Iraq - what do we do now?

[Gilding the Lily]

What are you guys even arguing about? It is quite humorous; keep up the good work!

 

[Flying Titan]

GTL -
It goes back to a post where Local 12 said something like he never runs from a debate. I pointed out several instances where he did...including cases in this thread as well as the thread he started about murders by illegal immigrants. He's been whining and ranting ever since. And you're right, it has been humorous!

 

[Flying Titan]

Hypothesis is theory and is a process of fact finding, its not in and of itself FACT

Scientific hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis (a testable conjecture) that has not been tested by the prediction validation process for a scientific theory.

First of all, let's remember why a scientific hypothesis was even brought up. You said that it's something that can't be proven (post #177). What's amusing is that in your own definition (above) you prove yourself wrong. If a hypothesis is a "testable conjecture" then - by definition - it can be proven or disproven; since that's what it means to be "testable."

Secondly, it's interesting to see that you have (rightly) chosen to run away from the most substantive part of these last few posts -- your "Mac Johnson" numbers. Be sure to let us all know who he is and how he came up with his figures when you find out.

Finally, way to drop another s-bomb in the last line! I was wondering if you could make it through an entire post without one. Guess not.

 

[Ch. 12]

GTL -
It goes back to a post where Local 12 said something like he never runs from a debate. I pointed out several instances where he did...including cases in this thread as well as the thread he started about murders by illegal immigrants. He's been whining and ranting ever since. And you're right, it has been humorous!

Don't forget where he ran from the global warming debate b/c the source he cited as "an expert scientist in climatology" was actually the chief engineer for the WV Coal Miners Association.

 

[delldude]

Don't forget where he ran from the global warming debate b/c the source he cited as "an expert scientist in climatology" was actually the chief engineer for the WV Coal Miners Association.

Like you should talk....

You don't even understand atmospheric heating/cooling and go spouting off like some expert and I post fact and you slither away into the night :unsure:

 

[Ch. 12]

Like you should talk....

You don't even understand atmospheric heating/cooling and go spouting off like some expert and I post fact and you slither away into the night :unsure:

Already responded in that thread. As I stated there...so I said "upper atmosphere" heats up and your uncited source said "lower atmosphere"...that doesn't change the context of what I had said about the ice caps melting causing actual cooling in some areas and much more volatile weather. The sky could be brown for all I care but that doesn't change the premise of my argument. You and your cronies always try the swift boat approach and hang on something that means nothing about the current topics at hand. Just another desperate approach when you can't debate the real issue. Out-of-context works wonders, eh? At least my references are in context:

I have read up and can also come up with the Real facts from Real scientist, Here is just one such Real source of truth!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Now post your liberal rant rag scientific source for the responsibility of natural climate change. 😉

...this, of course, was what I was referencing and here it is in full context. Remember this "real scientist" was a WV coal miner. Meanwhile you think that b/c I said "heating in the upper atmoshpere" rather than "lower" (my point was heating in the atmosphere b/c I go on to discuss cooling on the surface) it changes my pointing out that you were incorrect in trying to say that a cold spell in a normally warm region completely debunks "global warming". Does that change anything about my statements saying the heating happens in the atmosphere and that leads to differing results on the surface...including cooling?! Another desperate attempt to divert a topic. Just like this Iraq topic.

 

[local 12 proud]

Out-of-context works wonders, eh? At least my references are in context:
...this, of course, was what I was referencing and here it is in full context. Remember this "real scientist" was a WV coal miner.

Well forgive me for not consulting with you first (the forum chief meterologist) before posting on climate change, but seems you like to throw stones about context, references etc. and then you turn right around and try and discredit my link by calling a chief engineer a 'coal miner' who's report was backed up with credible reference material that you consistently ignore and coveniently forget to include when addressing the issue, however being the ever patient man that I am.. 😀 I will give you the benefit of doubt and once again post 'Chief Engineer' Monte Hiebs reference material.

References

(1) A scientific Discussion of Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

(2) The Effects of Proposals for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction; Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States House of Representatives

(3) Statement Concerning Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(4) Excerpts from,"Our Global Future: Climate Change", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate Change Campaign

(5) Testimony of John R. Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.

(6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998.

(7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).

(8) First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.

Additional Reading

Geological Constraints on Global Climate Variability: Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety of natural climate drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format presentation. 8.5 MB.

Thoughts of Global Warming: "The bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very concerned about it or spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things out.

NOAA Paleoclimatology: An educational trip through earths distant and recent past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating to the causes of climate change.

