Which do you choose?

[JVS]

Which do you think is a wiser course of action?

If other please explain why you think your scenario is possible.

[Renew Deal]

1. We need to re-liberate the Iraqi's.

Maybe the flowers will come the second time around.

[sangh0]

2. Great!!

Another push-poll

[JVS]

5. This pushes how? Both choices are depicted in a negative light

Thus it is fair and balanced

[library_max]

10. It's a false dichotomy.

It presents a single black-and-white choice that is not reflective of reality. That's how.

[JVS]

12. No. Both choices are grey

[Guaranteed]

17. No, it's not.

It's a fucked-up dichotomy. But, unfortunately, those are our two choices. We can either leave or stay.

[library_max]

26. "We can either leave or stay."

But if we leave, we don't have to leave immediately ("cut and run"). And if we stay, we don't have to stay forever ("enduring quagmire"). There's an awful lot of middle options that the poll pretends don't exist. It is a false dichotomy.

[Guaranteed]

28. LOL no, it's not.

At every moment, we have two options- leave, or stay.

Apparently, you're saying that, at the moment, we should stay. For now, we should endure the quagmire.

[library_max]

33. Hey, this gag might actually work on you!

Did you know that, if you give a turtle a ten yard head start, it can outrun a human? Let's say for example that the human runs ten times faster than the turtle. So in the time it takes the human to run ten yards, the turtle runs one more yard. In the time it takes the human to run that one more yard, the turtle runs one tenth of a yard. In the time it takes the human to run that tenth of a yard, the turtle runs a one-hundredth of a yard. And so on and so on ad infinitum. So no matter how far they run, the turtle always stays infinitesimally ahead of the human, right?

Wrong! Because the way the situation is explained above, it is parsed into an infinite number of moments. But reality doesn't work that way. In reality, the human runner passes the turtle shortly after the eleventh yard, and keeps getting farther and farther ahead the longer they continue to run.

See, this "at any given moment" stuff is an artificial and useless way to consider any situation. There are any number of ways to approach the situation in Iraq. "Cut and run" and "Enduring quagmire" are not our only options. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

[Guaranteed]

38. Okay, so you're saying we should neither leave, nor stay.

LOL What should we do then?

[library_max]

41. RIF, then reply. /nt

[Guaranteed]

46. I understand exactly what you're saying, but I think that you're reading

the post differently than I am. I read his two options as being flowery, funny names for either "leave" or "stay." He chose to color those two options in the way that he did simply for the purposes of entertainment, and maybe to make a couple of small points.

You seem to be saying that we don't have to choose between fleeing like cowards, literally, or staying in a quagmire. I totally agree with that, however, I think that the truth is that we ARE in a quagmire, and it will be one as long as we stay, so I tend to think that description is pretty accurate. And the other option is just one interpretation, of many, that could be made of our leaving Iraq, if we did.

But, the basic jist of the post is, do you want to stay, or leave? We have to pick one of those choices.

So...which is it?

[library_max]

47. It continues to be a false dichotomy.

Once we get Bush out of office, we'll have a lot more options than we have now. Bush has kicked the UN and NATO in the teeth, there's no way they will help clean up the mess while he's in office. But an America led by Kerry trying to fix Iraq will get a different international reception than the America led by Bush which invaded Iraq.

We can substitute UN and/or NATO peacekeepers for US troops and renegotiate the rebuilding contracts to pull out US and British corporations. Why? Because the US and the British don't have clean hands and the peacekeeping/rebuilding have no credibility with the Iraqis or the rest of the world so long as we continue to profit from the original crime of invading Iraq.

Once the UN and/or NATO takes over, it won't be our responsibility, except to pay reparations. If the Iraqis can take advantage of the peace and order to negotiate their differences and come up with some version of a democratic society, great. If they can't, at least they'll have had their chance. I'm sure the UN or NATO would work with the Iraqis to come up with a timetable for reversion to national sovereignty and withdrawal of all foreign troops.

Now that's a damned far cry from "cut and run," and not just semantically. Although it amounts to a US withdrawal, it is vastly different in both intent and effect from simply abandoning Iraq to its fate. And that's just one not-very-specific scenario that doesn't fit the dichotomy - plenty of others are also possible.

[Guaranteed]

51. Handing it over to the UN can still,

very easily, be called "cutting and running." It's giving up the occupation because we can't handle it anymore.

Like I said before, it's just one of hundreds of different interpretations, depending on how you want to spin it.

