The latter doesn't imply the former. And neither implies that it wasn't a stupid idea.russ_watters said:The fact of the matter is that the surge worked: violence is down since before the surge.
Did Bush's policy look to you 'take the troops in and screw the Iraqis'?russ_watters said:What Obama's Iraq policy looks/ed like to me is 'yank our troops out and screw the Iraqis'.
Astronuc said:...Iraq is still far from being stable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Sattar_Buzaigh_al-Rishawi
Assassinations and kidnappings are still all too common.
And Chicago, Illinois, 125 shot dead this Summer.Greg Bernhardt said:You could say that about Mexico or Columbia too :wink
Even assuming that your implication that the surge had nothing to do with the downturn in violence is correct, how do you think Obama will be able to argue that to the voters? That is what this is about, Gokul.Gokul43201 said:The latter doesn't imply the former. And neither implies that it wasn't a stupid idea.
These little one-liners are really silly, Gokul. Besides not having anything to do with anything, that isn't anywhere close to how Bush's actions were initially generally received.Gokul43201 said:Did Bush's policy look to you 'take the troops in and screw the Iraqis'?
So this argument about the surge not doing anything is really just a non-starter. Obama said it worked, so the question of if it worked or not isn't even on the table. It's good of him to admit that, but the point remains: this is a big problem for him and it is going to keep getting worse as we keep pulling troops out and handing over more territory to Iraqi control.Obama said:I think that there's no doubt that the violence in down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.
russ_watters said:You're right - I just went looking around and found it in the transcript:
So this argument about the surge not doing anything is really just a non-starter. Obama said it worked, so the question of if it worked or not isn't even on the table. It's good of him to admit that, but the point remains: this is a big problem for him and it is going to keep getting worse as we keep pulling troops out and handing over more territory to Iraqi control.
I didn't imply that. I only implied that the downturn in violence may have had nothing to do with the surge, but it is easy to conflate coincidence (events happening simultaneously) with causation. But it would be be a bad idea to try and make an intelligent point to an unintelligent audience. And that was only one of the two points I made.russ_watters said:Even assuming that your implication that the surge had nothing to do with the downturn in violence is correct,
How will McCain be able to argue to voters that his position in support of the war and that his assessment that it would be short and deliver an overwhelming success were sound? They've both got difficult jobs convincing the people of such (and other) things. What will be important is not how they convince the people of the basis of their positions but rather how they convince people that the other guy's blunder was the bigger one.how do you think Obama will be able to argue that to the voters? That is what this is about, Gokul.
The point was to show how silly an assessment you voiced over Obama's position in your one-line summary. I guess the point hit home.These little one-liners are really silly, Gokul.
I expect you to have a more informed and intelligent picture of things than the average John Q public. You were talking about how the policy "looks/ed like to me", which, I hope, is different from how they looks/ed to the average person. So I don't understand the change in direction.Besides not having anything to do with anything, that isn't anywhere close to how Bush's actions were initially generally received.