DescentBB

Well Vander, we're going to have fun with this one. Lets go back...all the way back, not to the troglodites but to the Reagan era and El Salvador. Back when the leftinista's were trying to take control and government right wing death squads were erradicating the threat.
Fast forward to now and I've just heard that Salvadoran
troops, who up to now have been training Iraqi's for security duties, are now going to be turned loose to hunt down insurgents in Iraq. So the question to one and all is how you feel about the using former Salvadoran death squads against Iraqi death squads?
Will this be like a sports match? Will you root for one "team" or the other. Just goes to show ya that real life can be more bizzare than any reality program the brain dead writers out in la la land can ever dream up.

Well, as I research this a bit more the Salvador Option gets better. American spec-ops along with Kurdish security teams are looked at to actually go into Syria to do snatch and grabs and then taken to secret "interrogation" places to extract information. I'm sure the "Loyal" opposition here in america will complain and say how all this is soooo unamerican.
Ollie North where are you.

i had coffee and a blueberry muffin... what'd you have? like right wing pie?

TheCops wrote:i had coffee and a blueberry muffin... what'd you have? like right wing pie?

A shot of Jim Beam and a piece of good old home made apple pie...hows that ya effete snob?

If these supposed Salvadoran death squads are using their old tactics, no, I don't support them. Does that mean I'm with the terrorists?

Vander wrote:Does that mean I'm with the terrorists?

Heck, no. No more than my personal reservations about the Iraq invasion makes me a suicide-bombing-crazed-fanatic-terrorist-type.

Shoulda just made the galaxies largest glass bong out of Iraq.

"No more than my personal reservations about the Iraq invasion makes me a suicide-bombing-crazed-fanatic-terrorist-type"

Yeah, but if you're not with them, you're against them.

Birdseye wrote:Yeah, but if you're not with them, you're against them.

Hmm. I know what you mean, but the logic of that statement is pretty fuzzy. For it to be perfectly logical, you have to assume that "with them" and "against them" are the only possible positions (i.e. you have to assume that one can't possibly be "abivalent" or even "empathetic but ideologically different").

I've been thinking about this, and if the Pentagon really is debating such an option, I think we have lost, and should bring our troops back home.

For it to be perfectly logical, you have to assume that "with them" and "against them" are the only possible positions (i.e. you have to assume that one can't possibly be "abivalent" or even "empathetic but ideologically different").

I'm just paraphrasing a famous Bush quote. Certainly I do not agree. You can thank the world's greatest diplomat.

Birdseye wrote:I'm just paraphrasing a famous Bush quote.

And, true to Birdseye form, you strip it of all context, in order to make Bush sound like the sort of guy who would say Vander or Foil is "with the terrorists" for thinking badly of a (rumored!) policy, as if he's referring to any individual who opposes any single Bush policy.

But every time Bush has said it (as far as I can see) he's referring to nations, which is plainly obvious from the way it's stated... and he's not even saying "either you commit troops in Iraq, or you're against us." It's "either you're acting against terrorism in your sphere of influence, or you're against us." It's "either you're stopping terrorism within your own borders, or you're harboring them and you're against us." See, for example:

Bush wrote: Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

There's plenty of room there (and in all the other quotes) to oppose individual US policies. Other nations' rulers aren't stupid or ignorant; they read what Bush actually says and they understand it. They might hype it up for people who can't be bothered to read transcripts, but they know what Bush really meant. And you just eat up the hype, focusing on the wording of the soundbite while ignoring the idea he's actually communicating.

It's too bad you're so opposed to Bush that you can't be bothered to understand what he's actually saying. It really overshadows and damages the rest of your arguments when you keep coming back to this same point instead of arguing the issue at hand.

----------------

I have no comment specifically relating to the Salvadorian death squads. I require more information before I can say anything. I can find plenty of references to "special forces" from El Salvador operating in Iraq, but I have no idea if they're anything like the aforementioned "right wing death squads".

Vander wrote:I've been thinking about this, and if the Pentagon really is debating such an option, I think we have lost, and should bring our troops back home.

Actually the opposite is true. If we are not committed to hunter/killer teams erradicating the monsters indiscrimminately killing only to make a point i.e. killing their fellow citizens, then we should get out.
Perhaps Vander, you would prefer heavy munitions with large potential collateral damage to be used?
How else will we be able to kill insurgent leadership in Syria without going to war with Syria. It would seem to me specialised snatch or kill teams would be preferable to a expanded war.

"It would seem to me specialised snatch or kill teams would be preferable to a expanded war."

