Disclaimers from other websites extend to this blog

By reading this blog, you bind yourself to the disclaimers of the websites that this blog addresses. You also bind yourself to Blogger's and Google's disclaimers. I have copyright to my comments.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Friday, September 2, 2011

Avenue-X-Debate with Robertson89--Vox Ultima

I debated this one turd three times while on Avenue-X. I debated with him again on the BJ forums.

The "guy" was like me when it came to back to back replies. He went further than me though. He'd create post series without addressing the opposition's replies.

I destroyed him in all four debates. He got banned from Avenue-X months after I got banned from there. It didn't take him long to get banned from the BJ forums.

He currently posts on Hampton Road's Rants and Raves Forum. The craigslist community calls him, "Mr. ololol," or "the cut and paste lo guy." This turd overwhelmingly graces Rants and Raves with his stupidity, just like he did on Avenue-X and on the BJ forums.

Did he learn his lesson from getting banned on those message boards? Nope. The folks at Rants and Raves are constantly flagging his posts.

He was relatively reasonable during our first debate. He psychologically deteriorated during our second debate. He lost it during our third debate. Lucky for him, I had bigger fish to fry.

I had a bone to pick with Avenue-X' administrators for wronging a couple women I knew. I took my fight to them, knowing that they'd ban me before I'd get back to Robertson89. The following posts are posts I would've made if I didn't get banned.

I sent Robertson89 well on his way to becoming a troll before I got banned. My posting allies finished the job. He's now one of Hampton Road's Rants and Raves trolls.

He complains about that, but doesn't realize that he's got himself to blame for his condition. He's also got himself to blame for his posts getting constantly flagged.

I combat deployed for the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom back in 2003. After coming back, I had access to information sources about that country. This was information from service members serving in Iraq. I had these as my backgrounds for this 2007 fight.

I went through these posts a year later to update them.

This year, I added input based on my second Iraq deployment. That happened a little over two years after the debate.

Some of the links are dead. I left them in place as they were applicable to the 2007 debate.

Avenue-X Robertson89 Cherry Picks Data About the Iraq War

[quote]Evidence of brilliant success of "surge tactics"/Now even U.S. troops are getting captured and death tolls reaches new high

Pics and whole NPR story at

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7147286

BAGHDAD May 13, 2007, 6:32 p.m. ET * An al-Qaida front group announced Sunday it had captured American soldiers in a deadly attack the day before, as thousands of U.S. troops searched insurgent areas south of Baghdad for their three missing comrades.

The statement came on one of the deadliest days in the country in recent weeks, with at least 124 people killed or found dead. A suicide truck bomb tore through the offices of a Kurdish political party in northern Iraq, killing 50 people, and a car bombing in a crowded Baghdad market killed another 17. [/quote]

Where have you been? U.S. troops got captured during the beginning of the war. Or have you forgotten Jessica?

You're cherry picking a few instances in the war. Then, you're turning around and using that to "prove" that the surge "isn't" working. That's like saying that we're not making progress here in the United States because of some kidnappings here.

Advance time to the following year.

Thanks to the surge, Iraq security improved by leaps and bounds. The Iraqi military is further ahead in its ultimate goals of taking over for that country's security. The rest of the country is experiencing large scale improvements compared to before.

What's one good indicator that things have tremendously gotten better in Iraq since you said this?

Iraq is hardly getting media attention compared to before.

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. I know this from first hand experience, we won with a straight cut victory. Al Qaida, and the Anti Iraqi Forces (AIF), REFUSE to fight us face to face. Their usual tactic, when they find out that the military is moving against them, is to run like COWARDS.

They only attack us when they think we're not paying attention. They ended up on the bad end of the stick.

[quote]Those who have been supporting the use of torture against enemy combattants and even "suspected" enemies should pray now that the other side does not "emulate" that and takes their inspiration from them.

They might also see a bit more clearly now how the practice of torture makes it so much more likely the same will be done to our own guys once they get taken prisoners.[/quote]

Al Qaeda and the AIF, are brutal to their prisoners. What we do, or won't do, doesn't matter to them. This is a no brainer. If the insurgency captures you, you won't be alive for long. Your death will be horrible. This is why the vast majority of the troops fight to the death with these guys. The alternative isn't acceptable.

Also, there's a big difference between how the U.S. military, and how the radical Islamic forces, treat their prisoners.

In fact, take the Abu Ghraib (sp) stunts and ask yourself this question. How many dominas here in North America, as well in Europe, are making allot of money by forcing their subs to do one of these:

* Dog/pony training

* Electrocution

* Humiliation

* Forced panties over the sub's head (usually one with the domina's stench)

* Brown showers

* Whipping

* Spanking

* Pain infliction

* Human furniture

That's just naming a few.

Now, think of the number of subs that ask their mistresses to do the above. How may subs ask their mistresses to saw their heads off? Compare the two and what do you get?

Zero for the second scenario, but you get the picture.

Again, not condoning what they did at Abu Ghraib. Those soldiers faced justice for doing something that America, and the US military, doesn't condone.

We treat our prisoners allot better than they do theirs. The enemies we're fighting won't care if we treat their comrades like kings. They wouldn't care if carry them around, feed them grapes, or whatever. They'll torture our guys no matter how kind we are to their people.

Here's the point that your article misses.

They want to kill us because we're not Muslim... we haven't submitted to God by their standards. In their eyes, conversion to Islam is what'll save us.

Avenue-X--Roberston89 tells an Iraq War Veteran That His Take on Iraq is Delusional Bullshit

[quote]Northern Kurdistan a "haven of peace"?

By the way what was it that thing you said once about Northern Kurdistan being so different, a "haven of peace" bla bla bla?

Check that story above. How many attacks has there been there too, at this point? [/quote]

Again, you're overlooking the forest because of a few trees.

Those attacks don't change my statement's validity. Northern Iraq is farther ahead in progress and development, and in the peace process, than the rest of Iraq. Your argument is like saying that we're not enjoying peace here in our own country... because our cops sometimes get involved with shoot outs.

You're pulling straws. It speaks volumes when people in Northern Iraq can go about and party at times when the rest of Iraq would have to stay indoors.

You can't even do that in some parts of many U.S. cities.

Here's another flaw in your argument. These attacks took place in Kurdish areas shared with other sects.

Updated to add:

Iraq of today is progressing exponentially... the Iraqis can now go out and about at night to have a good time.

[quote]Might be time to revise your bullshit self-delusional wishful-thinking kinds of claims. One of the consequences of the surge has been to extend the violence to areas that were previously relatively untouched like Northern Kurdistan.