[library_max]

52. Okay.

So the difference between Japan after World War II and Afghanistan after the Mujaheddin revolution is just "spin." Good to know.

Please be sure to tell me if I start embracing ridiculous, purely semantic positions just to win this argument, will you?

[Guaranteed]

64. LOL I think you started that back at the

beginning of this threadline...You're the one who brought up ZENO LOL talk about semantics.

Anyway, I tried to tell you that we're just reading the post different. And, it's true...when I looked at the poll and answered it, I answered the question, "Do you want to leave or stay?" I said we should leave. You're just reading it differently, and that's alright, too.

[library_max]

65. Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought I was talking to someone who knows what "false dichotomy" means. Hint: it's got nothing to do with "ZENO LOL talk about semantics." However, it just goes to show how easy it is to think you're winning an argument when you haven't got the faintest idea what the argument is actually about.

[Guaranteed]

67. Now you're angry.

I'm sorry. You should have taken your out.

[JVS]

53. it could also be considered a continuing quagmire

Just because we bring in others to help with the occupation does not make it less of a quagmire, just different flags on the coffins.

There is also nothing to indicate that the UN or Nato are eager to get involved. In my poll I chose the answers because those are the two things we definitely can do. We can definitely leave if we so choose. We can definitely stay if we so choose. To get some kind of international force together or to create democracy may very well be chasing waterfalls. So I limited to things that can definitely happen. And you are right about the names, they are comical names for go and stay.

[sangh0]

11. IMO, That's a pretty good way to describe the one-percenters on DU

They depict EVERYTHING in a a negative light.

Thanks

[JVS]

13. Would you have it any other way? Neither choice is 100% positive

Should we pretend that there are not negative sides to either choice?

[sangh0]

22. Yes, let's be as one-sided as possible

and focus on only the negative, and if someone even so much as mentions the mere possibility of anything else, you can shout them down (or more accurately, try to) for being close-minded

[WillyT]

37. Imagine... Depicting War In A Negative Light... Will Wonders Never Cease ?

LOL!!!

:shrug::wtf::shrug:

[JVS]

40. Downright unpatriotic of me.

[sangh0]

43. I said "depicting EVERYTHING in a negative light"

Not "Depicting WAR in a negative light"

Another sign of the loony left's sanctimonious estrangement from reason

[WillyT]

49. FORGIVE ME, Oh Reasonable One !!! --- I Bow To...

Your moderate logic!!! LOL!!!

:hi::evilgrin::hi:

[sangh0]

54. Learn the language

Einstein

[Guaranteed]

58. Racism!!

<<cackle>>

[WillyT]

61. Grow Up !!!

Pee Wee

[Guaranteed]

3. Our presence there is pointless.

We don't have a GOAL that we're working toward. Let's just leave.

[WildClarySage]

9. Sure we do

the goal is to beat the crap out of the iraqis so that they can't protest when we start selling their oil.

[Guaranteed]

16. I stand corrected

LOL

[Options Remain]

4. Choose

is not the appropriate word.

TearForger

[JVS]

21. What word would you use?

[TahitiNut]

6. Iraq has gone from Hussein to Insane.

All told, I really wonder whether Pretzeldent Insane is any better.

[philosophie_en_rose]

7. How about Operation "Graceful Exit"

It's too late to just cut and run. However, we can make an intelligent transition.

[JVS]

18. Would you mind giving some details on that?

[gpandas]

32. i'll give you one alternative

get the un involved in all aspects of iraq

[JVS]

34. Have they volunteered to help?

Maybe they don't want to be involved

[gpandas]

36. UN

I would just like to get rid of this problem. The un is the obvious source to solve it.

[JVS]

39. But unless the UN is willing it isn't an option

In the spirit of being prepared for the worst, I don't expect them to volunteer.

[library_max]

59. If and when we get Bush out of office and repudiate his policies,

I strongly suspect that the UN and NATO will change their attitude.

[JVS]

60. I doubt it.

What good reasons can you give say Germany to get involved in this mess? There is a reason they didn't want any of it before. What makes you think that a Democrat in the WH will make them want to clean up our mess?

[library_max]

62. Because there's a difference between invading Iraq and trying to fix it.

Ever see a sign in an antique shop, "You break it, you've bought it." We broke Iraq. The Germans objected to us breaking Iraq, and rightly so. The current administration continues to defend breaking Iraq and continues trying to control Iraq's future destiny and channeling Iraqi profits to its political contributors. An administration which didn't break Iraq, doesn't defend the breaking of Iraq, and doesn't do any of that other stuff ought to get a different reaction. Why not?

