figure what you're saying. As a movie buff I'm sure you'll identify with "A man's got to know his limitations" but you rarely concede anything even after you're the one to bring up. No one is a subject matter expert in all fields even little ole' me.

That might actually mean something if I had ever (anywhere in fact) claimed to be. As it is - I'm fairly open about my limitations on specific subjects.

I'm not an egotist - I find brash self-advertising pretty distasteful.

As far as this thread goes I advanced my considered opinion on a general subject - as I say, you don't have to agree. And contrary to popular belief there are no "experts" on current affairs and none of us are on the "inside track" to give us any more than the perspective of a detached observer. The difference of course is to what extent that detached perspective is influenced by political ideology.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[alienlovechild 75]

As far as this thread goes I advanced my considered opinion on a general subject - as I say, you don't have to agree. And contrary to popular belief there are no "experts" on current affairs and none of us are on the "inside track" to give us any more than the perspective of a detached observer. The difference of course is to what extent that detached perspective is influenced by political ideology

Some people are more enlightened than others depending on the subject. The idea of universal mediocracy as a value to uphold may explain why there are problems. If no one knows anything more than the biggest dullard here than we learn nothing. I know you come hear to learn nothing so your wish is always fulfilled on a daily basis.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You think the off topic board is a learning forum?

[alienlovechild 75]

You think the off topic board is a learning forum?

Yeah, plus I've always been a news junky. I assume you come here because you have no social life or perhaps your personal appearance or hygiene habits preclude you from conventional social contacts. I may be off there a tad but surely there are others things to do in NYC or has it gotten that dull in the Big Apple?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I love that line of argument, because of course it puts you beyond reach of similar accusations.

Feel free to make whatever conclusions you like, because you can bet others have made a few about you.

[Peikko 1,575]

You think the off topic board is a learning forum?

Yeah, plus I've always been a news junky. I assume you come here because you have no social life or perhaps your personal appearance or hygiene habits preclude you from conventional social contacts. I may be off there a tad but surely there are others things to do in NYC or has it gotten that dull in the Big Apple?

Speaking for myself, I come to OT for entertainment.

If you seriously believe that being a 'news junky' makes you an expert on anything, then I have to shake my head in disbelief. Primary source material is essential to being an expert on anything, media is not primary source.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I missed when I first read it but he seems to suggesting by that that he gets his news from vj.

Probably worded it badly but hilarious all the same.

As if someone can become a sports coach if their only qualification is that they watch a lot of sport shows.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think that was it, but I do think he believes that simply by reading all the available 'news' on a topic one can suddenly become an expert in whatever subject the media is commenting on. Now that is very, very bizarre.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm just a little...

If only criminal court cases could be decided that way - dispense with the jury and have a "vote click" for people like ALC to determine the guilt or innocence. Imagine how much time and money would be saved, and how efficient it would be to not have to actually look at any evidence - only what other people have told you.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have a suspicion that BY would be happy with that court system...