You see? That, too, is what is called a "blowback" (see previous post). Blowbacks occur and keep occurring when the "policy", "tactics", or "strategy" is rotten and misguided at its core. Stay the course, buddy, stay the course.

But what do you actually know and understand about all this, besides your pathetic quotes from Fox News...and face-sitting web sites [/quote]

What do I know? You still don't realize who you're talking to, don't you?

My take on a war that I participated in, one that you didn't participate in, isn't "delusional bullshit." I don't recall you even serving a day in uniform. This plays a large role in what I know as compared to what you don't know.

So, you need to compensate, for not being a veteran, by accepting what I say about the Iraq War. Your only recourse, in this fight, is to thank me for giving you a clue.

This is war.

You attack the enemy, they fight back. As usual, they get the short end of the stick and fall back/retreat elsewhere. In Al Qaeda and AIF's case, they retreated to other locations. The coalition cracked down in the Baghdad area, and caused these rats to go outside the Baghdad area.

But guess what happened after the military took the city under control? They started working their way outward. They attacked Al Qaeda and AIF where they ran to. This caused the Iraqi leader to declare that many of these murderers didn't let international borders stop their retreat.

Where are these attacks now? If anything, they're few and sporadic. They don't come anywhere near the strength and persistence they were at when you quoted the above article.

Simply put, we're making progress. Thanks to the surge, larger amounts of the country are under control.

You need to realize something.

My assessments are based on professional experience, research, facts and logic. This is one of the reasons to why my projections have held, and yours are consistently proven wrong.

I know allot more about the topic of this argument than you'll ever know.

Instead of ranting about what you think you know, or what you think is reality, you should thank me. I'm giving you an accurate perspective... one that your cherry picked information won't give you. I'm giving you the reality and facts behind the Iraq War.

I doubt that you're a Ph.D. holder. Your conduct here smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. My experiences confirmed the fact that I was right. It also confirmed the fact that your assessments were wrong. I didn't need to revise my assessment back then, my projections were spot on. Most my projections happened like I said they'd happen.

The radical Islamic resistance is a joke, those cowards run away when they hear that we're coming in. They attack when they think we're not paying attention... like in the middle of the night when we're pulling force protection on an outpost we're shutting down.

Again, what do I know about this topic? I've combat deployed to Iraq twice. You've never served a day in military uniform.

I've been all over the AO that our battalion assigned to us... I didn't see the Iraq that you talked about.

That Iraq only existed in your head.

Do realize that your persistence in this fight makes you come across as a fool. You're the armchair general to my boots on the ground experience.

[quote]"Injured Iraqis lay on hospital beds in Irbil, a city in the Kurdish controlled north 350 kilometers (217 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, May 13, 2007. A suicide truck bomber crashed into the offices of a Kurdish political party, killing at least 30 people and wounding scores, including a mayor, officials said. It was the second suicide attack in Kurdish areas of the north in four days. Associated Press © 2007"[/quote]

A jihadist can go anywhere and take himself, as well as a few of his targets, out. They don't even need to go to that extreme. They could remotely activate something whether it's in Iraq, or in another country.

Look at Spain. It's not a war torn country. YET, they had major terrorist attacks on their soil.

Using your argument, peace doesn't exist inside Spain because of those terror attacks.

Here's another point to demonstrate that you shot yourself in the foot. Remember the terror attacks in London? Using your own logic, the UK "isn't" making any progress because of that attack.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Repeats His Disproven Arguments and Complains About Repeat Rebuttals

[quote] Pothos' really solid data, studies, surveys, etc. (don't laugh)

So, let's scan this...30 pages at least, possibly 40, 50, etc. and to give us what?

Most is the EXACT same stuff you just cut-and-paste, the rest is endless unsusbtantiated rant, your personal opinions, bla bla bla bla bla bla. Oh, and I see that old Major Benn Connable USA-Today article again!!!! How many times have you posted this one for lack of anything better? 10? 15? How long have you been using it? 2 years? 3? More?

What else have we got? That usual Salman Pak pic. From the Rush Limbaugh web page! What a joke you are.

Also, you are quoting again that face-sitting "Mistress Destiny" web site! Several times!

Man, how many times have I told you hat quoting a face-sitting web site in a foreign policy argument is NOT the best strategy for making you look well-read and credible about this! You are NOT listening!

That's it, isn't it? It is really all you got to show for yourself. Old op-ed from some military guy from years ago, a Rush Limbaugh pic (oh yeah, the man is trustworthy), and a face-sitting web site. And the endless rant.

Very weak. I am afraid you really are no match for the stuff I am putting out there, new stuff included (YOU only cut and past from your old files) from the Chalmer Johnson's American Empire trilogy (read it, it's good, even better than Mistress Destiny.com!) to countless surveys, reports, foreign policy journals and more. [/quote]

Feel like I'm repeating the same thing in this argument?

If so, it's because you're repeating the same thing you've said. You're recycling your same arguments over and over again. Since you failed to get this, I'll say it again. If you say the same thing to me, I'm going to give you the same rebuttal.

This isn't rocket science. If you don't want me to repeat my counter rebuttals, don't repeat your rebuttals. Your smart course of action would be to drop those specific arguments and move on.

Drop those points, don't repeat them, and you won't see me repeating my counter points.

I used the Major's piece to counter your nonsense that we're "losing" the Iraq War. We've constantly been winning in that country on the military, political and economic fronts. I used the Salman Pak photos to prove your assumptions, that pre war Iraq had "nothing" to do with terrorists, wrong.

You even tried to "prove" that Salman Pak was a "hoax." You presented links from a documentary dedicated to "proving" that to be a "hoax." I enjoyed proving that attempt wrong.

One would have to be stupid and gullible, to fall for that documentary's ploy. They took that site, as it looked as of the time of filming. Never mind that the Marines entered the site in 2003. That was years before the documentary.

That's key.

That area didn't receive maintenance since 2003. Mother Nature took over between that time, and your documentary's filming.

The Mistress Destiny Link proves you wrong.

You consistently try to doubt my statements of being in the military. Slapping you with that link is the best response to your doubts. The poster saw evidence that I'm in the military.

You tend to have issues with me slapping you around with my military background. That really beats your ego up. You can't stand the handicap that you're in with this Argument. We're debating about Iraq. You've never deployed there, I have.

That puts our disagreement, about our progress there, into perspective. It's one that forces you to be intellectually dishonest to remain in this fight.

By logical extension, my disagreement with you is based on first hand experience.

To sate your ego, you stumble over yourself trying to dismiss my experiences. You try to cast doubt on me.

