Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2006, 04:09 PM   #1 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Gatorade Frost's Avatar
 
Talking politics around here and some changes

Today I finally came to the conclusion why I didn’t enjoy politics on the TFP. Not particularly that it’s extremely partisan, but because it’s based around he-said she-said of politicians and the like.

To me that’s relatively worthless. Instead of discussing in depth the actual issue, the ‘debates’ become fights about “Well Bush said this, therefore he’s a liar” or “Kennedy’s a drunken nut job” and the like. Does it really matter? What matters is how they vote, not what they say.

If you can talk about minimum wage in the sense that it deals whether minimum wage is important or not, or if it’s useful or harmful to the economy, you’re on the right track, but throwing out that it’s just a ploy to take people’s eyes off of what’s going on in Iraq is stupid.

The same goes with the flag burning amendment. What should have been a conversation about whether it should be illegal quickly turned into this:

“It's a Red Herring the GOP know will never get through, but it will take the press coverage and the heat from the scandals away, at least for awhile. Let's get some radical "patriots" all up in arms and pissed about flag burning and have them bitch and moan about that so people and the press will focus on that, until we can find another hotpoint to divide the people...... that way they don't focus on the scandals, on living wages, on the war, on the deficit, on the trade imbalances, on whatever.

In the end, we'll hear more about this for a week or 2 than we will about illegal immigration or liveable wages or whatever.

Politics at it's finest.”

How exactly does this help the discussion aside from tossing out a highly partisan opinion based around conspiracy theories that the GOP is using different amendments as distractions? Frankly, it doesn’t.

It’s important that it wasn’t passed by 1 vote. If 66 senators voted in favor of it, 11 over the number of Republicans in Senate, obviously people have strong feelings about it, enough to warrant it being noticed. If it was that close, it seems clear to me that it’s not a red herring that won’t get passed. It nearly was today. This is an amendment, 2/3rds majority. That was nearly achieved today, and what would have been said if it had passed in the senate? That it was a right wing conspiracy still? That’s 12+ Democrats/Independents voting in favor of the amendment, enough to make it not an entirely partisan issue.

These are issues that should be looked at not for their political value but for their value in importance to the American people, to its application with the bill of rights and the constitution, not looked at as left and right wing conspiracies.

Livable wages are important to be thought about and how it can be dealt with, but throwing out tons of quotes and news paper articles to try to prove that politicians suck doesn’t get anyone anywhere. People aren’t going to change their opinions in the face of unreasonable partisanship; it has to be done by dealing specifically with the issues and coming to working conclusions as to how to fix the problem.
__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips
Gatorade Frost is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 05:50 AM   #2 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Gator,

You make a good point, perhaps my post could have been worded somewhat differently. But it was in reply to another.

Basically what it boils down to in politics, I believe, is whether an issue is truly an issue or a"Red Herring" a "distraction" and so on.

As for the Flag burning..... it really isn't much of an issue, therefore there isn't much to really talk about.

Wages, there is, and yes it has become very partisan. I used to believe you could leave partisan views out most of the time but anymore that idea is just a pipedream, perhaps it always was.

My point is, some issues are just fluff, herrings etc. that either party will use to take heat off of other more pressing issues that the party or Congress as a whole doesn't want to deal with. Flag burning is a good example.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost
Livable wages are important to be thought about and how it can be dealt with, but throwing out tons of quotes and news paper articles to try to prove that politicians suck doesn’t get anyone anywhere. People aren’t going to change their opinions in the face of unreasonable partisanship; it has to be done by dealing specifically with the issues and coming to working conclusions as to how to fix the problem.
Congress voting for the good of the country as a whole is how things are supposed to work, but in this country, today, partisan hatred of each other has gotten to the point where it is unreasonable, neither side listens to the other, both sides are refusing to make concessions and neither is working for the good of the country, but rather to promote their own party and power. The politicians are scared of voting their true consciences and not along party lines because they will be ridiculed, told how weak they are and lose party support.

