Michael Anthony Peroutka Endorses Ron Paul

I read your question the first time. So my question to you is "signs of what"? What kind of signs are you talking about?

I can't answer a question that is unintelligible to me.

 

Pastor Larry, if we were to find ourselves incapable of building a democracy in Iraq, what signs would draw attention to this sad realization? Or would complete, utter failure be a TOTAL shock without any clues along the way?

 

The lack of a response should be deafening, not a clue. Maybe he thought you meant a stop or yield sign. Sign of the times? Sign, sign, everywhere a sign?

 

I think the signs would be along the lines of people refusing to vote, and there being no vote to vote in. I think it would be the leaders walking away from the table in complete refusal to talk about how to work together. I think refusal to compromise on some governing issues would be a starting clue, but not a reason to abandon the issue. So yes, there would be some signs. Have we seen those signs yet? I don't know enough to say, and the truth is that you don't either. It is hard to know exactly what is going on given the demagoging of politicians on both sides and the inaccuracy of the news media with all its biases. The people who are involved in it day to day seem to think there is hope. On what legitimate basis would any of us be able to do differ?

Again, I think we simply have to say, I don't know.

The lack of response should have been a sign that I actually have a life that doens't involve sitting around and waiting for someone on the BB to clarify what they meant in a question they asked.

 

There are way to many people who have emotionally invested in seeing the situation in Iraq fail. The current standards that are placed on this war by these failurites are unrealistic and would have had us with drawl from WWII long before it was over. Things not going as planned in war is not failure of the war and is an incompetent standard. the leadership in this war was no different than many battles in WWII.

 

Yeah, you really got a life outside BB. That is why you have 17000+ posts, mostly gibberish.

 

There is no difference. the same unrealistic arguments and demonization (like you partake in) happened even in WWII and in every war America participated in. The same conspriatorial nonsense that the President is being accused of was espoused after pearl Harbor. None of these demonizations are original and always based on presuppositions rather than facts.

 

Only you could believe that George Bush is a conservative and has leadership ability.

 

yea. I never said you did.

 

First, those 17000 posts have come over more than six years, and they were predominantly in the early years. Second, most of the posts I write here are written very quickly so they don't take much time. They also involve moderating posts. I could tell you what life is, but I doubt it is that interesting to you. I left yesterday after I wrote that post and did not return to the BB until this morning due to my occupation, my volunteer work, my family, and other interests.

Third, how in the world would you know if they are gibberish? Have you read a substantial portion of those 17000? Are you qualified to pass judgment on them as gibberish? What is the standard you are using to declare them gibberish? It seems to me that you offer very little argumentation and your definition of "gibberish" is "disagrees with me."

I am still not sure as to why you would make a post solely about me as if I were the issue. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

The only way you can not see the signs of failure in Iraq is to flagrantly ignore that the govt. cannot agree on how to perform the most simplest of tasks thus bringing us an outstanding 11 out of 18 goals still unmet after the deadline has been moved twice in counting! (Some estimates, cite an even more incredible 14 of 18 goals unmet.)

Maybe numerical absolutes don't register as sign-worthy to you. Once again, we disagree. STRONGLY.

 

These are benchmarks which are not binary but progressive, as I understand them. In other words, they are a series of steps in each benchmark. I think it is absolutely unacceptable that the Iraqis don't have the government working right yet. So we agree on that. The fact that 11 out of 18 have not been met means that 7 out of 18 have to at least some degree ... which is progress compared to a year ago or two years ago. So " Maybe numerical absolutes don't register as sign-worthy to you. Once again, we disagree. STRONGLY."

And what exactly do we disagree on? What we disagree on is whether or not we know enough about the possibilities of the future to say dogmatically whether or not we should quit. I maintain that we, here on the BB, do not and cannot know enough to make that call. I maintain that because I don't trust the news media. You seem to have more trust in them than I do.

I simply don't know and therefore refuse to act as if I do.

So let's be clear on what we disagree on:
We do not disagree on the acceptibility of the failure of the Iraqi government to get its house in order.
We do not disagree on whether or not the troops should come home if there is no chance of success.
We disagree on whether or not we know enough to say dogmatically one way or the other.

 

We also disagree about whether or not benchmarks should be binding. Or in other words, should there be a point to benchmarks; or should they be semantical, optional suggestions? My vote is for the former, yours for the latter. Just curious, if a welfare recipient in the US where to refuse to comply with benchmarks mandating he apply for jobs within a designated period would your broad interpretation of benchmarks pardon his indiscretion?

 

Thanks for telling me. I didn't know that. I have always thought that the benchmarks were binding and that if progress was not being made, the withdrawal should be hastened. I assumed you agreed on that. IMO, if significant progress is being made on the benchmarks, then we should continue to help out.

 

A benchmark divorced from a finite increment of time is a goal divorced from a finite perspective. If "progress" cannot be meaured by a dated benchmark then how would you propose it be measured... hypothetically in the imminent future? A benchmark without a deadline is no benchmark.

 

Looks like we also disagree on what a benchmark is. STRONGLY.

 

Again, as has been said before, sign on the dotted line for Uncle Sam, go to Iraq, and give aid to the poor helpless government over there while they finish the 11 of 18 benchmarks.