Your antiques left me with no other choice. I have to keep reminding you that what I say about myself is true. By logical extension, that's proof that I have more authority and credibility than you do on this subject.

Go ahead, keep doubting that I served. I'll keep smacking you with links to posts proving that I'm in the military.

You complain that I'm not listening to you. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't accommodate people that I'm debating with? How many times do I have to tell you people that you don't control what I do? You guys only control what you guys do.

You constantly repeat your same drivel. I slap you with the same rebuttals. You respond by complaining about me hitting you with the same things. This reminds me of the kid that keeps complaining every time the red stove burner burns him.

You lost this argument a long time ago. You'd rather be intellectually dishonest by remaining in this fight. That's better in your eyes than doing the honorable thing and bowing out of this fight.

Your "new" sources don't support your argument.

They're very biased, not grounded on logical thought, or defendable with a reasonable argument. If you go back through this thread, you'd see me successfully present a logical argument against your sources... Or prove that your sources have nothing to do with the argument.

My sources? The best that you could do is attack them without proving the facts that they contain "wrong." You're full of it if you think that the information that you brought up comes anywhere near to matching what I've brought up. They don't.

The trilogy that you mentioned? You mentioned it elsewhere, and I rebutted them.

Yes, I looked at those books. What you portray them to be is different from what those books actually are. That difference is like night and day. Those books don't bolster your arguments about Iraq. You're taking a theme of those books, "the blow back," then erroneously applying it to Iraq.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Refuses to Remove His Large Horse Blinders

[quote]Randomly gleaned from Pothos' vacuous rant, just for fun

Pothos: "You have yet to give me facts and data relevant to our discussion. When you do give numbers, they don't support the main theme of your argument. For example, you talk about how suicide bombing attacks increased in Iraq. The only thing that proves is that we're at war over there."

Response: and YOU still have to give facts and data period, rather than bla bla bla bla bla bla bla "I am military!" bla bla bala "I know for a fact!" bla bla bla "I know it!" bla bla bla "for a fact!" bla bla bla [/quote]

I did give you the facts. The problem is that you refused to see them for what they were.

I've linked you to information sources that backed what I was saying. I didn't hesitate to remind you of my background and sources. I did this when you unsuccessfully tried to cast doubt on my credibility in this area. The only thing that you've done, with your debate antiques, is to painfully show your ignorance about this war.

You've made an idiot and fool out of yourself. You're arguing with a veteran, yet you've never served a day in uniform. This argument is about Iraq, a place I've deployed to... a place you've never been to.

Understand that your emotions and opinions aren't fact. You need to accept the facts, even if they force you to rethink your opinions.

[quote]FYI, I did not say "the suicide attacks increased". I SHOWED using the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism (another major database whose existence you totally ignored didn't you?) that they were NON-EXISTENT BEFORE the war, but that now that we went there, Iraq has become the country in the world with the HIGHEST number of suicide attacks. [/quote]

No, I didn't ignore that data base. I commented on what I saw in that database. Since you ignored my explanations, I'll use a presentation based on the above source to show you what I'm talking about.

http://jtac.uchicago.edu/conferences/05/resources/pape_formatted%20for%20DTRA.pdf

Suicide terrorism is rising sharply:

3 per year in 1980s

10 per year in 1990s

25+ per year in 2000 - 2001

50 per year in 2002 - 2003

You claim to have a Ph.D. This means that you took sampling and statistics classes. Assuming this is the case, you had to learn about interpreting data.

By logical extension, 2003 and beyond would register a larger amount of suicide bombings.

What these numbers don't show is the events going on behind those numbers.

You're erroneously trying to argue that if we only stopped what we were doing, these terrorist activities would drop. Why, just look at the above numbers!

Those numbers are strongly related to my bee sting analogy from earlier:

Say a bee stings you on Monday. You kill that bee and move on. Then you get stung again on Wednesday. You kill it and think, WTF??? When you get stung again on Friday, you see that you have a bee problem. To solve that problem, you smoke their hive out.

You get stung five times while you smoke them out.

Did you create more bees? Or were the bees reacting to your attacking their colony? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Simply copy and paste the entire analogy, and answers, and place an "X" in the box that represents your reply.

Our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are comparable to my beehive analogy. Just as you didn't create more bees, we didn't create more terrorism.

Both are a reaction to someone's going on an offensive against them. This is what's happening behind the numbers.

Whether homicide attacks existed in Iraq before the invasion or not is beside the point. It also misses the true nature of the war that we're involved with. We're involved with asymmetrical warfare.

This brings the Salman Pak terror training camp in Iraq into play.

[quote]Great performance indeed. A REAL progress!

Also, about this: "Your data shows that we're at war, but it doesn't prove anything about whether we're losing or not, or whether we're winning or not."

Dude, if the events, developments, and trends of the last four + years have not convinced you yet, then keep your head buried in your ass shouting "Can't see no civil war going on here!".

By the way, did you see they captured U.S. troops (seems the surge is really NOT protecting anybody these days) and apparently broke another death toll record? What was it today? 123 dead and scores injured?

"The surge is going to make the Iraqis safer!" Oh yeah. Sure it does. [/quote]

And I stand by that statement. Your data only proves that we're at war. You quote an article that talks about our troops being captured only illustrate that.

Yes, I've been abreast of operations in Iraq over those years. I've had access to information sources that you'll never have access to. There's also information out there that you and the mainstream media ignore. This information indicates that we've been winning over there.

I've quoted some of them in our debates. These are the facts that contribute to my Iraq War assessment.

All the facts indicate that we're winning. You're emphasizing and arguing cherry picked bad news from Iraq. You're erroneously canvassing the entire campaign on those few select data.

That's irresponsible at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.

You're twisting the argument. You're making this about the surge making every Iraqi safer.  I've argued that it'd make it relatively safer in Iraq. I didn't argue that it'd guarantee that nobody would get hurt. Expecting our efforts to prevent every single Iraqi from suffering harm is very unrealistic.

Our police forces, here in the United States, can't guarantee safety to every single American Citizen.

You're utilizing a strawman argument when you use the captured troops to argue against our success.

Let's look at the death toll. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, we reached our death mile stones at approximately the same time of the year. That same time rolled around in 2007 without our reaching that milestone. That didn't happen till later this year.

That's mathematical proof that the casualty rate has slowed down; hence one of the surge's successes.

Again, notice how the media barely mentions Iraq?

The media is extremely biased to the left. It'll kill them to report what's really going in Iraq. To do so would put President Bush in the best light. It'll do so in a way that vindicates him against his detractors.

They're too busy trying to undermine the administration and the United States Military.