Perhaps it has always been this way. The only way it will ever change is if the people truly want it and vote for change. But we don't. We complain how the parties are pretty much the same or how the politicians don't listen but in primaries where we have the choice to vote for better voices and original ideas, we, as a whole, refuse to and career politicians continue to win.

The parties want their agendas taken care of, and they are going to back the frontrunner rather than someone who rocks the boat or maybe a loose cannon.

And most everyone wants to believe their congressman is truly ok and voting for them it is everyone else's that is the problem. In actuality, your congressman is probably part of the problem, they all are. Until you get true men and women with spines that refuse to take orders and vote their consciences and for what they know to be best for their district and state.... this is what we'll continue to get.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 06-29-2006 at 06:13 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 08:19 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
If we banned the words: "Bush", "Liberal", "Democrat", "Republican", and "Clinton", the talk would go a lot smoother around here and as Gator points out, more real issues would be discussed.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 08:36 AM   #4 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by highthief
If we banned the words: "Bush", "Liberal", "Democrat", "Republican", and "Clinton", the talk would go a lot smoother around here ...
Hmmmm...it's interesting that you also didn't choose to ban the word "conservative".
An oversight, maybe? Perhaps. Perhaps.


Actually, if I thought for one moment that it could be achieved, that might make for an interesting experiment.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 08:47 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Hmmmm...it's interesting that you also didn't choose to ban the word "conservative".
An oversight, maybe? Perhaps. Perhaps.


Actually, if I thought for one moment that it could be achieved, that might make for an interesting experiment.
It just didn't come to mind - neo-con might be a better pick.

Can the boards controls be set to simply erase a given word? I know on other, all ages boards, I've seen boards autodelete swear words or it simply doesn't allow you to post such words.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 09:22 AM   #6 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
But isn't politics ALL in one's opinion and views.

Why delete (censor) words?

If someone (and I am very guilty) is being too partisan and you do not like what they have to say in a certain post is it not better to just skip it? Someone else may like or may want to read that OPINION, and find it helps them.

By banning or deleting words, ideas, opinions and arguments just because they muddy up the waters or are too one sided or don't meet your standards of debate, is censorship.

And who decides what words, thoughts, ideas, views opinions to ban? Because it would eventually get to not just words but all those other "divisive" and partisan and whatever that doesn't allow "debate" to run smoother.

Politics like religion are passion points to people and they will argue thier points, they are usually set in their views and very rarely switch. The only thing this board can do is allow views out so that people know why and how the other views a certain issue. And perhaps persuade the undecided or in some cases find common ground.

It all boils down to passion and wanting to have your view seen. By deleting and censoring you take away the passion and will eventually have nothing to talk about because you cannot have a politics board or debate issues without passion in your belief.... it's boring and is textbook. This is the real life textbook examples do not apply and without passion in your views and beliefs why care?
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 09:28 AM   #7 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i dont see the problem as one of superficial labelling.
it is more a problem of types of arguments that get presented and how these labels are used instead of argument, to short circuit them.

in the thread on minimum wage levels, you basically had two different positions.
one is influenced by the always foul milton friedman--which would claim that businesses act responsably when they generate profit and are not and should not be concerned with any other factors--these factors would include questions of whether wage levels actually enable workers to live. this line is as old as capitalism itself, and remains wholly afunctional (in that, over the long term, businesses have to accept the reproduction of its labor pool as a cost that it must bear). but no matter.

the motherlode for this position is a 3-page article friedman published in 1970 in the new york times magazine--have a look, if you havent seen it:

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroup...-business.html

it is remarkably crude logically, but remains of considerable ideological interest in that folk seem to actually agree with it. what i personally like about the article is its crudeness. generally, the claims made in it seem more plausible if you encounter them piecemeal, framed in other ways. but seeing the thing itself is good, i think.


the other arguments tried to introduce factors into consideration that depart from the premise that business is not a separate zone of space-time, but is in fact a social function. as it is a social function, engaging in it brings along bigger social obligations than simply generating profit.

it is routine these days for this debate to be framed around the fiction of the heroic individual entrepreneur, the high plains drifter kinda guy, whose heroic solitude comes with limitations--among these limitations are marginal profits which would be threatened were these clint eastwood types of pay their employees enough to actually live. this is an ideological choice which does not reflect the problems facing the major actors in american economic activity, which are large scale firms.

but the problem in the thread was that neither position really engaged with the other--so began the talking-by process and with that the usual namecalling and so it goes.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 09:38 AM   #8 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Just an aside, there isn't anyone here that doesn't recognize a$$ for what it means. Banning certain words is easily worked around.

