Terminology is everything.
 

It seems that the great thinkers keep over thinking the issue.
They give us terms that are meant to deceive the great unwashed to manipulate the discussion.
Just say what you mean and we'll decide for ourselves.
Global Warming ? WTF... Who cares? I certainly don't. Just ask if we want cleaner air and cleaner water and we all say yes. Scare me with Global Warming, maybe a little over the top. Give us solutions for cleaner air and we'll go along.
Surge in troops ? Once again, you've got to be kidding. Asked the real question. Do we want to reinforce our struggling forces in Iraq ? Of course. Not since the Alamo has reinforcements made more sense. Why hide the question in an ambiguous word? Surge, please..... Give the troops what they need to win. If they can, our troops will win.
Plain English please.

It's a little early to be hitting the scotch, don't you think?

You have to think outside of the box. Then you'll realize that there's been a paradigm shift, and that we're all really on the same page. Twenty-four seven.

Re: Terminology is everything.
 

We lost that one to.

Choose your battles wisely.

I think my paradigm's sychros are worn out...

I saw a bumper sticker the other day "Custer died for your sins"

Re: Terminology is everything.
 

The number of soldiers in the Alamo could have been doubled or quadrupled and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference except for the total number of casualties...just like Iraq imo.

Terminology is everything.
 

Interesting comment. Who is we?
The Texas freedom fighters lost that one not the U.S..

Imagine the possible success those Texans could have experienced if the United States cavalry would have stood beside them.

As for choosing your battles, always choose to win no matter what battle you find yourself in. How you got there is a matter for historians.
Loosing is addictive and I choose to obstain from that substance.

Iraq is a matter of will, not resources. The US accounts for 40% of the entire world's military budget.

There's something inherently wrong about us not being able to secure the 30 mile or so radius around Bagdhad where 80% of the violence is happening.

And BTW, the fighters at the Alamo lost the battle, but the Texans ultimately won the war. Thanks to a much-criticized retreat by Sam Houston followed by a decisive victory over Santa Ana on the field in San Jacinto.

Well, if we wanted to vaporise every man, woman and child in the said 30-mile radius, we could be done before lunch. My personal philosophy is such that if you're not prepared to do that, you have no business invading.

What?????

Never.

Please...no. Please. no..no... No P-word...no more. Please. I beg you.

Other $50 words/phrases in our company (you pay each time you let one slip):

1. win-win
2. going forward
3. at the end of the day
4. "a-ha" moment (my current personal favorite to hate)

There's more, just need to get off my butt and find the list.

Sorry to hijack the thread but got the shivers and couldn't restrain myself

Re: Terminology is everything.
 

You are correct in many of your views. One unfortunate thing in life is that there are people around us who are ready to give up at the first hint of resistance. Multiply that a bit and they believe that the sky is falling.

The ability to see over and above the smoke and fog is a good thing. You are doing a lot better than they are and are correct IMHO in your views.

Well said. Perhaps too much of a generality, but it seems to apply perfectly to the middle east.
no they will not. for every man they kill, two more like him will come up. The fact is, that country was quite stable while saddam was in power. He was also able to intimidate his neighbors away from seeking nukes. Now that we went in and got rid of the head honcho, we cannot win. The other option is a complete withdrawl. we will be safe, they will likely be in a quite bloody civil war. Instigated by us. Quite frankly, that is not an option. It is an inevitability. Keeping troops/surging troops in iraq is simply postponing it. Leaving now would bring iraq into complete bloody chaos, but the idea that this war can be won is foolish.

5 that being said...

6 , let's not workshop this and take it offline

We Americans too often seek the easy way out. War is not easy, that is why they only give metals to heroes. Not everyone has the courage to fight to the end for what they believe. That is why we need leaders with courage.

Our motives were just and our goals are admirable and certainly worth the effort. [added on] Errors were made but that does not justify quitting.

BTW: having military bases and 130,000 troops on the boarder of the most volatile nation in the world can't be a coincidence.

So, do you have any original thoughts, or have you simply resigned yoursef to channeling the NeoCon talking points?

I wonder if you read my first post? Or the last post ?

I am not aware of any talking points that outline my thoughts on terminology.
That after all was the point of the post. Not "how do you feel about Global warming or the troop reinforcements" but plain english to describe the issues.
Neither conservatives or liberals actually say what they mean. They use language the distort the issue.
Talking points ? Where have you seen anyone calling the troop increase "reinforcements"?
Where have you seen anyone liberal or conservative say in their talking points that it's good to have troops on the boarder of Iran ?

Your assertion that I simply regurgitate some talking points merely shows your lack of understanding of the topic at hand. Calling me a neocon does not address my assertions.

Re: Terminology is everything.
 

At his first sight of the thousands of Mexicans approaching, Davey Crocket was heard to ask Jim Bowie, "WTF? We pouring concrete today?"

The Iraquis had 600,000 ground troops when we disbanded their army.

These guys are now hanging out on streetcorners without jobs.

I don't think 20,000 troops is going to make a big difference, and I think it is very telling that Rummy didn't get fired until after the election.

The troops are a smoke screen.

Going there was wrong with a capital GW. What stinks is that by leaving we will be doing something as bad or worse. Most Iraquis would like us to leave anyway. There never was a plan, and now ain't the time to try and pull it together, as we have no credibility in the rest of the world.

I really don't think it has anything to do with semantics. Follow the money trail. Look at who is making money off of what, and then see which side of any issue they take. We could go right to examples, but then there would be a lot of howling and naysaying. Go figure.