Tactics and Strategy in Iraq: Can Bush see clearly ahead?

[WNxRogue]

That is true, but not only are they all ruetinaly (sry typin fast so my spellin will be bad) checked by volunteers, on top of this you have to state your source before the changes.

On the more.....touchy articles, for example the one on Islam, POTUS, and 9/11 are either locked or all info is checked by a board of experts before any changes are made.

By your own admission wikipedia is nor more reliable than the news papers, isn't that what you just said?

What my point is follows:

Tell someone on your immediate right a story. Let it go around the room one time. Have everyone in the room write out the story as they remember it. (You've played this game I'm sure.) Now go a step further and store those sheets of paper with the different accounts fo the story and after 5 years get them back out and have different people read the stories and, without bothering to ask the originator of the story, determine what the story is about and see what you get.

If you've been watching the news lately you can really get a grasp of that effect. It's called revisionist history based on lack of first hand knowledge and personal/political agenda's.

That is not what I said. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It uses established knowlege, but it is in a concentrated and easy-to-find form. Unfortunatly it is also written by PEOPLE, who automatically infuse their personal beliefs into whatever they write. Still, it is miles better than doing a google search and pulling up and article from some random source.

Senior information has to be stored and documented in some way. Everyone can not be experts on everything, so we have experts write down the info so that we cna understand it. There are not many if any people who have first hand kknowledge of Islam ( ie. they are Muslims) but yet we pull up sources on it. On this thread Bulldogg pulled up sources on the Revolutionary War, but I could easily just write it off as "revisionist history". As well, since it is known as HISTORY, most of the time about BEFORE WE WERE ALIVE, I suppose having "first hand knowledge" of it would be difficult. History is written by the victors, this is a well known fact. Thus all history by its very nature is infused with personal and political agendas. There is no getting away from it, but at some point you have to believe SOME concept of history.

 

[Senior Chief]

Well oddly enough I have tracked down the study done by Nature comparing Wikipedia to Britanica so happy reading...

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

The way it comes across Wikipedia is no less reliable than any other encylopedia on the market and is still improving.



The number killed is somewhat irrelevant until it exceeds the number of replacements and going by the comments of several officials the insurgency is growing not diminishing, oddly enough wars of attrition rarely if ever work.

Now while I have no doubt that this will be slated as some "liberal thinking" (hell anything not rabidly rightwing on this board is) but I still believe the key is the removal of the leaders these groups while doing as much as possible to reduce their recruiting base and this is not achieved by creating chaos and destruction throughout an entire region.

What do you know about the search for the leaders of Al Queda? I'd be interested to know exactly what you know and where you found your information.

Quote:

That is true, but not only are they all ruetinaly (sry typin fast so my spellin will be bad) checked by volunteers, on top of this you have to state your source before the changes.

On the more.....touchy articles, for example the one on Islam, POTUS, and 9/11 are either locked or all info is checked by a board of experts before any changes are made.

The interseting point is that you missed my short story a few posts back. Try getting a handle on this one more time:

Tell someone on your immediate right a story. Let it go around the room one time. Have everyone in the room write out the story as they remember it. (You've played this game I'm sure.) Now go a step further and store those sheets of paper with the different accounts fo the story and after 5 years get them back out and have different people read the stories and, without bothering to ask the originator of the story, determine what the story is about and see what you get.

 

[Young Winston]

I can't remember the source but it is a worry that a great number of the educated classes in Iraq have left the country or are planning to leave. The foundations are looking very wobbly for a possible formation of a democratic government in Iraq.

 

[WNxRogue]

Senior, I saw your story, it just happens to have nothing to do with the subject. First off, the source information for every bit of information is given, so there isnt any issue with not "bothering to ask the originator of the story". Also, the people who are reading these are EXPERTS. They know what the info actually is better than any person out there, so there is no issue like the one in this story. A more accurate decription would be to: Mutliple people write down the same story, but all the diffrent stories go to the guy who originated the story, then the correct story is allowed to be passed to the site

 

[Senior Chief]

Senior, I saw your story, it just happens to have nothing to do with the subject. First off, the source information for every bit of information is given, so there isnt any issue with not "bothering to ask the originator of the story". Also, the people who are reading these are EXPERTS. They know what the info actually is better than any person out there, so there is not issue like this story. A more accurate decription would be to: Mutliple people who write down diffrent stories go to the guy who originated the story, then the correct story is allowed to be passed to the site.