[corporatewhore]

8. how about operation white mans burden?

[Bandit]

14. Let's turn it over to the Vietnamese ~ They managed okay after we left

:shrug:

[JVS]

15. Maybe we could provoke Iran into invading

[sangh0]

23. I guess you forgot about the millions of Cambodians who died

under Pol Pot after we withdrew

[JVS]

24. Way to blame America 1st

It isn't our fault if Cambodians kill Cambodians

[sangh0]

27. I didn't blame America (and thanks for spreading the Freeper slogan)

I merely pointed out one of the consequences of our actions.

[JVS]

29. But you did blame America. You are alienating mainstream voters

don't you want to beat Bush?

[sangh0]

30. Oh, I see. You're in prpoganda mode

Carry on

[JVS]

31. I learned it from watching you!

It's like those drug commercials

[sangh0]

44. Thank you

I'm glad I've been able to be of assistance. IMO modeling behavior is the most effective form of propoganda

[redqueen]

45. LOL

I love those commercials!

I think they should make them for domestic violence, alcoholism, smoking, etc. etc. etc.!

[m-jean03]

50. However, the "bad" Vietnamese communists fought & defeated Pol Pot's army

in 1978, and were shocked at the atrocities they uncovered -- while the Good U.S.A continued to support Pol Pot, because he was anti-Viet Nam and Anti-USSR.

"Pol Pot, an enemy of the Soviet Union, also gained support from Thailand and the US. In particular, the US and the PRC vetoed the allocation of Cambodia's United Nations General Assembly seat to a representative of Heng Samrin's government. Influenced by realpolitik the US directly and indirectly supported Pol Pot, who espoused a radically revised variant of Maoism adapted to Khmer nationalism. Envisaging a perfectly egalitarian agrarianism, the Khmer Rouge favored a direct route to communism, thus bypassing the intermediate stage of socialism. An autonomist, Pol Pot was quite the opponent of Soviet orthodoxy. Because he was anti-Soviet, the United States, Thailand and People's Republic of China considered him preferable to the pro-Vietnamese government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Furthermore, many feel the American invasion & bombing of Cambodia indirectly led to wide early support for Pol Pot. From the same entry:

"It has been argued that the Khmer Rouge may not have come to power without the destabilization of the Vietnam War, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to "clear out the Vietnamese sanctuaries" in Cambodia. William Shawcross argued this point in his 1979 book Sideshow.."

Meanwhile, thousands of Cambodians (and Laotians and Vietnamese) have been and continue to be maimed by our unexploded ordinances, and suffer the effects of our Agent Orange. Entire ecosystems remain devastated. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/StockholmDeclar_War_SEAsia.html

My point being these things are rarely so simple as a catch phrase such as yours would make them appear.

[sangh0]

55. Actually, that was MY point

My point being these things are rarely so simple as a catch phrase such as yours would make them appear.

Please note that I have not said we should or we should not have pulled out of SVN. I merely pointed out that our withdrawal had some negative consequences for some of the people in the area.

[m-jean03]

66. OK, I get you.

Please excuse me, always being on high alert for RW talking points, I go off at the slightest thing.

[Aidoneus]

56. and that ended when the Vietnamese overthrew him

After which, the "remnants of the regime" were backed by the US.

Pol Pot was only able to take over after American aggressions destroyed the existing order, including CIA & ARVN forces invading.

[sangh0]

63. And the Iraqi militants

are able to take over because we destroyed the existing order in Iraq.

The fact still remains that our withdrawal from SVN led to a catastrophe for the Cambodian people.

[Aidoneus]

68. I prefer to think of the aggressions themselves as the catastrophe

not the cessation of them.. but, whatever.

70. we withdrew from vietnam not cambodia

ddddduh...

[PfcHammer]

19. there are no similarities between iraq & vietnam. how dare you !!

[JVS]

20. Did I say that there was?

;-)

[citizen snips]

25. Operation Enduring Quagmire.

Because it is a mess over there.

[dogman]

35. Neither

Operation Dump Bush. Until we accomplish that we're as screwed as Iraq and the rest of the world.

[Karenina]

42. HALLO!!!

:toast: We have a winner here!

[Eurobabe]

48. third choice, operation either way we're fucked!

[methinks2]

57. we are not welcome there

get out now! let the UN take over and help out. The UN will help them if we leave. CUT AND RUN

[dogman]

69. Problem is we are the UN.

Besides after B$$$ pooped on them they might want to see him stew in it for awhile.