Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't feel like responding to your posts. But almost everyone of them is directed at me, which is amusing when I'm bored. So I'll indulge this time, I wouldn't want to disappoint my greatest fan.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sob
Powerclown,
Here's the scorecard as I see it:
|
I don't see these forums as a place to carry scorecards around. But all three of you: powerclown, ustwo, and sob, do and repeatedly say things that frame discussions in some sort of fight to be won rather than points of view to be shared. Perhaps that is the main reason discussions dissolve like this one and so many before.
Quote:
Summary as follows:
1. You stated facts.
2. Smooth posted erroneous information, and used it to win an argument with himself. This is a frequent starting point, i.e. a "straw man argument."
3. Next, after posting the following GLARING error,
thereby including all casualties from the beginning, in a thread entitled "Ground assault on Faluja commences,"
|
I didn't post erroneous information, as I see it. Mr. Mephisto asked how the battle could be won. Mephisto may have labeled the attack as "commencing," but it isn't beginning. This attack is a continuation of the one started earlier last year.
Rekna entered the discussion and questioned the positive effect our tactics were having in light of the civilians we were killing.
At that point, I entered the thread and added some contextual information. Mainly, that we have in fact killed tens of thousands of civilians in our fight for fallujah. Rekna, Mephisto, myself, and a I wager a bunch of other people probably consider that our cumulative actions are going to determine when or if we can, in fact, "win" anything resembling peace and democracy in fallujah.
If some of you want to slice that history of our actions out of the equation, fine. But that doesn't make the historical context less relevant to US success in the region or in fallujah, in particar. Fallujah's residents aren't going to forget the civilians killed simply because it was last april.
Quote:
|
4. He forgot that many men in the age range of 18-40 weren't allowed to leave the city. See below:
|
I didn't forget anything. This is from the original post from Mr. Mephisto:
Quote:
|
Most of the city's 300,000 inhabitants have already fled, and after the weekend barrage, many more streamed out. No one knows how many civilians are still in the city, 'but it is believed that those left are either diehard supporters of the insurgents or too old or sick to leave.
|
and this is from one of my own posts:
Quote:
|
The occupying force on April 9 allowed more than 70,000 women, children and elderly residents to leave the besieged city, reportedly also allowing males of military age to leave.
|
So it appears that 18-40 year olds have been allowed to leave the city. The reality is that up until a short while ago, everyone was told to leave.
How the fact that our soldiers more recently barred innocent civilians from leaving the city shortly before the newest attack helps your case, I don't know. I didn't feel the need to type it out explicitly since it was contained within my comment that the people left are a) fighting or b) hunkered down praying that they don't get killed, but still are dying in the rubble.
Secondly, what I was pointing out was that the men who are left, regardless of their reasons for staying behind, are engaged with the US military now whether they like it or not. Our soldiers can't distinguish them from the enemy. So even if there are non-militant men in Fallujah, it doesn't matter for all intents and purposes. They are either picking up a rifle now before they get shot or are dying in the rubble while hunkering down waiting for the fighting to cease. Some of them are guarding their homes from marauders since there hasn't been any law and order for so long. Inevitably, our soldiers are going to shoot these innocent men down after kicking in their doors during their house to house sweeps.
Quote:
|
5. Finally, he attempted to obscure the mistake by making personal attacks:
|
hmm. the context is lacking, but I certainly wasn't trying to obscure any mistake since I didn't make one.
Quote:
Watch for this pattern in future threads. Then decide if you want to continue responding to such tactics.
But don't hold your breath waiting for a warning about the personal attacks.
|
It should be pointed out that my first post was just a general comment on the amount of civilians being killed in our offensive against fallujah. Powerclown took it upon himself to bog the discussion down by requesting proof of every line of my statement. Ustwo didn't supply much other than inflammatory comments about the anti-everything ness of quite a few contributors to the thread.
So, as I see it, the original question was how can this thing be won?
A few of us are wondering the same thing given that so many corpses are rotting in the streets that people can't bear the smell and are dumping bodies in the river. That larger picture of the situation points to the reality that I don't think we can win anything resembling peace and democracy. Powerclown thinks after the insurgents are gone, the city can be rebuilt. I was asking him to step back, take a more holistic view of the situation, and assess where the impetus for peace with the US would come from, given the historical reality of our actions there.
He refused and instead wanted to engage in point for point haggling. That certainly is the conduct some of you guys consistently choose to engage in. That kind of conduct is appropriate for "scorekeeping" as you put it, but not for assessment of the general picture and productive discussion.