You are uselessly sold out to a falsehood. Research the Constitution and veryify the story with the originators, I want to see hou you know the mind of men that are long dead.

The framers of the constitution were enough forward looking to understand what could and would happen. They framed the document to take care of people that would change their words. It worked up to the time that the Supreme Court stopped interpeting the Constitution and started rewriting it.

Your head seems to be burried in the sand. I wish you well.

 

[WNxRogue]

The men who wrote the Constitution understood that times change, and that the rules laid down would not allways be completely applicable, and allowed for the changing of it to fit the moddern world. The president and presidents have also understood this by upholding the court's right to declare constitutionality everytime.

Also notice: You seem to run out of counterpoints, instead you insult the person and move on. This is not debate.

And thank you for your well wishing.

 

[Senior Chief]

The men who wrote the Constitution understood that times change, and that the rules laid down would not allways be completely applicable, and allowed for the changing of it to fit the moddern world. The president and presidents have also understood this by upholding the court's right to declare constitutionality everytime.

Also notice: You seem to run out of counterpoints, instead you insult the person and move on. This is not debate.

And thank you for your well wishing.

As I said in my PM. p*** o**

 

[WNxRogue]

For my response, refer to my latest post in Can A Good Muslim Be A Good American ?.​

 

[MontyB]

What do you know about the search for the leaders of Al Queda? I'd be interested to know exactly what you know and where you found your information.

Sorry who mentioned Al Qaeda or its leaders?


As far as it goes the GWOT goes a lot further or at least needs to go further than one group or are you trying to say that all terrorists are part of Al Qaeda?

As far as where the information's origin is concerned I think you should perhaps start reading and listening to your own officials on this issue as there is enough of them talking at the moment.

Anyway I will head off to await the usual round of replies and thinly veiled intelligence shots.

 

[Senior Chief]

Sorry who mentioned Al Qaeda or its leaders?


As far as it goes the GWOT goes a lot further or at least needs to go further than one group or are you trying to say that all terrorists are part of Al Qaeda?

As far as where the information's origin is concerned I think you should perhaps start reading and listening to your own officials on this issue as there is enough of them talking at the moment.

Anyway I will head off to await the usual round of replies and thinly veiled intelligence shots.

You posted the following:

Now while I have no doubt that this will be slated as some "liberal thinking" (hell anything not rabidly rightwing on this board is) but I still believe the key is the removal of the leaders these groups while doing as much as possible to reduce their recruiting base and this is not achieved by creating chaos and destruction throughout an entire region.

Do you remember posting the comment above? Get your head out and answer the question that was posed based on your comment. I bolded your comment so you can't miss it.

You are digressing and replying based on some other agenda.

 

[MontyB]

Do you remember posting the comment above? Get your head out and answer the question that was posed based on your comment. I bolded your comment so you can't miss it.

You are digressing and replying based on some other agenda.

Here you go again, winning friends and influencing people through poorly directed abuse.

But I digress so while I get my head out how about you get your glasses out because I dont see the words or word Al Queda in that bold text anywhere, my comments were directed are terrorism in general.

Now if the only response I am going to get is some nonsense about all muslims being evil, I have no right to an opinion because I dont agree with you or yet another "pull your head out" comment how about we just agree that we will never agree and spare the rest of this board another closed thread.

 

[Senior Chief]

Here you go again, winning friends and influencing people through poorly directed abuse.

But I digress so while I get my head out how about you get your glasses out because I dont see the words or word Al Queda in that bold text anywhere, my comments were directed are terrorism in general.

Now if the only response I am going to get is some nonsense about all muslims being evil, I have no right to an opinion because I dont agree with you or yet another "pull your head out" comment how about we just agree that we will never agree and spare the rest of this board another closed thread.

Monty, you have a way of twisting what is said to fit your agenda, it is sickening to see that you will not answer and that you add commentary to what is said.

What kind of organizations do you feel there are in the world that is not currently linked to Al Queda? You commented that the leaders needed to be caught, you also commented about Al Queda first, not me. I asked if you had any idea of what the current efforts were concerning the search. You turned it into an all or nothing Al Queda argument.

Read closely, this is not a thin veiled insult. Your point is baseless and you are diverting from giving an answer to the question, I feel that is due to your inability to do so as you are not aware of what that search encompases.

Read very closely, this is an insult. You do not have the capacity to read and understand written word.

 

[MontyB]

Monty, you have a way of twisting what is said to fit your agenda, it is sickening to see that you will not answer and that you add commentary to what is said.

