|
|
 | | From: | Bourbaki | | Subject: | Gumby: Facts I don't like I call criticisms and dismiss them. | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:22:47 -0600 |
|
|
 | Here's a proposed solution to the problem in Iraq. Increase US troop
counts to the level necessary to maintain peace and order. Pour in
resources to rival the Berlin airlift and General McArthur's
reconstruction of Japan to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and police
forces. Then when things are stable in Iraq, hold elections. Don't
leave. America, 60 years after WW II and 50 years after the Korean
war, still has bases in Italy, Germany, Japan and Korea to name but a
few places. Otherwise, keeping a mere 150,000 troops in Iraq will only
lead to ceaseless instability. Accordingly, Americans will eventually
tire of the body bags and leave a mess behind as they did in Vietnam.
If the United States didn't want such a painful, resource demanding
problem, it shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. This is
essentially what Secretary Colin Powel said regarding the
responsibility of the United States. So don't cry for French or
Eurotrash troops. Based on your posted prejudices against the majority
of European nations, it would be hypocritical of you.
Of course, I don't believe that your president has the "political cash"
to increase troop counts in Iraq, no matter how many times he repeats
the exageration that his recent re-election was a clear mandate.
Calling 52 or 53 to 48 or 49 percent of the vote a clear mandate is
fuzzy math.
PS--I like the way you treat the pincer of facts you're trapped in
concerning your late concern for the Kurds, mirroring America's 2 year
late concern for the Kurds only AFTER Iraq invaded Kuwait and
threatened US oil interests. You call facts empty criticisms and feel
exhonerated. By the absence of any fact-based refutations on your
part, however, it is clear that you tacitly accept the facts as they
stand in official US government documents and transcripts of US
officials.
By the way, the most valued tool of the scientific method is criticism.
Those who put forth ideas have to defend them from active criticism.
Even Einstein's theory of relativity is being tested yet again at this
very moment with Gravity Probe B. You, M. Gumby, must defend your
posts with more than dismissal of fact based criticism. Anyone can do
that.
You could use a class in dialectic. As much as you like to use the
methods of the Dark Ages, you cannot argue by denial and pontifical
fiat. Those times are gone my dear troglodyte. Now for some dialogue.
Question: Given that a US president appoints many officials soon after
his swearing in, including many an official in the intelligence
business, to what level can a US president absolve himself of erroneous
policy on poor intelligence?
Based on your posts, you seem to think the president and his
administration, including his hand-picked intelligence officials, are
blame free. How do you defend such a position?
Question: For how many months did the US build invasion forces in the
Middle East, use spy satellites, get reports from weapons inspectors in
Iraq and still come up with a dead wrong conclusion regarding WMD in
Iraq? How would you, M. Gumby, suggest improvements to avoid future,
costly embarrasments?
Nicolas Bourbaki.
|
|
|
