AstroProdigy

I'm actually trying to take a broad interpretation of the term "propaganda" when discussing government statements. I also only mentioned the possibility of Petraeus lying. I never said that this IS what happened nor that this is what I believe is most likely to have happened. Petraeus, a practical military man, understands that negotiating with Sadr is key to peace in Iraq and his statement to Congress makes the case that the former !@#$%^&*essment is accurate. However, the president, who is ultimately in charge in no way is required to agree with Petraeus. In fact considering his past history of absolute, overreaching statements such as "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" or "mission accomplished" it shouldn't be surprising that Bush is unwilling to negotiate with Sadr. Getting a public statement from Bush disagreeing with his own general in a major way who he and his supporters have personally built up as the man who's going to fix everything in Iraq is virtually impossible. That would make the Bush administration look weak and indecisive, which they have carefully avoided doing throughout his presidency. It's completely out of character for Bush to say Petraeus is wrong even if he disagrees. The proof lies in the actions taken towards Sadr and his militia. The Bush administration has been caught praising the attacks on Sadr unabashedly (at least until it proved to be an utter failure). Bush may have had to support Maliki in his attack on Sadr's militia in Basra, but he didn't have to label it positively as a defining moment. If he wanted to negotiate with Sadr he'd try to downplay the situation. The US military is also actively working to cut up Sadr's stronghold in Sadr City at all costs (heavy death toll in building the wall) so that shows it's highly unlikely Bush has any plans to negotiate with Sadr, but instead to try to contain him. It also makes no sense with the objectives of the Bush administration for Iraq on a political level to negotiate with Sadr. Sadr is supported by most Shiites and if Sadr were allowed to participate in elections he'd gain control of the Iraqi government or at the very least topple Maliki's government. If we negotiate with Sadr there's no way to legitimately keep him from participating in the elections in which he'd bring about a nationalist Iraqi government that would make a lot of the things America does there difficult to continue doing. Instead of negotiating with Sadr, treating him as the eternal enemy means we can do things like keep him and his people from running on the grounds that his militia must be disarmed first (even though every other major group in the governing coalition has an armed militia) knowing full well that he knows disarming his militia would be the end of him and his movement. I guess my points would be: Premise 1: Bush is ultimately in charge of Iraq policy, not Petraeus, so what Bush says and does is what US foreign policy becomes. Premise 2: Petraeus himself is willing to negotiate with Sadr. Premise 3: Bush has a history of playing absolutes. Premise 4: Disagreeing with your own general, especially the one you put in charge personally, makes you look weak and indecisive. Premise 5: Bush would avoid at all costs making a public statement making himself look weak and indecisive. Premise 6: Bush praises attacks on Sadr unabashedly. Premise 7: Bush is trying to contain Sadr by cutting up his stronghold. Conclusion: There is little chance that Bush and, therefore, the US government are willing to negotiate with Sadr.