I can see no value in banning political group affiliation identifiers in a forum dedicated to political discussion. Perjorative identifiers, such as "looney liberal," are against the rules and that should be sufficient.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 10:11 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Just an aside, there isn't anyone here that doesn't recognize a$$ for what it means. Banning certain words is easily worked around.

I can see no value in banning political group affiliation identifiers in a forum dedicated to political discussion. Perjorative identifiers, such as "looney liberal," are against the rules and that should be sufficient.
It was in repsonse to the "interesting experiment" phrase used previously. Of course, banning individual words doesn't work in the long run, it'd be interesting to see what happened, however.

I stand by my previous comments - ban anyone with an "o" in their screeen name, they ain't nothing but trouble!

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 10:37 AM   #10 (permalink)
Registered User
 
frogza's Avatar
 
Location: Right Here
In some cities you get rival gangs like crypts and bloods, around capitol buildings you get gangs called republicans and democrats. The only difference between the two is one uses guns to hurt their enemies and the other use their puppet news channels. They both regularly break the law to achive their ends. If we, the public, weren't caught in the middle it would be laughable.
frogza is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 11:22 AM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
Looks to me that what we have here, is another politics thread that centers on "feelings based" opinions.

Other examples of the clash between "feelings" driven posts and detail driven posts, can be observed recently on the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105988">An interesting experience with a soldier</a> thread.

A poster who says he is a soldier serving in Iraq, posted that the insurgency is comprised primarily of foreign fighters. Opposition to this premise was provided in the form of linked citations to comments of U.S. military generals made between 2003 and late 2005 that state that the Iraqi insurgency is comprised of, at most, ten percent foreign fighters. Citations included links to quotes on DOD web pages.....

The response to these citations, in the "feelings" based posted opinions, was that the post that contained the quotes of generals and their details, were not worth reading, and that the post of the member serving in Iraq was more credible....and no supportive documentation, that could be examined by the rest of us was provided.....and it's similar to that kind of exchange....over and over....

On the minimum wage thread, the "feeling" in some posts, is that the government has no business setting a minimum wage. Those who "feel" that way, tend to oppose progressive taxation and inheritance taxes. They advocate a prohibition on the majority using it's superior numbers to levy progressive taxes on the richest, who are fewer in numbers.

There was no response on that thread to the documentation that I posted from a Federal Reserve web page, that shows statistics that tell us that. even with the progressive taxation and the inheritance taxes in place, up to 2004, the richest one percent held 34 percent of the wealth, the next nine percent held 36.1 percent, the next forty percent held 27.4 percent, and that the bottom half.....150 million people, held only 2-1/2" percent of the total wealth in America....and that their share was dropping.

There was no response, that contained any references that could be examined....... to a report from a consumer watchdog org that showed that the 18 wealthiest American families had originated and funded a secret deceptive campaign....spending their millions to influence passage of "inheritance tax" reform.

It seemed to me that a "system" that already allowed the wealthiest 30 million to hold 70 percent of the total wealth, and the poorest 150 million, just 2-1/2 percent of the total wealth, certainly would not be jeopordized by a legislated raise in the minimum wage, or by leaving current inheritance tax laws in place.
It also seemed that "trickle down" politics....where the employer is freed from government regulation to provide more and better jobs, if the figures of wealth distribution are any measure....are a failed premise. The "feelings based" POV, saw no need to acknowledge or discuss the wealth distribution figures, let alone provide any referenced information that is contrary to those
figures.....

In short....."feelings based" posts put me at an extreme disadvantage, because I can only know what I learn from my research and the research that backs the opinions of other posters. "Feelings based" posts provide nothing for me to check and verify. These posts have more of a religious flavor than a political one....as they take so much "on faith".