The media knows that if people got the facts about the Middle East... if the media knew the true nature of the threat we face, and why we have to do in Iraq what we've been doing... then the media's task of forcing us to surrender to the terrorists becomes impossible.

Kind of hard to sucker more people into turning against the war when we're really showing signs of prevailing, isn't it?

Here's a simple way to show you how ridiculous your arguments are.

Over the past 100 years, we've had more and more people die in this country. Yet, we're a lot more advanced now... We've accomplished more now than what we did 100 years ago.

Throughout those 100 years, our police fought gun battles against the mafia, gangs and other criminals.

Using your line of reasoning, those facts indicate that the U.S. "didn't" make any progress.

You're going crazy bringing up every bad news you could bring up. You're using that to canvas the entire country. Never mind that for every bad event that goes on there, 10 to 50 good events took place.

Simply put, Iraq is progressing despite your "arguments."

Also, there never was a civil war in that country. People who've combat deployed there have repeatedly verified that.

Your statement is like saying that the U.S. is currently in a "civil war," because of our gang conflicts.

Updated to add:

Shortly after you said the above, our death rate stabilized then slowed down. Had we maintained the old death rate, it would've been up to 8,000 deaths. It's nowhere near that.

We won with a straight cut victory, and the surge played a major role in that victory. If what I saw there constituted a "civil war," then we're involved in a civil war in the US. Take a look outside your window. That's a good example of what you'd see in Iraq most the time today.

I'm right, you're wrong. The facts support my argument. I didn't see the Iraq that you talked about. Your description didn't even come close.

[quote]Good news is soon, with all this killing (amazing isn't it it has been going on for 4 years uninterrupted, in its 5th year now, and they STILL have people to kill there), and with the massive displacement of people (4 millions and rising), soon there won't be many more left there to slaughter. That itself should bring down those figures, after which you can claim "Hurrah! We won! The figures have decreased!" (won't even mention even if that happens durably it won't prove anything since the root causes of terrorism will still be there and the figures can always go up anytime as they have done in the past. Highs and lows, you know.) [/quote]

Response revised in 2008:

Time proved you wrong, didn't it?

Let's take this a step at a time. The rate of troop casualties tremendously declined since you made that statement. The displacements you're talking about? They've reversed, on both ends.

It used to be that the other countries had to deal with an influx of Iraqi refugees.

Now, those refugees are coming back in large numbers. Instead of expecting a large rush from Iraq, the other countries aren't seeing something different from what they'd see coming from other countries.

The Iraqis, on the other hand, are seeing large numbers of Iraqis coming back to Iraq.

Want to understand terrorism's root causes? Pay attention to what people in that region say. I'm talking about the radical Islamists and their speeches.

Even if we did everything that you say we should do, terrorism would still exist. Even if we did everything the terrorists say we should do with regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we'd still be dealing with terrorism.

What we describe as terrorism, is what some martyr wannabe would describe as killing as many of the infidels as possible in the name of Allah.

Bin Laden said it, one of the things that we'd have to do to stop the attacks against us is to convert to Islam.

[quote]And if they don't--after all Petraeus himself has recognized the overall violence in Iraq remains the same and I don't see it going down these days--well, try a little artifice and spin. You know, like the Bush administration has been doing, not counting the car bombs and explosives to under report the casualties? [/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

Your quote is a perfect example of spin.

Overall violence didn't go down in the short run, but it went down in the long run. Even as he said that, certain types of fatalities declined. As I've argued earlier, when you made this same point earlier, there was a net decrease in loss in life.

There was the same amount of violence, but it didn't lead to as much deaths as before. Advance the clock in time and notice how the surge shows signs of progress. We have a drastic decrease of violence.

You referenced their "not counting" the bombs and explosives to under report the casualties.

That was both a lie and deliberate spin.

Bush talked about homicide bomber efforts to prevent us from achieving our goals. His statement indicated that no matter what they did, we'll continue on until we accomplish our objectives.

President Bush was right. Despite all the bombings they conducted, we're further along with accomplishing our goals now than we were when they carried those acts out.

What did he really meant when he said that their actions doesn't "matter," or doesn't "count"? He was saying that no matter what they did, they won't accomplish their objectives.

Don't you love how time proved me right and you wrong?

Updated to Add:

I recently combat deployed to Iraq. The only mass movement of people I saw was Iraqis making pilgrimages. The massive refugee problem that you talked about isn't there. When I was in Iraq, most people went about their lives. They're embracing our objectives for them, and are westernizing at an exponential rate.

Also, it spoke volumes when the Iraqis honked at us, positively, during our dismounted patrols.

Iraq wasn't involved in a civil war when I was there.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Fails to Give Concrete Data to Support His Claims

[quote]Pothos showing he doesn't even know the sources he nonetheless claims to "rebut"!

robertson89 speaking for the insurgency: ...Lesson for today: "How Big is The Insurgency?"

Pothos (head buried deep in his ass and shouting "Can't see no civil war going on there!"): "Until I see raw data surveys and polls done to show exactly how many insurgents we are fighting in Iraq, I'm not going to take your word."

"So where is the raw data that these studies used? What were the various insurgencies studied?"

First, you have not read that study I sent you because they MENTION black on white the "various insurgencies" they have used! Or you are like President Dumbo and you can't read English? The French in Algeria, Vietnam, etc. The historical cases are mentioned there so just read and learn instead of using a face-sittting web site to back up a foreign policy "view".

Second, I really don't see how giving some figures from serious studies from foreign policy journals amounts to "speaking for the insurgency". But oh, well, at that level, whatever, why not.

In any case, I GAVE you in that one post 2 studies with a whole bunch of data to make you happy.

You, by contrast, you will notice, give shit. Only the usual rant and bla bla bla bla bla bla.[/quote]

Response revised in 2008:

You presented information sources that didn't support what you were arguing.

You definitely didn't show any polling information that indicated that Iraq's insurgency grew. You presented a study, from a left leaning center that gives estimates and opinions. They didn't give anything concrete in terms of scientific poling data.

The study you referenced wasn't specific. It painted a broad picture on terrorist activity. It doesn't zero in, or specialize, in what's going on in Iraq.

You liked your study, because it painted a grim picture of what's going on. It turned an anthill into a mountain. You made the Iraqi insurgency something bigger than what it really is.

That's what caused me to reference you as the mouthpiece for the insurgency.

Still think that you presented strong evidence? You wouldn't think the same way if you pulled your head out of your ass.

Speaking of the insurgency...

Look at the casualty numbers. Look at the substantial progress we've made over the past year. The insurgency isn't letting the border stop their retreat.

Also, Iraq never plunged into a civil war.