Riots or not it's still a significant border change. Yep, which is why I lumped them together as one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y in my previous post. Still, it's significant that they went from one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y to 12 autonomous nations. Whether it's "sizable" or not is perhaps arguable, but it's still a significant border change, as we both agree. The maps you provided don't seem to show Sudan gaining from the other French territories, or at least not enough to make up for its loss to Libya. Worthless or not it's still a significant border change. Okay so we both agree regarding this, which is good. It's still a significant border change. Good, again we agree. So we appear to be in agreement then, in the end. Coming from another geography nut, Aceflyer you prove yourself to have no real knowledge of Africa as I hoped you would. Spanish Morocco was annexed by Morocco under the same arbitrary borders that Spanish Morocco existed under in the first place. On top of that if you had any idea what Riots or not it's still a significant border change. Yep, which is why I lumped them together as one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y in my previous post. Still, it's significant that they went from one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y to 12 autonomous nations. Whether it's "sizable" or not is perhaps arguable, but it's still a significant border change, as we both agree. The maps you provided don't seem to show Sudan gaining from the other French territories, or at least not enough to make up for its loss to Libya. Worthless or not it's still a significant border change. Okay so we both agree regarding this, which is good. It's still a significant border change. Good, again we agree. So we appear to be in agreement then, in the end. Coming from another geography nut, Aceflyer you prove yourself to have no real knowledge of Africa as I hoped you would. Spanish Morocco was annexed by Morocco under the same arbitrary borders that Spanish Morocco existed under in the first place. On top of that if you had any idea what the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic was you wouldn't be bringing this up because that state is recognized as a country by forty three states under the same borders as Spanish Sahara. It's really not significant that French colonies split apart considering they're easier to deal with as smaller divided, but still randomly divided nations. Also, the borders of those nations were also set up by the French after WW2 as part of the gradual decolonization movement in French controlled Sub Saharan Africa. Again you are wrong and your inability to see the difference between the borders of Africa before World War 1 and later on. The borders did change during the colonial period as the colonial powers saw fit, but almost never after. Even the few changes after were still on the basis of old colonial borders of some sort such as Eritrean independence based on the arbitrary borders drawn by Italy or the joining of two parts of Somali inhabited lands that was based only on the old colonial borders of Italian Somali and British Somaliland. You seem to be unaware of who controlled Cameroon and why the changes in borders happened. Cameroon was a German colony and when Germany was defeated in WW1 Cameroon had chunks taken off of it to be added to France. A map of the changes of Cameroon's borders would show you this so here. As you can see the boundaries were changed entirely by France and Britain. Just so I don't trip you up again on Cameroon since you've already shown your lack of knowledge on the subject, the changes that occurred after the initial chunks were taken off by France after WW1 were that the parts of Cameroon controlled by the British were given a choice; either join with Britain's Nigerian colony or stay with Cameroon. The difference between the British and French parts of Cameroon were and are entirely based on who was the colonial power and what language does each respective former colonial power speak. The same goes with Rwanda and Burundi, which were part of German East Africa and were added to Belgium's colony in the Congo only to be carved out again with the same borders that they always had; colonially drawn borders. The changes in borders between Libya and French and British colonies were made entirely by colonial powers. The only border change that Libya attempted as an independent country was a piece of worthless desert called the Aouzou Strip that was merely a propaganda tool. Even that didn't take. Somalia is the joining together of 2 former colonies, one British and one Italian, but even that is under the strict borders set up by the colonists. The country in no way represents the joining of all Somalis into one state, which you obviously had no idea about or else you wouldn't argue this point. You also don't know that the British part of Somalia is now de facto independent as the country of Somaliland (the British colony was called British Somaliland) in all the chaos and searching for international recognition to that independence (based on a few days of independence before joining Somalia under British borders). Walvis Bay isn't a significant change. It's a small hunk of land that was joined to Namibia after Germany's loss in WW1 as part of the new South African held colony called South West Africa. Keep in mind South Africa was controlled by white colonists and what is now called Namibia was seen as a colony to the government in South Africa so this is once again a colonial move. Sudan actually didn't gain from French colonies. The borders essentially remained the same. Therefore, there actually have been no significant border adjustments if Africa that weren't made before independence or aren't based on other colonial borders such as with the borders of Eritrea, Western Sahara, and Somaliland. The reason for this is that even today in the international system, dominated by the West with regards to Africa, will not allow any wrongs to correct themselves in Africa. The result is extremely bloody wars that don't even accomplish independence such as with Biafra or Southern Sudan. Even in Southern Sudan, the only case that has a chance of changing in the bloody cycle of Africa since it has a choice in 2011 to vote on independence or staying with Sudan would only be changing the borders within Sudan, without touching the arbitrary borders between Southern Sudan and surrounding countries and with the groups in Southern Sudan being arbitrarily put together, with the only difference between them and the government in Khartoum is they're non Muslim and non Arab. Even with that this !@#$%^&*umes the referendum will go as planned and the results will be respected, which I find hard to believe with the government in Khartoum. Sorry to be a jerk, but I actually baited you on purpose by putting a map of Africa that was pre WW1 to prove that you actually have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Africa. All you've done is pick at the map without knowing the history or why changes took place from the pre WW1 map to now. I frankly was not interested in debating you on this since you were clearly wrong, had no idea what you were talking about, and would simply drag on the debate forever and refuse to admit you're wrong. I suggest to you 2 options. Your first option is to take an African history class or learn African history and geography in some other way. Your second option is to not post on this thread with your claim that Africa's borders were not set up by the west because I'm only going to keep making you look foolish, which you already do. Also, don't ask me for proof or sources of the things I said in this post as it's all facts and if you're too lazy to look it up yourself I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you. You can try to challenge any of the points I've made, but only if it involves you going and doing the research on it first so you aren't just wasting my time. This post alone took me almost an hour and a half in reading the other posts made and looking up everything to make sure I'm not wrong. I really don't feel like doing this over and over if you have nothing well thought out to bring to the table. In fact I'll give you a clue. There is one whole in my argument that although I can argue is inconsequential to the argument as only one example you can still bring it up. If you put in some research into Africa you may just find it. <_<