A solution would be to divide this forum into two sections....a "feelings" or "faith based" posting section, where everyone "knows what they know", but can't or won't supply the sources of where they learned what they "know", and a section for those who endeavor to post every link and documented excerpt that supports our opinion and leads others to examine validity and reliability for themselves.

I'm sick of doing so much research, then sharing it, and then being told in response, that I don't know as much as a responder who won't direct me to where he gets his "facts". I feel like I'm running in place.....I'd rather engage people who bring their evidence to the table.....then defend it....a process that might actually lead to conclusions, consensus....agreement!

Last edited by host; 06-29-2006 at 11:29 AM..
host is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 12:52 PM   #12 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
The 9/11 conspiracy thread in Politics could have been a disaster. While a few individuals did make an effort to get it moved, almost all of the posters not only were able to show respect for one another, but were able to argue the facts...as if we were in some sort of political forum. GF, yes things can get bleak in here, and it takes thick skin to survive, but over all, I feel this is the place to be. While certian individuals and I will probalby never see eye to eye, that doesn't make our discussions any less relevant or valid.

Also, that was an excellent post, Host. I like the idea of splitting up politics into cerebral and emotional halfs. If only our govnernment could come to a similar understanding.

Last edited by Willravel; 06-29-2006 at 01:19 PM.. Reason: spelling
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 01:18 PM   #13 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Has anyone noticed that Gator started a topic that has generated much interest and several valid points and no verbal blood has been shed? What's up with that?
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 01:38 PM   #14 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i think the problem that host raises runs parallel to the one i tried to raise (less eloquently, i might add) in that there is no agreement about types of argument that work here, nor on the relations of argument to evidence, nor on the ways in which disputes involving divergent types of argument are to be addressed. because there is no such agreement, what almost always happens is a kind of frame-switching in which an argument outlined in one register is countered by another in a wholly different register.
so positions simply talk past each other over and over again.
it gets kind of tiresome after a while.

you see this most obviously in arguments about economics, during the course of which factoids which are obviously and thoroughly embedded in very particular assumptions about the role of the economy in society, the relation between economic and state actors and so forth are simply presented as if the logic behind them required no explanation. routinely in these discussions, things tank quickly because posters, particularly those who work (often without knowing it) within a neoliberal framework seem to treat their ideology as a fact of nature, and so apparently have no idea how to either articulate their assumptions or defend them.
this too gets tiresome, but very quickly.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 01:00 PM   #15 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
Location: Twilight Zone
Quote:
Originally Posted by host

A solution would be to divide this forum into two sections....a "feelings" or "faith based" posting section, where everyone "knows what they know", but can't or won't supply the sources of where they learned what they "know", and a section for those who endeavor to post every link and documented excerpt that supports our opinion and leads others to examine validity and reliability for themselves.
You see Host just because you cant google something does not mean it is not "fact", now your a talking about someone on the ground in Iraq, and dismissing his facts as there are more outside insurgents on the ground than you can google, well my son in law just returned from his second tour there and he has told me the same thing, plus numerous friends I have that are higher ranking troops have told me the same.

Who says you to determine what is "feelings or faith based" information?

I guess experience has no effect on learning, if it can not be googled.

Just sometimes people know what they know because they lived it, and experience "IS" the best teacher.

So just keep demanding "facts" by the click of a search engine, while I will take someones experiences over a NYT or Washington posts op-ed piece anytime.
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
reconmike is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 01:26 PM   #16 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Recon, the other day I asked a friend of mine stationed in Bagdad what he thought about the soldier raping the Iraqi woman. His response was "What?!". His experiences in Iraq did not and do not encompas the whole of the situation, therfore he is not the ultimate authority on things. There are still soldiers in Iraq who believe that Iraq had some sort of connection to 9/11. These kids aren't journalists, or historians, or political analists. They are soldiers. They have guns and humvees and they are in a crappy war.

I think what host was saying is that soldiers are just like anyone else. They can be wrong about stuff just as easily as the rest of us. In recognising that, we can accept a lack of understanding and then move forward in an effort to understand. That's poltics. Communicate, debate, learn, understand, act.

