Bush knew

[GalensGhost 0]

Good lord.

The war was over quickly. Within weeks. This is a fact not in dispute.

Assisting Iraq in establishing a democracy is a difficult task and will remain so. That does not mean that using American troops to help the country stabilize and become self-governing is not worthwhile.

Hell, TT, my friends warned me that being a parent was hard. I guess I shouldn't have had my daughters. I was told that getting my college degree was going to be hard since I waited so long to get my crap together to do it. It was hard. Guess I shouldn't have done that either. When I played ball it was hard to go to practice. They told me. I went anyway. Guess that was a mistake too.

Sometimes things worth doing have a price. I'd hate to know this country backed down from a chance to help a nation break the chains of tyranny and earn its freedom because it was "hard".

When an intelligent person misses the point so badly as you did right here, one has

to wonder if it were intentional.

Your rhetorical skills are effective. What I wonder is whether your logic is truly that faulty, or whether you just being manipulative with language.

You rarely engage in the actual substance of such things on this board, and didn't here. Maybe that's the one thing you find "too hard."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm all about substance, it's just that in this situation you have no ground on which to stand.

Bush was warned that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be hard. I was warned that being a parent would be hard. We both chose to attempt that which is hard because of the significant potential rewards. The difference is that I don't have to endure a crowing gaggle of weak-willed shrews who thrash and flail about in opposition to every move I make as a parent.

The only thing I find hard is to fathom how someone whose intelligence I respect could be so completely duped when it comes to certain political issues.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Good lord.

The war was over quickly. Within weeks. This is a fact not in dispute.

Assisting Iraq in establishing a democracy is a difficult task and will remain so. That does not mean that using American troops to help the country stabilize and become self-governing is not worthwhile.

Hell, TT, my friends warned me that being a parent was hard. I guess I shouldn't have had my daughters. I was told that getting my college degree was going to be hard since I waited so long to get my crap together to do it. It was hard. Guess I shouldn't have done that either. When I played ball it was hard to go to practice. They told me. I went anyway. Guess that was a mistake too.

Sometimes things worth doing have a price. I'd hate to know this country backed down from a chance to help a nation break the chains of tyranny and earn its freedom because it was "hard".

When an intelligent person misses the point so badly as you did right here, one has

to wonder if it were intentional.

Your rhetorical skills are effective. What I wonder is whether your logic is truly that faulty, or whether you just being manipulative with language.

You rarely engage in the actual substance of such things on this board, and didn't here. Maybe that's the one thing you find "too hard."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm all about substance, it's just that in this situation you have no ground on which to stand.

Bush was warned that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be hard. I was warned that being a parent would be hard. We both chose to attempt that which is hard because of the significant potential rewards. The difference is that I don't have to endure a crowing gaggle of weak-willed shrews who thrash and flail about in opposition to every move I make as a parent.

The only thing I find hard is to fathom how someone whose intelligence I respect could be so completely duped when it comes to certain political issues.

Since your're drawing this analogy, the implication is that you think it takes a nation to raise a family. Didn't know you were such a Hillary fan that you would extend her village so far. Let's test that analogy.

Two people decide to be parents. A President takes a nation to war. He needs to sell them on it since many of them and their family members will die and be maimed. More will face the long-term impact of the decision. This is a democracy. The President is answerable to the American public. You seem to be taking the view Chavez is currently expressing in Venezuela in your reference to his critics.

In regard to your position that the more than 3000 brave men and women who have died since the date you strangely believe the war in Iraq ended:

End of major combat declared

Small-scale battles still likely as U.S. shifts

to peacekeeping, nation-building

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, SARA OLKON and MARTIN MERZER

Knight Ridder News Service

Posted: April 15, 2003

Tikrit, Iraq - The Pentagon declared the end of significant fighting in Iraq on Monday as Marines stormed the heart of Tikrit, suppressed hard-core resistance there and captured the last stronghold of Saddam Hussein.

"The major combat operations are over," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said after more than 3,000 Marines fought their way to the center of Hussein's ancestral hometown.

...

Said McChrystal: "Tikrit was the last area where we anticipated seeing major combat formations."

Iraqi forces once again evaporated, and large concentrations of Iraqi troops no longer existed anywhere, McChrystal and others said, though they cautioned that small-scale battles remained likely.

The war began March 20 in Iraq time, less than four weeks ago. The U.S. military death toll: at least 118, with many more wounded. Hussein's fate remains unknown. No confirmed discoveries have been made of chemical or biological weapons - the primary justification President Bush cited for resorting to war.

