Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Ticomaya wrote:The insurgents/terrorists in Iraq are determined and motivated, and IMO encouraged by the negative nattering nabobs around the world.
Of course they are. How could they not be?
They cannot possibly defeat us militarily anymore than the North Vietnamese could have. They have but one strategy for victory: Hang on long enough for the will of the American people to crumble.
Only the self-deluded or idiotic believe that the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are not emboldened by signs of our weakening will.
Pulling our troops out now only makes sense if one believes that no matter what we do, the worst is inevitable for Iraq. If this is the case, then the death of even one more American soldier is a waste.
Any attempt to argue that pulling out now (or within 6 months) will somehow benefit Iraq is at best ignorant and at worst terribly cynical.
Blatham, whether you and your fellow peaceniks like it or not, the louder your cries for withdrawal, the more hope the insurgents will have. You may not care, or you may accept it as an unfortunate necessity, but to deny it is incredibly dishonest.
It is also a grim reality that if we pull out now, the 2000 or more American lives that have been lost will have been wasted.
I just love the "peacenik" touch. It adds that wonderful fifties "commies-lurk'n'plot-everywhere" flavor. But I am firm in my resolve as peacenik, it is true. You correctly perceive I am opposed to killniks.
It's no small problem choosing which of your/tico's assumptions ought to be chosen to address first. Time, like Lola, is very short and there's suprisingly much to be addressed even within the few stilted sentences the two of you managed to compose.
Quote:"dishonest denial".
Did I deny something? I deny denying. I accept that folks who wish America out of Iraq will be encouraged by an anti-war movement here. Further, I like your idea of "honesty" as a valuable element in this conversation. Such honesty will turn our attention to the facts and consequences related to certain inevitable dilemmas associated with 'free speech'. Your founders tossed that bit about guaranteeding it into the constitution not because societies just naturally fall with ease to allowing free speech, but because societies naturally fall to suppressing it. If we are going to be honest and all, which I agree we should be. Dilemmas like this one mean - as you said to someone else here - one doesn't get the cake and the eating both. It's tough nookies compromising for everybody.
Quote:"They have but one strategy for victory".
Do they? Well, first, who is the "they" in your sentence? Would this be al qaeda or al-qaeda clones (acknowledged as a tiny minority by even the US military when they are being forthright) or non-Iraqi Muslims not associated with al qaeda who don't like the US occupation there, or local Iraqis who don't like the US occupation (apparently the majority of 'trouble-makers')? There are different 'theys' and their particular definitions of 'victory' are very different. Iraqis who don't want the US continuing an occupation for reasons of dignity and sovereignty (and because of reasonable doubts about US intentions) have my full support in their quest for ending the occupation, at least in principle.
Quote:"our weakening will"
Uncareful war-monger phrasing. Whose "will" was it that drove the US army into Iraq, for fukk sakes? It wasn't the barber up on 49th street or the guy delivering your pizza. It was exactly and precisely that group of war-mongering elitists recently described by Powell's aide Wilkerson who had personally nothing to risk in their callous theories of international strategy. They "willed" the war. They then "sold" the war, and did so with further callous and possibly criminal deceits, in order to manufacture consent for the project. What is "weakening" is not the American citizens' will, it is their agreement and consent. And it has weakened because American citizens have increasingly perceived all the above. So the war-mongers don't get their way and, as ever for that breed of psychotic, they misrepresent, through tricks of language which guys like you do not attend to, the nature of this change in consent.
Quote:
It is also a grim reality that if we pull out now, the 2000 or more American lives that have been lost will have been wasted
This idea, though convenient in war-mongering, is merely stupid. I mean really shallow of thought and uncareful in logic stoopid. Rather obviously, al qaeda can make the same claim. Or a team of mountain-climbers who lost someone at base camp. The argument is: once lives have been lost in any endeavor whatsoever then that endeavor must be continued regardless of all else. Boy, that's about as stoopid as stoopid can get.
Quote: Pulling our troops out now only makes sense if one believes that no matter what we do, the worst is inevitable for Iraq. If this is the case, then the death of even one more American soldier is a waste.
Any attempt to argue that pulling out now (or within 6 months) will somehow benefit Iraq is at best ignorant and at worst terribly cynical.
What might be the future for and in Iraq over the next 6 months or five years is not evident to anyone. Not me, not you. Guesses and really in-the-know analyses, even in the Pentagon, range broadly. The only people who seem to believe they know the consequences of withdrawl are the very same turkeys who willed your war in the first place. Bill Kristol and Chuck Krauthammer and Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld KNOW what will happen, in precisely the same manner as they KNEW how happy Iraqis would be to have the US there and how swimmingly this project would go and how many soldiers would be needed, etc etc.
Other than all that, have a lovely day.