Last edited by Willravel; 07-05-2006 at 01:28 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 02:21 PM   #17 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
I would ask a soldier how war "feels".

I would ask a journalist how war "seems"

I would ask a politician how war "happens"

I would ask myself how war "tastes"



.......and I ask my friends on TFP all of the above, information breeds insight....whether I agree with it or not.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 08:11 PM   #18 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
The TFP ethos, the principles that make the other boards so fun/stimulating, damages Tilted Politics. TFP wants to include everyone in the discussion, it wants to give a hearing to each person with something to say. Newbies and old salty dogs alike are given opportunity to join the discussion. These are all great things and are why I love the TFP... but it drags the Politics board down.

The mods do a great job enforcing the rules of TFP it's just that the rules don't lend themselves to sober discussion in an arena so charged with genuine passion/controversy. The trouble with this board is, quite honestly, the volume of mind-numbingly stupid comments. I'm not talking about the posts challenging my views (trust me, there are many conservative-type posts that make me cringe in horror)... i'm talking about the ill-considered abortions that contain demonstrably false information. God-forbid something be considered a *gasp* personal attack on another poster (forgive my sarcasm). The root problem isn't invective it's that paranoia and erroneous information creeps its way into each thread. Bans are expected for those hurling insults yet no accountability is applied to posting falsehoods. Real discussion takes a back-seat (on all sides, i know) to stamping out the stupid.

Now, I know that fact-checking every post isn't the mod's job. And I also realize that conflicting information can be posted with complete integrity and goodwill from all parties. Still, much of what I read on here just can't be taken seriously.

Sorry. I realize this is more of an impotent rant as I'm not really proposing a remedy. This is something I've come to accept when discussing politics online. Short of altering TFP's guiding principles (please don't!), or creating an invite-only board (like Trampoline), I don't know of any good alternatives. As condescending as this post probably reads, I hope you'll give me the benefit of the doubt. I'd sure like to see this board improve and am willing to take honest criticism/advice on how I can help.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 08:36 PM   #19 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The 9/11 conspiracy thread in Politics could have been a disaster. While a few individuals did make an effort to get it moved, almost all of the posters not only were able to show respect for one another, but were able to argue the facts...as if we were in some sort of political forum. GF, yes things can get bleak in here, and it takes thick skin to survive, but over all, I feel this is the place to be. While certian individuals and I will probalby never see eye to eye, that doesn't make our discussions any less relevant or valid.

Also, that was an excellent post, Host. I like the idea of splitting up politics into cerebral and emotional halfs. If only our govnernment could come to a similar understanding.
the 9/11 conspiracy post in politics was the only political discussion I actually got into, I felt that every conspiracy theory was answered completely and debunked, beyond that, other threads seem to go down hill to fast for me, and i just bail out.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 09:56 PM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmike
You see Host just because you cant google something does not mean it is not "fact", now your a talking about someone on the ground in Iraq, and dismissing his facts as there are more outside insurgents on the ground than you can google, well my son in law just returned from his second tour there and he has told me the same thing, plus numerous friends I have that are higher ranking troops have told me the same.

Who says you to determine what is "feelings or faith based" information?

I guess experience has no effect on learning, if it can not be googled.

Just sometimes people know what they know because they lived it, and experience "IS" the best teacher.

So just keep demanding "facts" by the click of a search engine, while I will take someones experiences over a NYT or Washington posts op-ed piece anytime.
reconmike, it might help for me to tell you that "google" was not involved in locating the following information. I went to U.S. military sites and looked for 2006 statements of U.S. generals. The following is the info that the generals told reporters, and then made available to our troops as "news briefings" and to the general public. It seems pretty clear that the generals on the ground in Iraq,,,,including the commander of our forces in northern Iraq, stated the exact opposite of what you stated in your post.