I'm not !@#$%^&*uming Petraeus is lying. I'm saying it's a legitimate theory with just as much backing as the statement that Bush supports Petraeus' stance. All evidence shows that Bush does not want to cooperate with Sadr such as the praising of attacks on Sadr as well as the moves to cut up Sadr's stronghold to make it easier to control.

NBVegita you're really picking at hairs here. Fine I'll change the analogy to you telling me to play with a poisonous snake. I wouldn't do it because I would almost surely die, but you can claim that I gained an immunity and thus would not and as long as I don't get bitten by the snake your claim is therefore true. I actually was referring to the New York Times trying to make the walling off of Sadr City look like it's not what it is; a way to try to get around winning the hearts and minds of Shiites by playing divide and conquer. Do you really think the New York Times is biased against Bush? Hardly; they're too easy on him most of the time. Man I think you should just come out of the Elephant Closet and admit you're a Republican. It's pretty sad that you taught a course on logic considering you can't even manage the basics. You can use the right words, but when it comes to applying a very simple example of critical reasoning you let your own opinions cloud your judgment. Your argument about not knowing what is propaganda is irrelevant since I only said propaganda is important and didn't put a definitive label on any statement saying it's propaganda. You are !@#$%^&*uming at least 50% of military statements are non propaganda, but you forget the nature of public statements is, for the most part, propaganda in itself. Military statements aren't made to the public for the sake of getting the public's input on whether a course of action is going to work, but instead to inform them, either honestly or dishonestly, what you have chosen for them to hear. Unfortunately Ace's argument rests on two !@#$%^&*umed premises that are completely unproven. One is that Petraeus and Bush agree on this issue, which would mean Bush's policy decisions have to promote the notion that the US wants to negotiate with Sadr. The other is that Petraeus was being honest, which is not proven and has never been proven by policy decisions. Playing up the attack on Sadr's forces as a positive step and a turning point in Iraq (at least until the administration realized it was doomed to failure) as well as trying to divide up Sadr's stronghold for the sake at chipping away at his influence are acts of war, not acts of negotiation. If we praised a South Korean attack on North Korea and then tried to wall off chunks of North Korea to make it easier to manage the country then no one would doubt that this was an act of war and we in no way wanted to negotiate.

By the West I mean Western Europe. The United States only started playing a major role in more recent times.

I meant before Iowa. Of course after Super Tuesday he emerged as a serious threat. The point I was making was that everyone was actually expecting Hillary to take the nomination from years ago, but they wouldn't rig the election for Hillary if Obama has such a big lead.

The borders were set up by the west and when African countries gained independence, they did so with those exact borders. Many borders have changed, some quite drastically? I can only think of a few non colonially based border changes. Morocco comes to mind and possibly borders between former French colonies where the borders were never drawn. Otherwise it's almost exactly the same. Even when Eritrea achieved independence it was with the borders set by Italy that was justified with a small period of independence from Italy with those borders. There have been numerous ethnic and religious independence movements after colonialism and none have succeeded because that would create nation states that are much harder to take advantage of and exploit by the west. Africa under colonialism Africa today You seem to not be in your element with this subject since you have no idea about the borders of African countries so may I suggest some research before you come here to debate commonly known problems just because you don't like me because I keep bashing Hillary in another thread.

