Spartacvs,

As a side note on debate here at the forvm. You would do better to make your arguments and allow them to stand or fall on the merits rather than maintain the annoying habit of asking questions narrowed to elicit the only answers you want to hear.

If you (and some others here) cannot appreciate the relevance, appropriateness and usefulness of legitimate questions from me seeking clarification of your views or challenging the premises or logic of your arguments, then you can refuse to engage substantively with me. Not my problem. I'm seeking intelligent, rational, substantive, interesting discussion/debate. If you don't recognize approaches to such dialogue when you see them, or are reluctant to engage in such a manner because you are uncomfortable with an approach that may reveal weaknesses in your arguments, I suppose you'll insist on keeping a safe distance from such questions, although THAT is what is "annoying", not the questions I ask.

I state my positions and arguments plenty, and I've done so here on Forvm. Sometimes, though, I ask questions either (1) to better understand someone else's argument or confirm that my understanding of it is correct, or (2) to challenge that argument by testing if the premises are valid and the logic is correct. It's hardly an approach I invented. Been around for literally thousands of years. Check out "Socratic method". And you should note that such a method is very often superior to two people simply stating their respective positions and arguments, because the latter often never gets around to a proper exploration and evaluation of the merits and validity of either position and related arguments (rather, people just talk past each other). Additionally, sometimes the person asking the questions doesn't even have a firm position, and is trying to elicit the best arguments on one side or both to consider in forming his own opinion.

I don't always use the Socratic method, but sometimes I consider it the most useful, and I'm more than willing to be on the other side of the questions when I've made an argument or stated a position and someone wants to take that approach with me.

I think most people who are resistant to answering such questions -- and who are "annoyed" by it -- are really just fearful that if they engage via such an approach some weakness in their argument (particularly some self-contradiction) will be revealed, and they'll be faced with the choice of either conceding some point (or perhaps even much of or the whole position), which they really, really don't want to do, or finding some way to be evasive to avoid such a concession/admission even though they have found that they cannot defend their argument/position.

And as for my questions being "narrowed to elicit the only answers you want to hear", I don't narrow questions inappropriately. Sometimes matters of principle (not the case in my questions to you re: Obama on this thread, but was the case in the "torture" discussion) can and should be looked at in isolation rather than mixing in extraneous variables. That may be something that one either gets or doesn't get, or perhaps I just lack the patience or ability to effectively explain it to someone who doesn't get it. As for my questions above re: Obama, I thought about adding a third option of "Something else", but given how hard it is to get a direct answer out of some people (including you, apparently), I chose to limit it to the two most likely arguments, and I assumed that if it were "something else", you would explain that to me.

As a note, my questions to you above were not an application of the Socratic method, but merely an effort to determine which of those two (or something else) is your argument. But if you are uncomfortable or afraid to answer a simple, straight-forward question seeking clarification of your argument, obviously I can't force you to do so. I see absolutely no legitimate reason, though, why you would refuse to answer my question.

Having said Allllll that, I realize that it's possible that I'm right re: all of the above, but that taking such an approach on some occasions may be annoying to some, most, or maybe even all folks here (although I know at least a couple of commenters here who have an appreciation for the Socratic method and of my use of it). And I say, ok, if some folks are "annoyed" by my efforts to engage them in a sophisticated form of discussion/debate, and even some (even most, if that's the case) find me "annoying" as a result, I can live with that. What I won't do is dumb down my comments to the least common denominator just to avoid "annoying" people with such an approach. I realize that may come across as arrogant, but you suggested I cease an "annoying" practice, and I'm responding frankly, not with the intent of being insulting, but just to respond clearly.

If he were to continue doing that--say, by saying things like "don't bring up the Butler Report"--that might annoy people. We can't have *that*.

We need I MEF in Helmand, and we need it there yesterday. I just think that "We're gone no matter what" is a less effective way of getting extricated than withdrawal that still offers air and logistical (and some artillery) support provided that the government doesn't do anything grotesquely horrible or stupid.

Hell, if Obama were to promise, say, 20 to 30k support troops in Iraq to keep it from going all to #@$% plus a massive redeployment of assets to Afghanistan, I'd more than happily vote for him. Hell, I'm close to holding my nose and voting for him in spite of my misgivings about too quick an Iraq withdrawal.

And I'm still bothered by the fact that Obama's withdrawal was formed as part of a "declare defeat and get out" plan. I wish that he would at least acknowledge that things have changed somewhat since 2006 when they were finding 30 to 40 bodies a day throughout Baghdad and the western half of the city was a collection of mini-Ba'ath republics and Al Qaeda emirates. I don't like that his policy is a mirror of McCain's, i.e., that the plans don't change regardless of what's going on in Iraq.