Olberman is the best thing on TV

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
anyone with a IQ higher than Alfred E. Newman could see that this was not the case.

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
You see? No name-calling, no insults.

[Moneyguy1]

Now len.. you wouldn't be putting yourself in that category, now, would you? I certainly hope that is not the case.

(Since I generally use the "Quick Reply" feature, I cannot add 'smilies')

Sorry.....

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Now len.. you wouldn't be putting yourself in that category, now, would you? I certainly hope that is not the case.

(Since I generally use the "Quick Reply" feature, I cannot add 'smilies')

Sorry.....

I certainly don't share your pessimism or dare I say paranoia in regards to Iraq. I don't think everything is "just great", but it's not lost already either. I am more worried about us quitting......yet again and the effect that will have worldwide. I do think we can "win the peace" if you will, but there is a price. Apparently a price we are unwilling to pay.....so we'll let the juice run on that for a decade or so and pay a much larger bill later.

All the exaggeration about how bad Iraq is in lost lives and treasure shows complete historical ignorance. If it's wrong on principal then that is a worthy debate, but our sacrifice has been nil so far (in historical perspective). It's the lack of realistic debate that gets me. Which brings me back to the Olberman type debater, 90% emotion and hyperbole so that the 10% goes unheard. (yes I know this goes both ways).

[Moneyguy1]

We agree that it goes both ways. In truth, what is most disturbing to me has been the reluctance of those in charge to pubicly seek other points of view over the past two to three years. Like I said, please read the article and look at what is on the news today in Sadar City. We have graduated from shootings to dousing in kerosine and burning alive. How can a government like our own, used to dealing with some degree of rational behavior deal with this kind of mindset?

What would constitute worthy debate? How do we measure a sacrifice as "nil"? Whose POV do we use to come to this conclusion?

Sorry....We are in an extremely difficult situation of our own making and NO ONE has a solution to the problem as far as I can see. Hindsight is always 20-20 but in retrospective, it appears that the scope of action was so narrowly defined that any objections or suggestions that did not fit the scope were rejected out of hand. Historical ignorance? How so? Please show why such ignorance exists. "Those who do not learn from history......" You know the rest.

A bit of paranoia is not a bad thing. It heightens the senses and increases the probability of survival.

There is a considerable chasm between wishful thinking and reality.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I certainly don't share your pessimism or dare I say paranoia in regards to Iraq. I don't think everything is "just great", but it's not lost already either. I am more worried about us quitting......yet again and the effect that will have worldwide. I do think we can "win the peace" if you will, but there is a price. Apparently a price we are unwilling to pay.....so we'll let the juice run on that for a decade or so and pay a much larger bill later.

All the exaggeration about how bad Iraq is in lost lives and treasure shows complete historical ignorance. If it's wrong on principal then that is a worthy debate, but our sacrifice has been nil so far (in historical perspective). It's the lack of realistic debate that gets me. Which brings me back to the Olberman type debater, 90% emotion and hyperbole so that the 10% goes unheard. (yes I know this goes both ways).

It the problem were one of resolve, or the character of the American people, or "toughness," you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't.

It's no "exaggeration" to say Iraq is lost. Even the most optimistic observers now admit that it is impossible to "win" anything. The game now is lessening the damage to American interests.

Which will be significant.