Well we all know that military never lies about anything and military generals never disagree with the president that's for sure! It's not impossible, per se, for Bush to say it just like it's not impossible for me to jump off a building. It's just highly unlikely since it's political suicide for the former and literal suicide for the latter.

Well part of the solution should be to temporarily keep and expand on nuclear energy, but in the long term we need to develop solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable power research and development so we can slowly phase out even nuclear energy (except for fusion which we should continue developing also).

I do admit that the west would probably only mess it all up, but a country like Sudan really should disappear. If you think Saddam's g!@#$%^&*ing of the Kurds was bad millions of people in Sudan have been killed. The reason Africa is different from the Middle East is there are many states in the Middle East that weren't set up by the west. When we talk about attacking Iran it's because of our own selfish interests. When people talk about attacking Sudan it's because millions have been killed and millions more will probably be killed in the future at this rate. I guess this only refers to Sudan. Also when I said I'd like those ethnic groups who were divided between countries to be joined back together I never said the west should do it. I also only said "I'd like to see" it. I know you want to attack my positions here because you're mad about what I'm saying on the other thread, but leave it there unless you can separate the two.

Aileron there is also something to be said about all the racist whites who will never vote for Obama. I agree people never expected Obama to actually win and were trying to make it easy for Hillary, but now that Obama is already way too far ahead of her with too little time to make up the votes there's nothing the Democratic Party leadership can do, but nominate Obama.

Yet Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama come from completely different backgrounds and whereas Jesse Jackson couldn't get the nomination because he generally only supported the interests of African Americans despite there being a lot of turmoil and no front runner in his primary, Barack Obama has tried, quite successfully, throughout his candidacy to represent all Americans and defeat the heavily favored front runner to become the nominee (I'm forecasting that has 99% of occuring).

NBVegita: Please go have a discussion with a professor of logical and critical reasoning before you post again, because until then you're wasting my time. Aceflyer is the one making the claim that Bush is willing to negotiate with Sadr, therefore, he needs to prove it without a doubt and not me. I don't need to prove Bush isn't willing to negotiate with Sadr, simply that the claim that he is willing to negotiate with Sadr is false. Here you go. Bush refers to Sadr's forces as criminals 3 times when asked about Maliki's assault on Basra. Listen NBVegita I'm not going to repeat my argument just because you're too lazy to read through the thread. If you want to debate on the thread then take the time to read what's been said on it.

You mean carbon sequestration that I've already said was unproven and only delays research of other solutions that are better? The problem is there is no logical transition that comes "from gas from the ground' date=' to gas from liquefied coal, then eventually to hydrogen fuel cells". The middle step makes the last step take much longer because people would no longer feel they needed the last step while the middle step was easily around. An interim step would be a hybrid of the first and last step. The middle step you tried to insert in there is actually a distraction from the last step. The economy won't tank because fossil fuels won't all of a sudden disappear in the next decade. Europe got better fuel efficiency by making gas very expensive, forcing companies to be more fuel efficient, and creating an impressive m!@#$%^&* transit system. If they had simply created an easier way to get fuel from domestic sources that were even more polluting than the last then they would have never gotten the improved fuel efficiency. Aileron: Demand for oil is up because countries like China and India are rapidly industrializing. US demand for oil is actually falling.

I say the order in Africa has been set up by the West. We set up the borders to promote merging groups that shouldn't be together while cutting through plenty of ethnic groups. This can only promote endless ethnic conflict. Until we at least adjust the borders to a more logical level (not giving each ethnic group a state because that would create an impossibly large number of African, landlocked states). We do need to get smart with aid, but in a different way than Aileron suggests first and foremost. Instead of delivering western made food that their markets can't compete with and thus making their most important industry obsolete and putting their farmers out of business and into starvation like we are doing and we already did to the Caribbean we should buy food from African nations to feed other African nations thus helping the countries in crisis and aiding the development of the countries that are managing better in the process. The way we give aid now only promotes the problem and until we figure that out and change out policies accordingly we will only do more harm than good in the long term. Also, in a stroke of dramatic irony that gets me to agree with Aileron at least in part, a few states in Africa just shouldn't exist and there's no reason to keep them the way they are. Also, I'd like to see those ethnic groups that are divided between 2 or 3 states to be joined together to at least join with one of those states.