What kind of organizations do you feel there are in the world that is not currently linked to Al

Queda​

? You commented that the leaders needed to be caught, you also commented about Al

Queda​

first, not me. I asked if you had any idea of what the current efforts were concerning the search. You turned it into an all or nothing Al

Queda​

argument.

Read closely, this is not a thin veiled insult. Your point is baseless and you are diverting from giving an answer to the question, I feel that is due to your inability to do so as you are not aware of what that search

encompases​

.

I am convinced you are struggling to grasp the term "terrorism in general." seriously go back and re-read the original post and you will discover that what I said was "I still believe the key is the removal of the leaders these groups" please take note of the term "leaders of these groups" (obviously I missed an "of" in the original text) this is a general statement hence the words "these" and "groups" there is nothing in the wording that mentions Al

Qaeda​

however to be fair the statement does include them it also includes these http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm and whatever other groups that may have sprung up since that list was made.

Read very closely, this is an insult. You do not have the capacity to read and understand written word.

I would strongly suggest that the same applies in your case although I suspect the comprehension issues are more by desire than education which would explain why this board has a thriving "ignored by Senior Chief" club.

 

[Redleg]

how about we just agree that we will never agree and spare the rest of this board another closed thread.

Yes please, that would have been very nice!
Both of you have been going over the line several times in this thread, but I (unfortunately) haven't bothered to read it until now.

So I would advice both of you gentlemen to stay away from the name calling/flaming from now on, and you can consider this a warning.

Thanks for understanding, please carry on...

 

[Senior Chief]

Yes please, that would have been very nice!
Both of you have been going over the line several times in this thread, but I (unfortunately) haven't bothered to read it until now.

So I would advice both of you gentlemen to stay away from the name calling/flaming from now on, and you can consider this a warning.

Thanks for understanding, please carry on...

What I think is the operative word here is that the other party started the name calling and flaming. I would rather that we both be permanently banned rather to have a wrist slap.

This guy more or less told me that what I have experienced first hand is a lie. That just does not sit well with me. Especially with the knowledge that he has never been in the military and is outside looking in.

 

[fingolfin361]

however to be fair the statement does include them it also includes these http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm and whatever other groups that may have sprung up since that list was made.

Nice list, but falls quite short- i'd suggest looking at http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

seems more detailed.

 

[MontyB]

Nice list, but falls quite short- i'd suggest looking at http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

seems more detailed.

Indeed yours is a much better list.

I suspected that list was out of date when I posted it, it looks like it was compiled around 2000. The main reason for posting it though was to show that there were groups outside Al Queda that were just as active.

 

[Strongbow]

Indeed yours is a much better list.

I suspected that list was out of date when I posted it, it looks like it was compiled around 2000. The main reason for posting it though was to show that there were groups outside Al Queda that were just as active.

Good on you MontyB. The right wingers on this forum are having a rather nasty time at the moment. Their Commander-in Chief is looking rather weak and directionless.

 

[Senior Chief]

Good on you MontyB. The right wingers on this forum are having a rather nasty time at the moment. Their Commander-in Chief is looking rather weak and directionless.

Coming from someone with a dubious profile I'd say that your opinion seems to be biased and possibly filled with Anti-American sentiment.

 

[Chief Bones]

NOT Uncle Sam & NOT poster boy for America ...

Coming from someone with a dubious profile I'd say that your opinion seems to be biased and possibly filled with Anti-American sentiment.

Senior Chief
I have tried to stay out of this discussion ... but ...

First off, whether these people are on the outside looking in (or) a civilian who has NEVER served in the military - they have a right to their opinions (even if they are wrong).

AND - it seems to me, that it is you (Senior Chief), that started the name calling and flaming because these people didn't/wouldn't agree with YOUR opinions. You once accused me of doing this, but I have come to the conclusion that you can NOT/will NOT allow someone else to post an opinion different than yours, and not become negative in your comments and confrontational in demeanor.

I do NOT make this comment to start another war - I make it because I don't believe you even realise that this is what you are doing.

Further - just because someone does NOT agree with your comments, doesn't mean they are anti-American. You are NOT Uncle Sam (and) you are NOT the poster boy for America.

You accused others of being biased, and I guess this is a good description for all of us
(including [especially] YOU).

As far as Strongbow's comment

"Their Commander-in Chief is looking rather weak and directionless".

I couldn't agree more (my opinion). And - I am NOT an outsider looking in, NOR am I a civilian who has never served in the military.