...

Brooks and others drew a distinction between the end of major combat and the end of the war.

"I think we will move into a phase where it is smaller, but sharp fights," McChrystal said.

U.S. soldiers and Marines still planned to move into northern and western Iraq, entering cities such as Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, where allied forces have not yet ventured.

"It would be premature to say it (the war) is over as long as there's continued resistance, as long as our soldiers and Marines continue to cover ground where they haven't been," said Navy Capt. Frank Thorp, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=133577

I agree with Frank.

[GalensGhost 0]

Good lord.

The war was over quickly. Within weeks. This is a fact not in dispute.

Assisting Iraq in establishing a democracy is a difficult task and will remain so. That does not mean that using American troops to help the country stabilize and become self-governing is not worthwhile.

Hell, TT, my friends warned me that being a parent was hard. I guess I shouldn't have had my daughters. I was told that getting my college degree was going to be hard since I waited so long to get my crap together to do it. It was hard. Guess I shouldn't have done that either. When I played ball it was hard to go to practice. They told me. I went anyway. Guess that was a mistake too.

Sometimes things worth doing have a price. I'd hate to know this country backed down from a chance to help a nation break the chains of tyranny and earn its freedom because it was "hard".

When an intelligent person misses the point so badly as you did right here, one has

to wonder if it were intentional.

Your rhetorical skills are effective. What I wonder is whether your logic is truly that faulty, or whether you just being manipulative with language.

You rarely engage in the actual substance of such things on this board, and didn't here. Maybe that's the one thing you find "too hard."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm all about substance, it's just that in this situation you have no ground on which to stand.

Bush was warned that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be hard. I was warned that being a parent would be hard. We both chose to attempt that which is hard because of the significant potential rewards. The difference is that I don't have to endure a crowing gaggle of weak-willed shrews who thrash and flail about in opposition to every move I make as a parent.

The only thing I find hard is to fathom how someone whose intelligence I respect could be so completely duped when it comes to certain political issues.

Since your're drawing this analogy, the implication is that you think it takes a nation to raise a family. Didn't know you were such a Hillary fan that you would extend her village so far. Let's test that analogy.

Two people decide to be parents. A President takes a nation to war. He needs to sell them on it since many of them and their family members will die and be maimed. More will face the long-term impact of the decision. This is a democracy. The President is answerable to the American public. You seem to be taking the view Chavez is currently expressing in Venezuela in your reference to his critics.

In regard to your position that the more than 3000 brave men and women who have died since the date you strangely believe the war in Iraq ended:

End of major combat declared

Small-scale battles still likely as U.S. shifts

to peacekeeping, nation-building

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, SARA OLKON and MARTIN MERZER

Knight Ridder News Service

Posted: April 15, 2003

Tikrit, Iraq - The Pentagon declared the end of significant fighting in Iraq on Monday as Marines stormed the heart of Tikrit, suppressed hard-core resistance there and captured the last stronghold of Saddam Hussein.

"The major combat operations are over," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said after more than 3,000 Marines fought their way to the center of Hussein's ancestral hometown.

...

Said McChrystal: "Tikrit was the last area where we anticipated seeing major combat formations."

Iraqi forces once again evaporated, and large concentrations of Iraqi troops no longer existed anywhere, McChrystal and others said, though they cautioned that small-scale battles remained likely.

The war began March 20 in Iraq time, less than four weeks ago. The U.S. military death toll: at least 118, with many more wounded. Hussein's fate remains unknown. No confirmed discoveries have been made of chemical or biological weapons - the primary justification President Bush cited for resorting to war.

...

Brooks and others drew a distinction between the end of major combat and the end of the war.

"I think we will move into a phase where it is smaller, but sharp fights," McChrystal said.

U.S. soldiers and Marines still planned to move into northern and western Iraq, entering cities such as Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, where allied forces have not yet ventured.

"It would be premature to say it (the war) is over as long as there's continued resistance, as long as our soldiers and Marines continue to cover ground where they haven't been," said Navy Capt. Frank Thorp, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=133577

I agree with Frank.

You got about as much wrong as you possibly could.

The analogy between becoming a parent and going to war begins and ends with the concept that both were decried as being hard before they were attempted. Don't even try to push it into the "village to raise a family" arena. It's a completely bogus argument and you know that.

I'm sorry 3000 soldiers have died in the continuing effort to fight terrorism and help Iraq become a democratic society. Fact of the matter is, however, that 3000 is a miniscule number in the greater scheme of things. How many soldiers died in a week during WWII? In a month in Vietnam or Korea?