Leave it to NBVegita to be wrong, completely and utterly wrong, and yet still come here just to contradict me. Logic doesn't mean following what just seems to make sense and putting words in my mouth by oversimplifying my argument in a way that suits you to the point of utterly lying about it. You will never get Bush publicly saying Petraeus was wrong in his statement because that would be a media nightmare. The man who built up Petraeus as the commander in Iraq who must not be questioned because we have to support our troops is also the man who will not publicly question him. The real proof is in the actions Bush directs after the statement. Again, just because Petraeus is the commander in Iraq doesn't mean his policies are US policy. Bush has replaced plenty of generals who disagreed with him and what you seem to fail to be able to get your mind around is that a general and a president can disagree and do disagree many times. Petraeus saying something about Sadr that Bush disagrees which could easily be Petraeus subtly trying to put his own opinion out there because he can't change the actual policy in Iraq without Bush's permission or could just be a slip from Petraeus that he thought wouldn't have been such a big deal. The point is you have no proof of the actual commander in chief wanting to cooperate with Sadr so you need to put forth words that people around him have said as evidence. This is clearly the sign of a weak argument since the evidence coming from the actual commander in chief is that of trying to reduce Sadr's role in the public eye to that of a criminal thug. NBVegita, I know your favorite thing to do on this forum is to contradict me, but if you don't want to come here with real arguments then you're just wasting my time. Sure if YOU decide what my argument is based on what you decide would be the weakest argument then you can convince yourself that I'm wrong, but please try to open your mind up a little.

What I have been saying is a lack of other sources in no way proves the one source you have. Please take a logic class so you can bring some to the discussion. That !@#$%^&*umes that Petraeus is the only source as well. You want statements from the administration before you can believe anything? Do you have a mind of your own? An absence of proof is not a proof of absence! Come on this is a standard logical fallacy. I'm sure you've heard of it somewhere. Having strategic genius in one area makes it highly doubtful that in another you'll have utter incompetence. It's naive to assume there's utter incompetence there just because that's what you are told.

That extra pollution will be all over the country and since the US is a world leader all over the world. Control it? With what regulation? You're deathly opposed to government regulation yet now you advocate for it? You have no idea whether there will be a comprehensive gas tax plan in place for it. We can't even get that today with all the problems oil causes. If you introduce something easier and cheaper then forget about ever getting a system to promote fuel efficiency or alternative energy until that becomes expensive too. Our policies in the Middle East aren't just for our own sake. It's a way of putting a lid on China's international prospects because if we control the energy supply we control growth in China. The price vs. demand curve is nearly flat? Who's !@#$%^&* did you pull that out of? The demand for oil goes down with increased fuel efficiency and with alternative energy becoming more compe!@#$%^&*ive. Increasing supply has always only been a temporary solution to the bigger problem of our lack of alternatives. Simply increasing supply again will only delay the inevitable, all the while accelerating global warming. It is sacrilege because we are pushing an environmental catastrophe that will make life much harder for our grandchildren simply because we are too cowardly and greedy to deal with the problem today. Enough with the nuclear power plants that is completely unrelated to what your proposing with coal liquefaction. Necessity is what accelerates invention. Simply hoping invention will happen on its own is irresponsible. When you do that you lose control of the pace of development and it slows down dramatically. I don't need to remind you all the innovations that have come directly out of military projects during World War 2 and the Cold War. That type of innovation would have taken much longer in peacetime. Innovation in space has practically come to a halt because of the lack of necessity felt due to the end of the space race.

Well considering you don't have to actually live through it in a never ending cycle I'm sure it's easy for you to get bored with it from the comfort of your lazy boy recliner.

