Dixie Prediction Update

maineman said:
August was a bloody month for Americans and Iraqis alike.... 552 Americans have now died since Dixie made his confident prediction that we would not lose 500 more troops. Iraqis are killing Iraqis at a rapidly increasing rate...

one would think that at some point in time, rational people would admit that they fucked up and that this war in Iraq was not the great idea that they thought it would be.

one would think that the rise of Hezbollah, the increasing power of Iran in the region, the diminished stature of America around the world, the ability of north korea to slap us across the face with impunity on our national birthday, the resurgence of the taliban in afghanistan, and Osama's undisturbed presence in the hills of pakistan would all serve to give us reason to rethink this whole iraq adventure and perhaps come to the conclusion that we had made a big mess.
Click to expand...

Dixie will go to his grave thinking his iraq war was a brilliant move, by a brilliant president.
 
maineman said:
August was a bloody month for Americans and Iraqis alike.... 552 Americans have now died since Dixie made his confident prediction that we would not lose 500 more troops.
Click to expand...
I am going to start calling you "George" now, as in George Orwell. Doubt = confidence only in MaineSpeak.
 
are you suggesting that Dixie has expressed DOUBT as to the nature of our endeavor in Iraq? He has done nothing BUT give one overly optimistic and confident prediction after another since day one. And he has called me - and those that think similarly to me - traitors and cowards for even suggesting that 1.)iraqis wouldn't welcome us as liberators 2)iraqis DIDN'T welcome us as liberators 3.)WMD's might not be found 4.)there were no WMD's 5.) the insugency was NOT in its final throes 6.)the shiite clerics who wrote the constitution would make it the foundation of a theocracy 7.) that american soldiers who broke into Iraqi homes in the dead of night might frighten women and children awakened in such a manner 8.)that this experiment in cramming supposedly western style democracy down the throats of Iraqis at the point of a gun was doing anything other that going exactly as we had hoped it would....and on and on and on.... he has been the paragon of confidence in the virtuous nature of the Iraq war since before we invaded.
 
maineman said:
are you suggesting that Dixie has expressed DOUBT as to the nature of our endeavor in Iraq? He has done nothing BUT give one overly optimistic and confident prediction after another since day one. And he has called me - and those that think similarly to me - traitors and cowards for even suggesting that 1.)iraqis wouldn't welcome us as liberators 2)iraqis DIDN'T welcome us as liberators 3.)WMD's might not be found 4.)there were no WMD's 5.) the insugency was NOT in its final throes 6.)the shiite clerics who wrote the constitution would make it the foundation of a theocracy 7.) that american soldiers who broke into Iraqi homes in the dead of night might frighten women and children awakened in such a manner 8.)that this experiment in cramming supposedly western style democracy down the throats of Iraqis at the point of a gun was doing anything other that going exactly as we had hoped it would....and on and on and on.... he has been the paragon of confidence in the virtuous nature of the Iraq war since before we invaded.
Click to expand...

Not at all, you misread. I am limiting this to the specific fabrication that you have made regarding Dixie's (so called) prediction.

Dixie: "I doubt we will see significantly more than 2500 caualties."
You: "Dixie confidently predicts that we won't have more that 500 more casualties."

"Doubting result A" does not equal "a confident prediction of anti-A."
 
and I certainly used more than that one quote in formulating my characterization of his level of "confidence"
 
As have I. I've never seen him say what you claim (with regard to a confident prediction).
 
Last edited:
As I recall , and it was on my footer for a while on the other board. it was.
I doubt if we will have another 500 deaths in Iraq. It was about 2000 at that time.
 
I'm wondering if Dixie will ever address this prediction he made:

1) DIXIE, June 16, 2006: "dayum... this news hit pinheads so hard, even the fringe moderate pinheads were devistated! (Zarqawi’s death) spells the end for al Qaeda in Iraq! There have been dozens of captures and arrests made since the discovery of the documents, we frikin hit the mother-load on information, and the "insurgency" is about to meet its demise! Another bad day for Pinheads!" ---- fullpolitics.com


2) Pentagon report, August 17, 2006 -- Iraq Insurgency Growing...1,666, roadside bombs went off in Iraq in July, the highest monthly total of the war. Seventy percent of those bombs were directed at U.S. troops. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time,” said a senior Pentagon official.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/w...12bd7a2ce6c19e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Again, doubting a particular result is not a confident prediction of the opposite.
Click to expand...

"I doubt we'll lose 500 more men" is a prediction. The confidence level can be debated.

But, the prediction, at a minimum, indicates its more likely than not, that the US will have less than 500 more casualites in Dixie's War.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Again, doubting a particular result is not a confident prediction of the opposite.
Click to expand...


There is also a subtle difference between an "opinion" and a "prediction" which is being completely glossed over. I never made any predictions, I merely expressed my opinion on the matter. I still don't believe we will see significantly more US fatalities in Iraq, simply because the impetus of protecting the country is shifting largely to the Iraqi security forces and away from US troops.

This whole frenzy started with a simple point I made about the Iraq war, in comparison to major US military battles. I originally stated in my commentary, that we have lost more soldiers in some BATTLES than we would lose in this entire WAR. That original point still stands poignantly, and has never been refuted or addressed. Instead, the liberal distillation process began to parse my words into a liberally defined "prediction" that was never made. It's par for the course for liberals who can't intelligently discuss the issues or points, and have to resort to twisting words and making shit up.

I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread, because I have already addressed this, and have no need to further communicate with the author about this, or anything else. However, I felt I needed to interject some clarification on what I actually said, and the context of this matter with regard to the original point made, which was never addressed. With that said, I respectfully decline to comment further on this. Thank You.
 
Dixie said:
There is also a subtle difference between an "opinion" and a "prediction" which is being completely glossed over. I never made any predictions, I merely expressed my opinion on the matter. I still don't believe we will see significantly more US fatalities in Iraq, simply because the impetus of protecting the country is shifting largely to the Iraqi security forces and away from US troops.

This whole frenzy started with a simple point I made about the Iraq war, in comparison to major US military battles. I originally stated in my commentary, that we have lost more soldiers in some BATTLES than we would lose in this entire WAR. That original point still stands poignantly, and has never been refuted or addressed. Instead, the liberal distillation process began to parse my words into a liberally defined "prediction" that was never made. It's par for the course for liberals who can't intelligently discuss the issues or points, and have to resort to twisting words and making shit up.

I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread, because I have already addressed this, and have no need to further communicate with the author about this, or anything else. However, I felt I needed to interject some clarification on what I actually said, and the context of this matter with regard to the original point made, which was never addressed. With that said, I respectfully decline to comment further on this. Thank You.
Click to expand...

"[T]he insurgency is about to meet its demise" is a prediction, Dix. There's no way around that one. :D
 
And Dixie, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you address your previous predictions and/or assertions about the alleged Zaraqawi-Saddam link? Thanks.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/08/D8K0PE980.html

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top