On 26 May 2004 22:30:43 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Ed writes:

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.

Already reduced to name calling, Ed?

Read more slowly, apply in context and try not to move your lips. I
called no names

"dedicated liberal" is a name and a pejorative term you used to describe a
poster whom you couldn't gainsay.

A bit sensitive are we? Is "dedicated liberal" a pejorative? Here's
the quote as I wrote it:

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal. The
implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the
administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con, the attribution
of "arrogance" and the insertion of a clutch of red herrings like
Iran, Syria and NK.

Do you seem me assigning the term to Juvat, or am I pointing out the
rhetorical weaknesses of his argument? He failed to address the
question and he couched his comments in the terms I indicated.


but pointed out the emotionalism of Juvat's
statements.

And you called him a name.

I'm a "traditional conservative". I'm not a "social conservative". I'm
definitely not a liberal. If someone is a liberal, they would welcome
the label as easily as I welcome it if someone calls me a
conservative. That isn't name calling, it is ideological
identification.

I know you're a vet. You were in Viet Nam, right?

I did have the opportunity to visit regularly.

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand
very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of
national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being
out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and
"America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there,
experienced it first hand.

I mean, irrespective of what General Zinni says, do you think that things are
going well in Iraq? We have @ 5,000 casualties now. I distinctly remember
Vice President Cheney saying on Meet The Press before the war that we would be
greeted as liberators. I don't need General Zinni to tell me that the Bush
administration has --totally-- mismanaged the war. They disbanded the army;
that's now seen as a mistake. They got rid of the Ba'athists, but now they are
bringing some of them back. I can see for myself that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Perle, Feith and those other neo-con bums are practically criminals.

Let's go beyond the superficial. We've been in combat against a nation
of 25 million people. Many said there would be tens of thousands of
casualties in the intial battle. There weren't.

The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or
years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different
than mine.

Would you have maintained the werhmacht after the collapse of Hitler?
There's a recipe for disaster. Would you have propped up the Nazi
party during the reconstruction of Germany?

The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three
distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They
don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also
don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced.

Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would
specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those
are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of
several less than savory functionaries.

Do you recall from @ two weeks ago, when Wolfowitz misrepresented the number of
KIA? He had no idea what it was. He missed the actual figure by 50%.
As a veteran, now. How does that make you feel?

Do I worry if he said 300 or 400 or 500? It doesn't really make a hill
of beans worth of difference. Why should that be particularly relevant
to the policy discussion?


(Might I note, that a response that implies an ad hominem
attack when none was made is also a familiar gambit.)

You mean like calling someone a "dedicated liberal"?

See above regarding ideological identification. If the shoe fits....

General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq,
Al
Quaida or no.

Read more slowly. Note the response is to Juvat, not a mention of
Zinni in the entire post.


Read more slowly. General Zinni is not a liberal, whatever else this other
person may be.

It makes no difference what Zinni's ideology is. I was addressing the
points of Juvat. I wasn't discussing Zinni at all, at any time!

I generally enjoy your posts a lot. But you need to step back from what you
believe and compare it to what is happening.

Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
international relations as part of the job. I maintain an active
interest in the role of the military. I am not particularly prone to
emotionalism and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
analysis rather than this sort of language (from your post): "and
those other neo-con bums are practically criminals."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8