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. Robertson89's studies don't describe what I saw while in Iraq... not by a long-shot.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Flip Flops on Needed Troops for Iraq

[quote]Pothos either too stupid or pretending he doesn't get it.

Pothos: "Your hatred for the president causes you to criticise him for "not" sending in enough troops, then for sending in extra troops. The fact that you can't settle one or the other proves that you simply hate the President, and that you hate the conservatives."

You are that stupid and dishonest or you are just pretending?

Anyway to waste more time responding to this one: They should have sent more troops FOR THE INVASION AND INITIAL STAGES OF THE OCCUPATION, in order to PREVENT that insurgency--or at least contain it as much as possible, and in order to prevent all those evil little genies to get out of their Pandora's box. Now it is TOO LATE. It was BEFORE that it needed to be done and that at least 400,000 troops should have been sent there as President Dumb Shit Know-Nothing was advised to do by X number of U.S. and foreign military experts and officers.

NOW it won't do any good because they have let the bad guys out on the loose already. The best you can hope for is that it will possibly reduce the violence a little bit, in Baghdad, for a while. And even that best-case scenario will just amount to treating the symptoms not the disease, not the root causes of terrorism.

Not to mention that the more you send the more anti-American sentiments you generate, which in turn fuels terrorism--logics you are utterly incapable of understanding since you truly know shit about the middle east and how they react to U.S. military presence there. [/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

This argument makes you look like a dog chasing its own tail.

Whether we're talking about the invasion stage, or the 2007 troop surge, we have the same problem. You have an X number of enemies and violence to contain. You're illogically trying to argue that more troops would work in the beginning, but not later when a similar problem is presented.

Again, time proved you wrong. We didn't have that many troops in place during the surge over the number of troops that we used to invade the country.

The 400,000 number is based on Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Guess what? The way we did things changed since then. Technology and doctrine has changed. We could do allot more with allot less soldiers now than we could during those times.

It wouldn't have mattered if we had those 400,000 troops in Iraq or not. We still would've faced the insurgency. The surge proved that we didn't need those 400,000 troops after all. We made similar mistakes in Vietnam. We captured territory, then moved on before we could permanently secure that territory.

During the surge, we secured territory before we moved on.

President Bush received numerous recommendations. They touched on how many troops would be needed for the invasion. Do understand that the majority of the people that gave him advice advanced the number that we actually used.

This is coming from the Pentagon. It had an Iraq Invasion plan on the shelf long before we invaded Iraq. That plan constantly got updated. What originally called for the number of troops that we had during Desert Storm ended up decreasing to what we eventually sent in.

The Military cooked these plans up, not the President. These numbers changed to the current numbers long before we invaded Iraq.

Now, here's another area where time proved you wrong.

We sent more troops in, which puts us at approximately the same levels we had invading the country. Result? We're substantially ahead, progress wise, in securing that country. Also, anti U.S. sentiments have remained the same as they were when we went in. No real change in that area.

You shoot yourself in the foot with your last paragraph. You say that we need more troops, but then backtrack and talk about how more troops was a bad idea later on.

Hello? McFly? Anybody home McFly?

Didn't you think that your arguments against the surge would've applied had we sent your numbers in during the invasion?

You criticized President Bush for not sending enough troops. You criticized him for sending more troops. That's you showing your hatred against President Bush.

You show a drastic misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East. You show a drastic misunderstanding of what "causes" terrorism.

Based on what you post, I'd say that your lack of military experience painfully shows.

Go back and read about the Barbary Wars. You'll notice that we got attacked when we didn't do any of the things that we do today. This isn't about them resenting our military action in Iraq, then resorting to terrorism. They've conducted terrorism against us since we were a new country.

Read and listen to what the terrorist say. If Bin Laden indicates that one of the things that we have to do prevent terror attacks against us is to convert to Islam, then that should give you a clue as to one of the sources of terrorism. 

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. The vast majority of the Iraqis showed us their gratitude when I was there. Do you still think that I wouldn't know their reactions? Well, I saw it first hand.

The only thing that you're proving in this debate is that you're a fool.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Fails to Understand the Magnitude of the Threat America Faces

[quote]Yet another "data" for the factually-challenged Pothos guy

By the way did you know Iraq is now the SECOND most expensive American war/military operation EVER, right after WWII?

Rough price tag: 730 BILLION DOLLARS. Waow!

I think Bush wants to reach the cool trillion before leaving. Just to leave a nice legacy and another nightmare to solve to the next guys who will come after and will have to clean his shit while he himself will be enjoyng life in his ranch and opening libraries. (Well, maybe at least he will learn to read and speak English properly. He may even have children read him the end of "My Pet's Goat". You know? That story children were reading to him when our "Commander-in-chief" had given himself a month-long vacation and 9/11 happened DURING HIS "WATCH"?)

Great results too. Magnificent success, really. The American people really got their hard-won's money's worth on that one. [/quote]

Here's a simple common sense question. Would you sacrifice all your assets and belongings if that's what it would take to secure your long term survival? Perhaps one of your fellow Europeans could make things very clear to you:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html

"For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy--because everything is at stake."

Everything is at stake, Matthias Dopfner was spot on with that statement.

Our policies don't breed terrorism. Our continued existence as non Muslims does.

Our own enemies said that they'll rule the world.

On one hand, we spend money to prevent their nightmare scenario. On the other hand, we do as you suggest... have our grand kids see a time when this country becomes a series of Islamic Caliphates. If that happens, these caliphates will put the Taliban's rule to shame.

George Bush, unlike Slick Willie, will have a positive legacy.

I remember when the media showed no mercy toward Ronald Reagan. They constantly hammered him. Just by listening to the news, you'd think that Reagan would go down as one of the "worst" presidents that we had.

But I knew better then. The Berlin Wall's breaching assured Ronald Reagan's place in history. Even his old foe lists him as one of the greatest political figures of the 20th century.

The same thing will happen with George Bush.

I highly recommend that you learn to read what you're addressing... with the intentions of understanding what's being said... like what I post... before lambasting the president's reading abilities.

Avenue-X--The Middle East Revolutions Proved Pothos Right and Robertson89 Wrong

[quote]REPEAT POINT

Proof the Pothos cheerleader is STILL buying and eating the neo-con' shit about those Democratic Dominoes

Anybody reading this, check how the mental retard and self-delusional dimwit is, to this day, still believing in that sorry and by now totally discredited "Democratic Dominoes Theory" (even when the Bushites who invented it are themselves no longer believing in it and many of its proponents have now recognized publicly it was "a mistake"!)