I am showing you why I consider what you post on this subject is "feelings", and not fact. There is a consistant record in statements from our generals, from 2003 until now...that "foreign fighters" make up an insignifigant number of those who participate violently in the Iraqi insurgency, or who are fighting against U.S. troops in Iraq. General Thomas Turner said that we <b>"still find very limited evidence of foreign fighters".</b> The generals have consistantly told the press the same thing during all of the last four calendar years.

If what you believe is accurate, wouldn't forces as skilled and effective as those that the U.S. fields in Iraq, be able to show mounds of "evidence", in the form of the bodies of KIA foreign fighters, and the wounded and other captured ones, also? They haven't been able to come up with evidence that
foreign fighters are fighting alongside the Iraqi insurgents in any signifigant numbers....because, in all probability, they are not in Iraq in a signifigant number...just 800 to 1000, in an insurgency estimated to be 20000 in number.
So....that is 4 or 5 percent, as the generals have said....and that is an indignifigant number...and it has not chamged since 2003.

That is the way it is, reconmike...anecdotal evidence from what you've heard from individual soldiers who have spent time in Iraq, notwithstanding.
Quote:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...120-12351.html
Presenter: Maj. Gen. Thomas R. Turner, II, commander, Multinational Division North and 101st Airborne Division January 20, 2006

News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Thomas Turner II

(via Teleconference from Iraq)

JIM TURNER (Press operations deputy director): Good morning, General Turner. This is Jim Turner at the Pentagon. Can you hear me?



GEN. TURNER: I can.



MR. TURNER: Good morning. Our briefer today is Major General Thomas R. Turner, II, commander of Multinational Division North and the 101st Airborne Division. He and his command are responsible for ongoing security operations in northern Iraq. This is his first visit with us from Iraq, and he is here to provide us an operational update.



General Turner has an opening statement and then will take your questions. Remember he cannot see us, so please identify yourself when asking your questions.



So General Turner, welcome, and thanks for joining us today........


...........MR. TURNER: Joe.



Q General, this is Joe Tabet with Al Hurra TV. Would you give us a clear idea about the insurgency that you are facing, their tactics? <h3>How many foreign fighters are involved in the operations?</h3> And do you still believe -- my second question -- do you still believe that the Sunnis are supporting the insurgency in your area?



GEN. TURNER: If I understood the questions right, the first one was, do we still have foreign fighters fighting in Iraq? And the second is, are the Sunnis still supporting them?



Yes, I think <h3>we still find very limited evidence of foreign fighters in our area of operation, and there are some Sunni groups that make alliances of convenience based on capabilities or as they proceed. But I think we will probably see fewer and fewer Sunni organizations aligned with terrorists and foreign fighters.</h3>



I think the Iraqi people fully realize that the goals of al Qaeda are not compatible with the Iraq of the future that they envision.....
Quote:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2...0228_4340.html
American Forces Information service

Terrorism Biggest Threat to National Security, Officials Say
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2006 – Terrorism remains the pre-eminent threat to U.S. national security and interests abroad. But if progress continues at the current pace in Iraq, the terrorists can be defeated there and the U.S. can gain a foothold in the war on terror, a top U.S. official said here today........

........The insurgency in Iraq is complex and resilient, but coalition forces have been able to significantly impact al Qaeda in Iraq by killing or capturing many of its leaders, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said at the hearing. The coalition has been able to restrict the flow of personnel, money and material and degrade operations, he said.

<b>Sunni Arabs form the core of the insurgency in Iraq, Maples said, and fewer foreign fighters are joining their ranks.</b> Insurgent leaders exploit social, economic and historical grievances to recruit support, and are willing to use familial, tribal and professional relationships to advance their agenda, he said.

The insurgents' philosophies and actions are adding urgency to a debate within Islam about the role of religion in government, Negroponte said. As this debate evolves, Muslims are becoming more politically aware and active, he said, but the majority doesn't lean toward extremism.

"Most Muslims reject the extremist message and the violent agendas of the global jihadists," he said. "Indeed, as people of all backgrounds endorse democratic principles of freedom, equality and the rule of law, they will be able to couple these principles with their religious beliefs, whatever they may be, to build better futures for their communities."
host is offline  
 

Tags
politics, talking

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:35 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360