Cracking the Ice Age: From the PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global warming.

Little Ice Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): From the online magazine, "CO2 Science."

Solar Variability and Climate Change: by Willie Soon, January 10, 2000

Earth's Fidgeting Climate: NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"

 

[delldude]

Unfortunately, we live in a society where untruthfulness is routinely accepted and even mandated by politicians, union leaders, and members of the press. New York is the headquarters of the biggest producer of mendacity, the New York Times. Fortunately, it's also the home of the antidote, Lucianne.com.

Excellent Article

The site gives top billing to every possible negative statement about the Iraq war and the Bush administration, and it gets about 13 million hits a day. Is it any wonder that President Bush has record low approval ratings?

The week before, Mr. Drudge posted a quote from the new secretary of defense, Robert Gates: "We are not winning in Iraq." Did he really say those words? No. At Mr. Gates's confirmation hearing, Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, asked him if we were winning in Iraq, and he answered, "No."

Lucianne, of course, pointed out that Mr. Gates went on to say we're not losing, either. His exact words were: "Our military forces win the battles that they fight; our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq. And I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost. And I didn't want my comments to be interpreted as suggesting that they weren't being successful in their endeavors."

My name, Alicia, means truth, so here it is. We are at war. Our military is the best in the world and the smartest we've ever had. Our enemies are barbaric beheaders who want us dead — period. You cannot negotiate with them. They exist on mendacity.

You have been warned.

 

[CSAR GYRENE]

Obviously some members of this forum disagree about why we went to Iraq and whether we should have gone at all. I've seen tons of criticism of Iraq in the media, but not many suggestions on what to do.

Nevertheless, we are there. What do we do now?

Here are a few options I've heard, by no means are they comprehensive:

* Stay there until Iraqi security forces can handle the conflict themselves. This will probably be a while.

* Set a deadline, December 2007 for example, and have our troops out no matter what.

* Leaflet the whole Sunni Triangle telling the people they have 3 days to leave and then bomb it to smitherines. (I'm not condoning this, just an idea from Michael Savage.)

I'm not sure what to do myself. It seems like we're in a pickle. What do you think?

What do we do now?WIN!

 

[Flying Titan]

What do we do now?WIN!

I agree completely!!!

Of course, the hard part is how. Do you care to offer some details? What do you see as acceptable conditions to declare victory - western-style democracy? any government that can maintain law and order? something else?

Tactically, what do you see as the best way to achieve victory?

 

[delldude]

I agree completely!!!

Of course, the hard part is how. Do you care to offer some details? What do you see as acceptable conditions to declare victory - western-style democracy? any government that can maintain law and order? something else?

Tactically, what do you see as the best way to achieve victory?

Heres your nonexistent plan....unlike Vietnam...Bush is letting the military run the show....so whos at fault then,Bush?

Now that Bush appears to be favoring a solution at odds with that of the recommendations of his commanders, why doesn't it matter that back when they were telling him what he wanted to hear, Bush said unequivocally again and again and again that the commanders would determine troop levels? Why have we agreed to forget this? Why isn't it in every news story about this stuff? Or better, why isn't it in virtually any stories about it?

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, April 22, 2004:

The President has made it very clear that we will provide our troops with all the resources they need to do their job. And he looks to our commanders in the theater to make those determinations, in terms of what is needed.

President Bush, January 1, 2006:

THE PRESIDENT: The conditions on the ground will dictate our force level. As the Iraqis are able to take more of the fight to the enemy, our commanders on the ground will be able to make a different assessment about the troop strength. And I'm going to continue to rely upon those commanders, such as General Casey, who is doing a fabulous job and whose judgment I trust, and that will determine -- his recommendations will determine the number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq.

President Bush, October 20, 2006:

I talk to our generals who are in charge of these operations, and my message to them is: Whatever you need we'll give you; and whatever tactics you think work on the ground, you put in place. Our goal hasn't changed, but the tactics are constantly adjusting to an enemy which is brutal and violent.

So at the end of the day,Bush has let the military run the show as which it should be....so whos to blame?
Doesn't seem Bush made any incompetent decisions other than relying on his military commanders.Yes,he is Commander in Chief....and looks like he let the people who should know how to prosecute a war do the work that they
are paid to do while keeping politics out of it.Someone learn a lesson from VietNam? 😉

You got first blood 😉

 

[Flying Titan]

Bush is letting the military run the show.

