What are the 100 troops in Greenland doing

I heard Greenland is very icy and Iceland green

jeff2sf wrote:Ok, so it's all based on the idea that generals always ask for more troops, that everything is Vietnam, etc and that nothing ever changes.

Well f that. We're not actually debating whether this is right, it all comes down to "this is how generals behave", "war is bad" etc. You're just hitting find/replace on the country. And apparently if you think the troops should stay in a country, you always think the troops should stay in. Again, I'm not a war mongerer. I have been appalled by pretty much everything that happened in Iraq from the onset (save the surge).

Again, I'm not the guy who said this is the war we should be fighting. Obama did, you (standing for NE Liberal) did. So now go ahead and fight the damn war.

Wow. Do you really believe this crap?

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Ok, so it's all based on the idea that generals always ask for more troops, that everything is Vietnam, etc and that nothing ever changes.

Well f that. We're not actually debating whether this is right, it all comes down to "this is how generals behave", "war is bad" etc. You're just hitting find/replace on the country. And apparently if you think the troops should stay in a country, you always think the troops should stay in. Again, I'm not a war mongerer. I have been appalled by pretty much everything that happened in Iraq from the onset (save the surge).

Again, I'm not the guy who said this is the war we should be fighting. Obama did, you (standing for NE Liberal) did. So now go ahead and fight the damn war.

Wow. Do you really believe this crap?

Which part? Most, I do.

Woody wrote:What are the 100 troops in Greenland doing

Fighting global warming

The cartoon wasn't an argument, so we should leave the Vietnam stuff aside. It's weird you keep bringing up Vietnam, as if that benefits your cause, but whatever. Continually saying "this isn't Vietnam" keeps reminding me of that mess.

The observation that generals almost always ask for more troops does not mean pull back the troops; it means we should take that recommendation with a huge grain of salt, and think critically about our overall mission. Yes, more troops would help enforce the upper hand, wherever we want to impose our will militarily. That's undisputed. But the thing is, that is the general's mission, to "win" the battles. More troops, smarter troops, more funding, better technology, etc, equals more wins. This is why "more troops" is always the correct answer when the question posed to a general or pundit is"how do win this battleground."

This is why I asked the pointed question about Afghanistan's mission. Yes, the Iraq surge was "successful." Yes, an Afghan surge will most likely be successful in a similar vein. Yes, if we launched war with Pakistan, we could probably cripple Al Qaeda. Yes, if we went into Iran, we would likely topple the government. But these actions don't necessarily further our mission in the Middle East. And furthermore, it would be costly, in terms of money and lives. And I don't spend either lightly.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Woody wrote:What are the 100 troops in Greenland doing

Fighting global warming

Werthless wrote:The cartoon wasn't an argument, so we should leave the Vietnam stuff aside. It's weird you keep bringing up Vietnam, as if that benefits your cause, but whatever. Continually saying "this isn't Vietnam" keeps reminding me of that mess.

The observation that generals almost always ask for more troops does not mean pull back the troops; it means we should take that recommendation with a huge grain of salt, and think critically about our overall mission. Yes, more troops would help enforce the upper hand, wherever we want to impose our will militarily. That's undisputed. But the thing is, that is the general's mission, to "win" the battles. More troops, smarter troops, more funding, better technology, etc, equals more wins. This is why "more troops" is always the correct answer when the question posed to a general or pundit is"how do win this battleground."

This is why I asked the pointed question about Afghanistan's mission. Yes, the Iraq surge was "successful." Yes, an Afghan surge will most likely be successful in a similar vein. Yes, if we launched war with Pakistan, we could probably cripple Al Qaeda. Yes, if we went into Iran, we would likely topple the government. But these actions don't necessarily further our mission in the Middle East. And furthermore, it would be costly, in terms of money and lives. And I don't spend either lightly.

I only bring up Vietnam because dajafi kept saying "you could say the same thing about Vietnam". Previous politics thread.

I also don't have as much of a quibble with your general philosophy, which I'm probably closer to than jerseyhoya's.

You didn't support Obama for president, so you've been consistent. But the Dems willingness to cut and run at every opportunity, just like the Republicans passion for going to war if a guy looks at us funny, reminds me why I dislike both parties.

What in hell is the White House thinking with this Fox News commentary? Just leave it be.

Harpua wrote:What in hell is the White House thinking with this Fox News commentary? Just leave it be.

If anything, it will probably increase viewership, as people will want to see what the big deal is. Pretty silly, and makes one question the judgement of some of the underlings in the Executive branch. I get the impression that Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of people that are used to dealing with politics at a city level, and haven't adapted to the way things are done at a national level.

cshort wrote:

Harpua wrote:What in hell is the White House thinking with this Fox News commentary? Just leave it be.

If anything, it will probably increase viewership, as people will want to see what the big deal is. Pretty silly, and makes one question the judgement of some of the underlings in the Executive branch. I get the impression that Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of people that are used to dealing with politics at a city level, and haven't adapted to the way things are done at a national level.

yes

The auto bailout: How we did it
"The man who led the effort gives an inside look at the bankruptcies that shook America."

cshort wrote:

Harpua wrote:What in hell is the White House thinking with this Fox News commentary? Just leave it be.

If anything, it will probably increase viewership, as people will want to see what the big deal is. Pretty silly, and makes one question the judgement of some of the underlings in the Executive branch. I get the impression that Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of people that are used to dealing with politics at a city level, and haven't adapted to the way things are done at a national level.

Yesterday Jake Tapper (Phillies fan) from ABC asked Gibbs about it.

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

I don't see how this is a smart strategy, at all, from any angle.

Politico takes a look

I guess the strategy is to push Republicans to certain media outlets, who are viewed as "fringe" by "mainstream" America - thereby making the Republican Party a fringe party.

I'd rather see the same effort spent on, you know, governing.

I saw that line of questioning from Tapper last night, and quite enjoyed it.

I think there's a pretty much airtight case to be made that Fox's "news" coverage isn't much less biased than their opinion programming.

The bias may be less overt--a graphic that says "Obama triples deficit" while some bobblehead anchor talks in relatively even tones, rather than Sean Hannity bleating about how Obama is a secret Muslim communofascist poopyhead--but it pretty clearly indicates a position.

That doesn't mean it's "good politics" for the White House to pick this fight, but it's not like they're pulling this out of thin air.

You would only know this if you watched Fox News regularly. But, if you watch Fox News regularly, then your intelligence (and thus credibility) is suspect. We have no way to evaluate your claims, so I must assume they are false.

Werthless wrote:You would only know this if you watched Fox News regularly. But, if you watch Fox News regularly, then your intelligence (and thus credibility) is suspect. We have no way to evaluate your claims, so I must assume they are false.

Touche. This info is second-hand, from sources that, admittedly, anybody emotionally committed to defending FNC would dismiss at the jump. (Media Matters, Center for American Progress.) See the problem?

There's nothing in the political discourse I find more tedious and distracting than the "bias" argument. But it actually helps shed a little light here: if FNC's whole rationale for existing is that every other big media outlet is in the tank for liberalism and they're just present to provide a salutary corrective (and make a little dough in the process), that undercuts their argument of being no different from those other outlets. Being different is their whole point and purpose.

And yet, during the day, Fox participates in the same bogus news orgy as CNN, MSNBC. Oh look! A photo of a bear in a car. A boy in a balloon! Too many hours to fill.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU[/youtube]