The boy still believes the entire middle eastern Arab Muslim world from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and beyond is going to "totally westernize" itself! Just because we have 200,000 guys in Iraq (a country of 27 million) and Bush would like them to be pro-U.S.!

How sad is that???[/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

Do understand that if I'm still arguing a point it's because of two things. One, there's sufficient fact, both current events and historic, to prove my point correct. Two, that the other side of the argument failed to prove my stance wrong.

One year after you said this, the Iraqi government actually went on the initiative in taking on an insurgent group in an Iraqi City. Maliki went on the offensive on the political front, putting Sadr in a defensive position.

What was his motivation? The Iraqis were considering an amendment to the Iraqi constitution. It'd prohibit political parties, with street armies, from providing candidates for an upcoming election.

THAT'S democracy at work.

Afghanistan is further ahead toward democratic development. Then we have Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.

Take a look at the map and you'll see that we have a checker board pattern set up in the Middle East. Countries in various states of democracy surround hard line countries.

That trend was progressing when you made that statement, and it's progressing rapidly now.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have a more liberal economic policy than many of their surrounding countries. This policy is similar to the free market economy type. It's the kind of economy that's responsible for the how well the richest countries in the world are doing.

A few years down the road, the other countries are going to take notice. They'll experience pressure, from within, to follow in the same footsteps.

My projections throughout years of arguing against your side of the argument still hold.

Our troops in Iraq are serving as part of a catalyst for change.

What I said was dead accurate. Right now, the Iraqis, as they march further into democratic development... as their economy continues to develop... will continue to change Iraq into a modern, industrialized, nation.

Want to see how that'll affect the surrounding Middle East countries? Look at large sections of Mexico bordering the U.S. South West. Economically speaking, they're starting to become more and more like the U.S.

Mexico is rapidly progressing to become a first world country. We're going to see that with the rest of the Middle East once Iraq and Afghanistan progress further. We're going to see that with the Arab countries sharing bilateral free trade agreements with us.

These countries will rapidly progress to becoming first world nations.

Also, you're dead wrong about the people in the Bush Administration, and how they see the ripple affect taking place.

They never intended for this to happen overnight, or within their lifetimes. This was intended to take place over the long run.

Updated to Add:

Pro democracy demonstrations in 4 Middle East countries toppled 4 Middle East rulers. That's part of the democratic domino effect happening. As of this writing, the Syrian demonstrations are still going.

I consistently told you that the domino affect would take years. That's precisely what's happening.

All we needed was for the Iraqis and Afghanis to talk about their lives... through social networking.

Like I projected, the rest of the Middle East wants what Iraq and Afghanistan have.

And get this. When I was in Iraq, I noticed a strong effort, from the Iraqis, to westernize. They want to be like us. Heck, I saw nothing but Caucasian mannequins in Iraqi stores. The Iraqis want to talk like us, and wear sunglasses that resemble our ballistic eyewear.

The Iraqis have done what I said they'll do... they're not doing what you claim they're doing.

[quote]robertson89, making another rational and informed argument--he is the only one here: Those who are taking decisions have to this day totally misread and understimated how deep and many the roots of the insurgency are--they are historical, ethnic, religious, cultural, and so on. They are rooted in many, many causes, whether it's fear of western powers, resentment against the west, distrust between communities, and so on.

Pothos, showing once again he knows and understands shit about the mid east: "Wrong. It's precisely the above reasons to why we have to change the geopolitical face of the Middle East. And that's precisely why we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan what we're currently doing right now. To set off a chain reaction that's going to lead to massive reforms across the Middle East. Change that will come about as a result of the effects of a free market economy and a democratic government."

AND THE POTHOS AWARD FOR MOST SELF-DELUSIONAL CLAIM IS:

"Once they completely "westernize" and become competitive with the west, the fear and resentment factor would go down." [/quote]

Your lack of history knowledge, as well as Middle East knowledge, painfully shows with your comments in that quote.

I'm looking back at what your debate opponents told you after you said the above. Based on what they said, I'm not the only one that sees your failure to present a rational, informed argument.

In fact, what you list as the "source" of terrorist problems don't match what the terrorists are actually saying. Your source and the terrorists give conflicting information about the terrorists' intent.

The insurgency roots predate the Iraq War.

The insurgency in Iraq -- now less of a factor than it was when you made that statement -- is a part of a larger struggle. The AIF call it the fight between the (sp)Uhmah (Islamic Nation) and the (sp)Kuffa (Non Muslims, infidels, enemies of Allah, etc).

The AIF call Iraq, "The Islamic Emirate of Iraq."

Go to Chetznya (sp), to Southern Thailand, to the Southern Philippines, and to the occupied territories. You'll see the same themes in their arguments their counterparts make in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They see themselves as the Army of Islam. They see their mission as fighting to free the Muslim lands. They see that as the first step needed to re establish the Moorish Caliphates and Emirates.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

The source of the insurgency, this guy explains their mindset:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related

They have their own rallying song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Dzygb6vf_6w

Note: What's translated as "Earth is Volcanoes are boiling" should read "Arabs are like boiling volcanoes. "Land of the frees" should read "Land of the Arabs."

In the terrorist's case, "severed lands" describes what we see as the occupied territories. "Land to humiliate us with" represents all of Israel.

On the surface, this explains why Hamas won't accept anything short of all of Israel as their country.

But, on a deeper level, this is about removing the "kuffa" from the "Uhma."

This is also demonstrated with this video, Chechnya rebels singing the same thing as the previous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct5mlPJfsfk&feature=related

What the AIF does in Iraq, the Chechnya rebels do in Chechnya, in Russia:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=162323

The Russians face the same thing that we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since you imply that you've made an "informed" argument, certainly you had access to those videos.

Do realize that the policy makers that you criticized have access to information you'll never have access to.

Your comments prove that you're not presenting an informed argument. Those videos show that you don't understand the insurgency. You don't understand their underlying causes. You don't understand their motivation.

Since you showcase yourself as the "intellectual" type, you'll be interested in the next links. You'll see one of the deep rooted causes of an increasingly marginalized insurgency:

Warning, these are graphic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGg6KrC4lM (FITNA Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGlw30nPfo&feature=related (FITNA Part 2)

(00:52 to 00:55) "The Day will come when we will rule America, the day will come when we rule Britain and the entire world!"

What I said still stands.

We give them a thriving democracy. They have more economic opportunities now thanks to a free market society. That sucks the wind out of the insurgency. Give that to the entire region, and we suck the wind out of their movement.

This is the movement that believes in flying planes into buildings or blowing innocent people up.

Case in point, we've yet to suffer from Kamikazi Japanese attacks since we westernized Japann.