All your arguments are devoid of point.

[CCTAU 3,345]

He only has ONE point...Bush Lied.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Good lord.

The war was over quickly. Within weeks. This is a fact not in dispute.

Assisting Iraq in establishing a democracy is a difficult task and will remain so. That does not mean that using American troops to help the country stabilize and become self-governing is not worthwhile.

Hell, TT, my friends warned me that being a parent was hard. I guess I shouldn't have had my daughters. I was told that getting my college degree was going to be hard since I waited so long to get my crap together to do it. It was hard. Guess I shouldn't have done that either. When I played ball it was hard to go to practice. They told me. I went anyway. Guess that was a mistake too.

Sometimes things worth doing have a price. I'd hate to know this country backed down from a chance to help a nation break the chains of tyranny and earn its freedom because it was "hard".

When an intelligent person misses the point so badly as you did right here, one has

to wonder if it were intentional.

Your rhetorical skills are effective. What I wonder is whether your logic is truly that faulty, or whether you just being manipulative with language.

You rarely engage in the actual substance of such things on this board, and didn't here. Maybe that's the one thing you find "too hard."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm all about substance, it's just that in this situation you have no ground on which to stand.

Bush was warned that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be hard. I was warned that being a parent would be hard. We both chose to attempt that which is hard because of the significant potential rewards. The difference is that I don't have to endure a crowing gaggle of weak-willed shrews who thrash and flail about in opposition to every move I make as a parent.

The only thing I find hard is to fathom how someone whose intelligence I respect could be so completely duped when it comes to certain political issues.

Since your're drawing this analogy, the implication is that you think it takes a nation to raise a family. Didn't know you were such a Hillary fan that you would extend her village so far. Let's test that analogy.

Two people decide to be parents. A President takes a nation to war. He needs to sell them on it since many of them and their family members will die and be maimed. More will face the long-term impact of the decision. This is a democracy. The President is answerable to the American public. You seem to be taking the view Chavez is currently expressing in Venezuela in your reference to his critics.

In regard to your position that the more than 3000 brave men and women who have died since the date you strangely believe the war in Iraq ended:

End of major combat declared

Small-scale battles still likely as U.S. shifts

to peacekeeping, nation-building

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, SARA OLKON and MARTIN MERZER

Knight Ridder News Service

Posted: April 15, 2003

Tikrit, Iraq - The Pentagon declared the end of significant fighting in Iraq on Monday as Marines stormed the heart of Tikrit, suppressed hard-core resistance there and captured the last stronghold of Saddam Hussein.

"The major combat operations are over," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said after more than 3,000 Marines fought their way to the center of Hussein's ancestral hometown.

...

Said McChrystal: "Tikrit was the last area where we anticipated seeing major combat formations."

Iraqi forces once again evaporated, and large concentrations of Iraqi troops no longer existed anywhere, McChrystal and others said, though they cautioned that small-scale battles remained likely.

The war began March 20 in Iraq time, less than four weeks ago. The U.S. military death toll: at least 118, with many more wounded. Hussein's fate remains unknown. No confirmed discoveries have been made of chemical or biological weapons - the primary justification President Bush cited for resorting to war.

...

Brooks and others drew a distinction between the end of major combat and the end of the war.

"I think we will move into a phase where it is smaller, but sharp fights," McChrystal said.

U.S. soldiers and Marines still planned to move into northern and western Iraq, entering cities such as Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, where allied forces have not yet ventured.

"It would be premature to say it (the war) is over as long as there's continued resistance, as long as our soldiers and Marines continue to cover ground where they haven't been," said Navy Capt. Frank Thorp, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=133577

I agree with Frank.

You got about as much wrong as you possibly could.

The analogy between becoming a parent and going to war begins and ends with the concept that both were decried as being hard before they were attempted. Don't even try to push it into the "village to raise a family" arena. It's a completely bogus argument and you know that.

I'm sorry 3000 soldiers have died in the continuing effort to fight terrorism and help Iraq become a democratic society. Fact of the matter is, however, that 3000 is a miniscule number in the greater scheme of things. How many soldiers died in a week during WWII? In a month in Vietnam or Korea?

All your arguments are devoid of point.

And your arguments are devoid of arguments. My point is that your analogies are far too simplistic to be valid. It is not just a question of avoiding what's hard. That's rhetoric. These issues are complex.

Like I said, you have a greater affinity for a well crafted phrase than a well crafted argument. They're not interchangeable.