Southern Sudan is looking for independence in a referendum in 2011 that will surely pass I think if this whole thing blows up to several countries at once, especially with Egypt, a strategically important country involved there will be a response. Eritrea could ally with Arab states out of convenience. I'd like to see the battle just because it might start resolving all the random borders in Africa.

Well I was actually referring to carbon sequestering as unproven. Coal liquefaction is proven, but there are lots of other concerns to something other than "does it work". Does a nuclear bomb stop an enemy country? Ok well since it does let's go on a nuking spree! This is all faulty logic. When times are tough, the thing that is causing times to be tough is the first thing companies try to get around, at least rational ones. It takes hardship to promote the best innovation. If fossil fuels are depleted you think THAT'S when people won't try to figure out other sources of energy? I seriously can't understand how you can warp your thinking to justify your predispositions, but if it helps you sleep at night good luck to you. It wasn't so much as invading Iraq that did it. It was the devaluation of the dollar caused by massive debt, allowing the oil companies to spike up prices in the name of "uncertainty" due to the conflict in Iraq and letting Saudi Arabia push us around even though we can easily influence them; we support their oppressive regime. I agree we should look into limited expansion of nuclear energy, but destroying the forests that are the only thing slowing down global warming and going to even dirtier fuels to avoid a dirty fuel to reduce the effects of global warming counter any type of intelligent logic that I could think of. It takes some serious denial of the facts to believe what you do.

The war between Ethiopia and Eritrea show that old World War 1 style warfare isn't dead yet. Also, the birth rates are high, the weapons aren't too powerful to deter a conflict, and the conflict between Arab and African cultures has only grown stronger and more ingrained. I don't think it can happen, though, with all the foreign intervention that would occur.

But has President Bush ever overruled Petraeus' statements (that we know of)? If not, we have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate. To draw an analogy with a generic Continuum zone: the zone owner(s) ultimately decide(s) zone policy, but we generally assume statements made by the system operator(s) of that zone concerning zone policy are accurate unless overruled by the zone owner(s). Just because Lieberman's opinions are often closer to the Administration's than Petraeus' are does not mean anything. We still have to assume Petraeus' statements are accurate unless we have convincing evidence to the contrary. You still haven't presented this evidence, by the way. On the contrary, I do not need to provide you with any alternative explanation. You were the one who is claiming that Petraeus' statements were false; you need to provide proof for your claims - note, solid proof, not speculation or reasoning. As far as the way Iraq was fought: yes, there was incompetence. Just because President Bush was able to get reelected handily doesn't necessarily mean he knows how to best handle something like the war in Iraq. His reelection had more to do with Karl Rove's strategic genius, conservative voters who were chiefly concerned about domestic conservative issues (such as abortion and the other old hat stuff), and John Kerry's strategic incompetence than anything. In any case, this is irrelevant. You assume that when they disagree people find out about it. Petraeus is a military man when he's told to do something by the commander in chief he tends to do it and not make a scene about it. Bush doesn't have to disagree with this statement in his words because that would make him look like he's ignoring the man he's had glorified. Instead he can just ignore his words by making him act towards Sadr in a way that make negotiation impossible. Americans can then never figure it out because the vast majority of them don't think past the front page news. A zone on the other hand is filled with attention ASSS who make a fuss over nothing. Sorry, but that was a failed analogy unless zone staff are trained like the military. Convincing evidence to the contrary is simply the way we supported Maliki's unprovoked attack on Sadr's forces in Basra and then our battering and walling off of Sadr city. I made claims that Petraeus' claims can easily be overruled by Bush and that Petraeus does not make the policy. You asked me to prove it based on pure speculation that Petraeus and Bush have the same opinion about Sadr or that if Petraeus has an opinion that it therefore must be US policy. Your speculation is just as much speculation as mine is. Bush has brilliant people working for him. Bush won for more than just abortion and gay marriage. His administration even neutralized Kerry's war record and turned it into a negative while keeping Bush from being blamed for doing so. That takes pure genius. The only thing that really marked a turning point in his administration after reelection was Katrina and that was something they couldn't really plan for.