[quote]BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

"Once they completely westernize themselves"!!! And the bloke is talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, the oil emirates, etc. Arab Muslim cultures that are as old as the west and have never known democracy in the western sense of the term!

Talk about being more royalist than the King himself! I mean, even the neo-cons' would ptobably laugh at the guy now!

BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

The loony boy is STILL believing in Bush's "Democratic Dominoes Theory" and that the U.S., thanks to Iraq (!), is going to "westernize" the entire middle east! [/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

Your latest series of replies failed to advance any real counter argument. You've failed to prove what I say, "wrong." Saying anything to disagree with me doesn't constitute real refutation.

You're replying with leftist talking points, ad homonyms and hot air rhetoric.

Let's address your historic misunderstanding of what you just talked about.

The Japanese didn't understand true democracy before we invaded and occupied it. They experienced a different type of culture, and governing mindset, than what we practiced. People claimed that we couldn't expect them to embrace our system. They practiced something totally different for centuries.

But we did.

Some of our service members committed crimes in Japan. It speaks volumes when the US military turns them over to the Japanese legal system. Their legal system gives our troops similar rights and justice they'd find in the United States.

It wasn't like that before World War II.

Now, let's go back to the Middle East's history.

Islamic civilization isn't as old as Western Civilization. The Romans never conquered all of the Arabian Peninsula. Back then, they were mostly roaming nomads.

Advance the centuries. Europeans screwed up when they divided the Arab Region among themselves. They carved countries based on their politics instead of that region's history. The Ottomans also played a role.

Look at Kurdistan. That culture overlaps multiple countries, mainly Turkey, Iraq and Iran. It would've made more sense to administer that area as one unit. It also would've made more sense to turn most that area into a country when the colonial period ended.

Europe divided that region based on their criteria vice that culture's area.

This is one of the reasons to why we have people itching to fight each other. Look at the northern African countries. They seem to be getting along better, not much international conflict within Africa. Many of the Middle East countries seem to not have that much conflict with each other.

Many of those countries were part of the British Empire, and had a taste of Democracy before.

The Turks proved that they could start and run a democracy. Turkey fits some of the criteria that you talk about.

Here's another key historic fact you miss. Our concept of representative assemblies originated in the Middle East. Rule of law also originated in the Middle East.

That region saw one form of representative democracy after another. They say that as far back as the ancient Greek invasions.

Simply put, your assumptions are wrong. Your theory, about them never experiencing what we're giving them, goes out the door. 

They've been through something like that before. Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan prove that you could have democracies in the region.

We're creating a permanent democratic arrangement for their future.

You don't think that Saudi Arabia will change over. But wait ten to twenty years when its neighbor's economies outshine theirs.

Democracy facilitates a free market economy. A free market economy facilitates economic and political development. It's a pre requisite for a country to becoming an industrialized, fully stable, first world democracy.

Iraq and Afghanistan will reach that status. When that happens, they'll be the Middle East's centers of power. They'll be the new center of gravity of that region. Iran's return to westernization would only seal the deal.

It'll happen, just like my other predictions happened. In fact, a year has gone by since you made that statement. My argument continues to hold validity.

[quote](Ok now, stop laughing, first because this is really sad and also because the factually-and-cognitively-challenged boy needs to cling to his delusional fantasies. It gives him hope.)

No need for further comment on that one.[/quote]

Again, you have to actually prove, that the facts that I present, are "wrong." You've failed to do that, so you can't dismiss me as factually challenged. When it comes to the facts, I'm the only one that's delivering the goods.

The only thing that you've delivered is emotion based rhetoric.

Also, when I mention cognitive process, I'm talking about thought process. As long as someone has a thought, and can organize them to put into writing, that someone isn't cognitively challenged.

Updated to add:

Spring and summer of 2011 saw Arab upraising across the Middle East. What's the common theme for these upraising? Arabs want democracy. Each year, Iraq and Afghanistan make more progress with democracy and economic development. They talk on social networking sites, on blogs and during pilgrimages. Arabs see what they have compared to what the Iraqis and Afghanis have.

Result?

What I constantly argued... that the Arabs will want what the Iraqis and Afghanis have.

Time proved my predictions right. Robertson89 was wrong when he made the above comments. Time continued to prove him wrong.

Avenue-X--Pothos Confronts Roberson89's Baloney With the Iraqi Parliament's Actions

[quote]Delusiional Pothos making wild claims about what the Iraqi population wants yet unable to back that up with even a shred of evidence

You have not offered that evidence, the data, the polls, the surveys, etc. to back up your gratuitous wild and silly claims here. So I am reposting this.

Just a few gratuitous, totally unsubstantiated, and self-serving claims showing how self-delusional you actually are and how severe your state-of-denial is.

"The things that I've argued here are pretty much supported by the general Iraqi population."

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE IF I MAY ASK???

"A lot of Iraqis, that is those living in the country, wanted us to come in."

OH REALLY? WHERE IS THE INVITATION CARD THEY SENT YOU FOR THE BOMBING PARTY?

ANY EVIDENCE, DATA, A LITTLE PRE-WAR SURVEY MAYBE SHOWING THE MAJORITY OF THE IRAQIS "WANTED US TO COME IN"??? OR YOU ARE JUST GRATUITOUSLY CLAIMING STUFF LIKE THAT?

"Many of the Iraqis were praying for us to start the bombing and to remove Saddam Hussein."

That one has got to be the most idiotic and outrageous. If you believe that, that truly shows you ARE a brainwashed fanatic.

So they did not just want us "to come in", invade, and occupy now. They were also desperately "praying" for us to start the bombing!

When reading delusional statements like those above, clearly coming from a self-serving but sick mind in a severe state of denial, I am afraid I have to ask you again:

ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT WILD CLAIM OF YOURS? ANYTHING AT ALL? OR YOU ARE JUST SAYING STUFF LIKE THAT?

Nawww. I thought so. You got n-o-t-h-i-n-g except extravagant claims and bullshit.

(I am not surprised though. After all, dimwits like you ate so much of the intox' and shit the Iraqi defectors fed you to take the U.S. to war it is no wonder you are still full of it now!) [/quote]

All of this, because I made this statement:

All you have to do is look to the Iraqi Parliament. They represent the will of the Iraqi People.  If the Iraqi People don't support what I said, then the Iraqi government would ask us to leave.

Have the Iraqi government officially asked us to leave? YES [    ] NO [    ]

Here's a cheat sheet for you:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[X]WASHINGTON - Worried Congress' support for Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences.

The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential in the war debate.  [X]

You could've answered that question but you didn't. You spewed emotional rhetoric and ad homonyms instead.