Delldude -
If this were the case, you and I would agree (at least tactically)...but there has been a lot of evidence from the beginning of this war that Bush has NOT let the military run the show.

Remember, the military wanted to have troops come in from the north in the original invasion. Bush and his team blew their dipolmatic responsibilities and couldn't get Turkey to let our troops use their territory to come down from the north.

Remember, after the debacle in Turkey, the military wanted to wait for those troops to have time to come around and join the larger invasion force. The reason for this was to have enough forces to maintain control of key areas after they defeated Iraqi fighters. (Iraqi military facilities, ammo dumps, key government offices, etc.)

Remember, several high profile commanders at the Pentagon wanted an even larger force than the one that would have included these missing (left out) troops. That's the Powell doctrine - no fair fight, always use overwhelming force.

Remember, Bremer - the president's hand picked man to take control of Iraq in the early days after the invasion - was given the power to disband the Iraqi government bureaucracy and the rank-and-file Iraqi military. Commanders at the Pentagon and on station in the Middle East opposed both moves.

In each of these instances - all critical to any chance of US success in Iraq - military commanders were shot down by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co.

Even if you fully supported the idea of invading Iraq, you must realize that these crucial mistakes - all of which involved NOT listening to the military - have a lot to do with plunging the Iraq war into the mess that it is today.

 

[delldude]

Remember, the military wanted to have troops come in from the north in the original invasion. Bush and his team blew their dipolmatic responsibilities and couldn't get Turkey to let our troops use their territory to come down from the north.

Remember, after the debacle in Turkey, the military wanted to wait for those troops to have time to come around and join the larger invasion force. The reason for this was to have enough forces to maintain control of key areas after they defeated Iraqi fighters. (Iraqi military facilities, ammo dumps, key government offices, etc.)
Remember, several high profile commanders at the Pentagon wanted an even larger force than the one that would have included these missing (left out) troops. That's the Powell doctrine - no fair fight, always use overwhelming force.

It was all a ruse set up by our military.It was covered in a documentary around Thanksgiving weekend I think,on Discovery,TLC or History channel.I saw it but can't
remember the exact channel.It may have been a show called Sworn to Secrecy.It was very informing.They (us)did employ similar deceptions through CNN and the news media in the first Gulf War under Stormin'Norman with great success.

Remember, Bremer - the president's hand picked man to take control of Iraq in the early days after the invasion - was given the power to disband the Iraqi government bureaucracy and the rank-and-file Iraqi military. Commanders at the Pentagon and on station in the Middle East opposed both moves.

I remember the incidents but thought it was about stepping on Iraqi toes at the time of trying to gain their confidence.

In each of these instances - all critical to any chance of US success in Iraq - military commanders were shot down by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co.

Even if you fully supported the idea of invading Iraq, you must realize that these crucial mistakes - all of which involved NOT listening to the military - have a lot to do with plunging the Iraq war into the mess that it is today.

Probably movement on the military side and executive branch all helped.I'd say if we were privy to inside info,they both had a hand in the demise we have today.

 

[Flying Titan]

I hadn't heard that the troops through Turkey was a ruse. If that's the case, then that would explain that problem. Seems odd to me, but I'll try to spend some time looking that up and see if I can find a link to post on that later today.

Still, it doesn't change what has been reported over and over again - specifically - that the commanders who led this war repeatedly pushed for a much bigger invasion force and were repeatedly denied by Rumsfeld.

As big a problem as that has been, I believe the biggest disaster for our effort was Bremer. He was hand picked by the White House and he was given waaaayyyy too much power to implement an ill-conceived strategy that we're still trying to fix. The military opposed many of his worst decisions, but they were over-ruled by the White House.

Delldude, I'll say it again. While, you and I disagree on whether we should have gone to war in Iraq, I don't think we disagree on the tactical principal that the military should execute the war. I think going into Iraq was a mistake and our efforts would have been much more productive with an all-out effort in Afghanistan and more targeted assaults elsewhere.

However, once we were in Iraq...Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld needed to get out of the way. They didn't. They have micro-managed the military and forced a lot of tactical decisions down the Pentagon's throat that the military didn't agree with in the first place. That is not "letting the military run the show."

 

[delldude]

I can come to agreement there....

As far as that show I saw...it was excellent....I was upset with the Turks at the time and when I saw the show I was suprised as all heck.Hats off to the military planners.I'll try and find out what,when I actually saw but like I said...the Sworn to secrecy" rings a bell.

As for Rummy....hes outa his day in a younger mans game.

later on........