Umm, perhaps we have different understandings of what such a "Salvador Option" would be. It's not the creation of some elite surgical bad guy hunting group. We have those. It's the targeting of local populations supporting or indifferent to the insurgents using methods we, rightly, abhor. I'm sure you've heard the term "dirty war."

Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani, director of Iraqâ??s National Intelligence Service wrote:The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.

I don't believe our apparently opposing opinions are mutually exclusive. You think that we should pull out if we can't commit to what supposedly needs to be done, and I don't think that we can commit it.

Vander wrote:

Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani, director of Iraqâ??s National Intelligence Service wrote:The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.

The Major is just a tiny bit in error. The Sunni's that live in Fallujah might have a different point of view.
The Sunni's may be getting the message as their top clerics are now saying they will authorise the election if the US gives a time table for withdrawel. The closer the Iraq election looms, the more the Sunni's are going to understand it(election) will happen. If the Sunni's don't vote for their own representatives, they know they will not be part of the power structure. Come the election and there after is when the equation will really be written.

heh, while I originally posted this I was thinking Lothar was going to post exactly what I he did.

it was just a joke, I know bush was referring to nations...it was sort of a play on the idea or attitude

I wish I had more time to get into things here, i just got a job at an audio software company and I still haven't graduated and pretty much all the time I have had is for either a 1 line joke or saractic remark. Sorry
(forgot my customary smilies to denote humor HAAHAHAHHAAH)

Birdseye wrote:heh, while I originally posted this I was thinking Lothar was going to post exactly what I he did.

In other words, you know what a load of bull you spewed, but you spewed it anyway.

And, of course, you had the trusty "it was really a joke, I know better" line standing by. If nobody calls you on your misuse of the quotes, you stand by them and make arguments based on "with us or against us", but if you get called on your bogus analysis, you pretend it was all a joke anyway. It's a nice system you've got there...

AFAIK this is the first time I have used the WUOAU line in a sarastic joke. I am sorry your feathers are so ruffled. I will try to make my intentions clear with lots of smilies next time.

I don't particularly get my feathers ruffled, at least not over political arguments. I actually rather enjoy shutting down bad arguments, and I've had a good few days of it between this thread and a couple others. I apologize if my enthusiasm comes across as anger, frustration, or any other ruffled-feathered-ness reaction.

Since I've seen the with/against line misused (both knowingly and unknowingly) far too many times recently, I figured I'd clobber whoever misused it next with the Holy Power of Transcript Reading. It wouldn't have made a difference if you'd surrounded it with smilies; that particular position needed smacked down as soon it got used. Your post was mostly a convenient excuse for me to get out the soapbox to preach on reading actual transcripts ;)

Good then. Maybe you can now (seriously) explain why that quote is a diplomatic homerun in the context you say it is in.

Because global politics are that simple Birds. Bush has effectively dumbed down the equation of cohesive ideas. No longer do any of the countries work together, it will be the stance of, "Either follow us, or your against us and we will no longer view you as an ally". I can only assume that conservatives like that feeling of the big kid on the playground that will beat you up unless you do what he says, whether you agree or not.

Lothar, Bush didn't put that quote in context when he said it. It was clear and concise, and it was exactly how he meant it.

"It's too bad you're so opposed to Bush that you can't be bothered to understand what he's actually saying"

What is he actually saying in a global way then? I'm obviously opposed to Bush, but I'd like to hear someone try to explain how he meant it anyway different than he said it.

Birds, I never said it was a diplomatic homerun (but then, I don't care that much about diplomatic homeruns.) I think it was badly stated, personally. But that doesn't excuse people for misusing it.

Zuruck wrote:Bush didn't put that quote in context when he said it.

When someone makes a statement of his own position or opinion, it's always in context -- it's in the context of whatever he was saying when he said it. There's no way to state your own idea "out of context" -- when you state your idea, it's in context by the definition of context.

Context means, essentially, the surrounding ideas. When Bush made the statement, there were ideas surrounding it, because it was made in the middle of a speech.

When you say it was "clear and concise... exactly how he meant it" what you're really saying is that you ignored the surrounding ideas and interpreted just the statement itself -- in other words, that you ripped it out of context.

I'd like to hear someone try to explain how he meant it anyway different than he said it.

He meant it exactly how he said it, as it relates to the things he said immediately before and after it. I quoted him saying it above. Reread my above post. Reread any Bush speech where he said it. And... this point is important... practice reading whole sentences, whole paragraphs, and whole speeches.