All you had to do was to copy and paste that question, and place an "X" in the box that represented your position.

You see, I'm just being human, using common sense, and connecting that with pre Iraq War Iraqi comments. The cab driver stating that he'd kill himself if the bombings didn't begin? That cab driver actually said that.

The man that witnessed that did interviews. He has tapes of Iraqis saying the things that I've been arguing here.

See a trend here Robertson89? The person that talked to the cab driver was there. You weren't.

So, let's try to get you to emphasize with the Iraqis with another question.

Say you lived in a country where everybody feared the government. It had far reach in people's lives. They could call anybody, and that person would never be seen again. You're living in fear, hoping that you never end up in a plastic shredder feet first.

Now, say that a more powerful government was willing to topple the government you feared. This was a government reputed for spreading democracies. Would you want them to topple the government that you feared? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste the entire scenario, as well as the question, then place an "X" in the reply that best represents your response.

You're refusing to deal with simple, common sense and human issues.

You try to dodge that by asking for their invitation card. You know that those that even tried that would get executed. You also attempt to ask me for hard core evidence you know the Iraqis themselves couldn't produce.

You're making a red herring argument.

You don't know first thing about the suffering the Iraqis went through for three decades.

Our gathering forces outside Iraqi borders offered these Iraqis something they've been dreaming their whole lives... hope for a better life.

They wanted a life where they wouldn't have to live in fear for themselves and their families. Look at their faces before and after the invasion. Before the invasion, the majority had uptight looking faces. They had lots to fear and worry about. Scenes of them cheering Saddam looked manufactured and forced.

What happened after the invasion? People had a more relaxed look on their faces. You could tell that they felt relieved. They also displayed real joy.

Now, as a human being, hopefully with common sense, you should be able to relate. If you don't have the capacity to relate on a human level, just talk to the majority of the U.S. military that has served in that country.

I'm pretty sure that many of them will tell you of the number of Iraqis that still approach them to thank them for what they did.

Before the war began, certain people went there as part of human shields. They talked to the Iraqi people. Those people were there, and they saw, first hand, what life was like under Saddam.

You failed to look beyond your cherry picked Iraqi comments. If you did, you'd notice that many Iraqis favor our staying in Iraq until their government could guarantee their security without our help.

This has nothing to do with "delusions," or with "just saying things." What I've mentioned actually happened, and is based on first hand accounts.

Updated to add:

I recently made a combat deployment to Iraq. What I said above was dead accurate. Recent first boots on the ground experience backs my argument. The vast majority of the Iraqis were happy for what we did for them. Many were apprehensive about our leaving and turning our operations over to the Iraqis.

None of them behaved the way Robertson89 claim they behaved.

[quote] Now, as opposed to you, bogus "fact-and-data" guy who can't even offer one single real data these days, when I myself make a claim, AT LEAST I BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING CREDIBLE.

"ALIVE IN BAGHDAD-ORDINARY IRAQIS SPEAKING TO AMERICANS"

http://aliveinbaghdad.org/

Here, YOU are merely talking about what the Iraqi want (yeah right as if you had any clue!), but I MYSELF am putting here dozens of interviews and video clips of ordinary Iraqis telling you precisely want they want and how they see the situation. They come from all walks of life, privileged or poor, taxi drivers, physicians, priests, English-speaking students, etc. And none of them has been "paid" or "scared" by Sadr, as you claimed regarding the 600,000 Baghdad anti-demonstrators last month. They speak no bullshit.

See? At least THAT is concrete stuff, not vacuous rant and bullshit like you have been doing throughout your sorry 20-page + vacuous posts which contain nothing but bla bla bla bla bla bla "I am military!" bla bla bla bla bla "I KNOW what I am saying is true! I know it FOR A FACT!" bla bla bla bla bla bla "For a fact!" bla bla bla


Watch and listen and then let us know how what you argue is "supported" by them.

"ALIVE IN BAGHDAD-ORDINARY IRAQIS SPEAKING TO AMERICANS"

http://aliveinbaghdad.org/ [/quote]

And why should I? It's a BLOG. And in terms of representation, it's not scientific.  When you don't have a scientific representation of the entire population, you don't have legs to stand on when trying to portray this as representative of all of Iraq.

We have a collection of cherry picked Iraqis voicing pretty much the same concerns and opinions as the person running the blog. So if that person is opposed to the US, or what we're doing, then chances are real good that his guests, and his samples, are going to be of the people that share his/her opinions.

Also, the blog does make a disclaimer, something about it representing a SMALL SLICE of the OPINIONS in Iraq.

Meaning, not scientific... So... back to you with regards to your argument. You don't think that the majority of the Iraqis want us to stay in. Since you feel that way, I'm holding you to the same standards you hold me... the same standards you refuse to hold yourself to.

Please answer your own questions with regards to your own argument:

"You have not offered that evidence, the data, the polls, the surveys, etc. to back up your gratuitous wild and silly claims here." -robertson89

"Where is your evidence if I may ask? -robertson89

"Oh Really? Where's the get out card that the Iraqi government sent us for getting out of Iraq?" -robertson89 question adjusted to force him to his own standards

"Any evidence, data, a little post-invasion survey maybe showing the majority of the Iraqis 'wanted us to get out'? Or are you gratuitously claiming stuff like that"? -robertson89 question adjusted to force him to his own standards

"Any evidence to substantiate your wild claim? Anything at all? Or are you just saying stuff like that? -robertson89

Answer your questions as they apply to your argument. Your cherry picked data, and biased blog, don't cut it.

As for the Sadr marches, again, they didn't come anywhere NEAR the 600,000 numbers that you tout. Even one of the sources you used had the number in the TENS of thousands, meaning, less than 100,000. That's less than a percent of their population, as in an insignificant fraction of one percent of their population.

Updated to add:

As of this writing, the "Alive in Baghdad" blog is dead in the water. They made their last blog entry in September 2009 (My first month of my recent deployment there).

The guy doesn't hesitate to blow steam up Odumba's ass, thus showing his bias.

I don't agree with his reasons for shutting down.

The real reason that he stopped his work is because finding people to carry his spin became extremely difficult. The more Iraq progressed, the more life in Iraq got better, the harder his job became.

Even the people that came remotely close to what he wanted would've ended up saying something that supported my argument.

The guy that ran that blog was dead wrong. Iraq has pretty much stabilized.

My boots on the ground observations there don't support the spin he perpetrates in this blog. My first hand experience definitely doesn't support what Robertson89 said. My experience simply verified what I argued on Avenue-X and elsewhere.

That shouldn't be surprising, that was my second combat deployment to Iraq.