Bush supporters' aftermath thread

kelticwizard wrote:

The "logic" of the supporters of this war gets more strained every day. They know that Bush sold the country a bill of goods from the start in Iraq, and now that the country is waking up they are willing to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, in an attempt to prop this war up.

My own favorite test for the logic of someone's argument is to go back a few years and see which side had to change its story to continue supporting its policy conclusion. Remember the time when Howard Dean was the one commonly portrayed as a raving, extremist ideologue, and Cheney and Powell were portrayed as the forward-looking tough-minded strategists who looked the enemy straight in the eye? Today Dean's story continues to sound pretty realistic, and Powell had to admit that his UN speech was the low point of his carreer. (Kudos to Powell for being enough of a mensch to admit it by the way. His companions preferred to repeatedly change their story so they could continue justifying the invasion.)

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.

I'm glad you liked it and perceived the not so hidden derision.

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.

More of blatham's blithering condescension. Do you ever read what you write and wince? For you sake, I hope so.

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.

I'm glad you do now but that was hardly evident in your reply to Tico.

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.

Not sure what the substance in this word cloud might be. I, for one, have been very clear that I would not endorse the stifling of anti-war rhetoric in America. All that I ask is that those of you who would spew the stuff, acknowledge that there are consequences to the course of action you advocate.

Here is your dilemma and the dilemma of likeminded peaceniks: Your clamoring for immediate withdrawal is based less on policy or strategic issues than raw moral ones - war is bad, Americans should not kill wogs around the world! And yet there is the very real possibility that by clamoring so, you encourage insurgents who may have been ready to lay down their IEDs to hang in their and, ultimately, kill more people. What's a peacenik to do? Deny that their clamor has any possibility of emboldening the killers.

Bitter, ain't it?

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.

"They" are the insurgents no matter what faction they represent, and all of their definitions of victory hinge on one major undertaking: driving the US military out of Iraq.

Your comment about supporting a mythical group of Iraqi freedom fighters is a perfect example of the moral bankruptcy of peaceniks. How wonderful that you stand up for Iraqis who don't trust the US, and who for reasons of dignity and sovereignty oppose the occupation. I'm sure this makes you feel just so superior to war mongering brutes like me. The problem is, peacenik, that if this freedom fighters are part of the insurgency than they are killing not only American men and women, they are killing their fellow Iraqis. Are you really so vacuous as to suggest that reasons of dignity, sovereignty and distrust of America validate murder?

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.

It never is the barber or the pizza guy who get to decide these things, but they get to make their views and will known and after we invaded Iraq, their will to prosecute the war was strong. Whether you ascribe the weakening of the collective will to a realization of governmental perfidy or succumbing to a constant and concerted barrage of anti-war press the fact remains that it has weakened. It is not surprising that guys like you would characterize, despite you abhorrence for tricks of language, the phrase as "war-mongering phrasing."

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.

Thus sprach Prof Blatham.

You are stupid - I mean you are really stupid. There I said it, like you did, and so it must be true.

It's probably not stupid, but it is fallacious that you extended my statement into one which you felt better equipped to argue against.

Read my comments again. I doubt you will so let me remind you:

If we cannot possibly win we should immediately withdraw because every life lost going forward will be a waste. If we withdraw immediately every life we have lost will have been wasted.

Notice that I did not argue that because we have lost 2000 lives we need to slog on and lose more. I appreciate that this is an argument you would prefer to take on, but it was never made.

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.

I reiterate: 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.

Other than all that, have a lovely day.

Other than that, I hope you have a Merry Christmas.

Fd'A doesn't understand what motivates the insurgents. It's not based on how the world media covers this mess in Iraq.

Only Bush and supporters want to silence those that disagree with their policies in Iraq; The biggest boondagle in American history.

Since most Americanw want our troops out of Iraq, fd'A thinks most Americans are wrong and only Bushco is right. What a sad bunch - they don't trust Americans.

You're not going to let me what? That the majority of Amercans want our troops out by the end of this year? Shut me up>? Get real!

Emboldens the insurgents? Show proof. Not your personal opinion.