I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Instigate wrote:

We arent fighting the Iraqi people. Just terrorists and some remaining Saddam loyalists This war has had the effect of drawing terrorists out of surrounding Middle Eastern countries into a centralized and open location where they can be more efficiently and quickly destroyed than if they were still dispersed throughout the ME.

Thats bull, Instigate. To all accounts, the overwhelming majority of insurgents are Iraqi. Hell, some of the insurgents by night are members of the newly created Iraqi police or army by day.

Furthermore, elsewhere in the "surrounding Middle Eastern countries" - and even as far afield as here in Europe - the Iraq war has succeeded in mobilising ever new radical Muslims for the extremists' "holy war". So to the extent that the war is "drawing terrorists out", it is drawing them out from a pool that is more than replenishing itself. There is no rational reason to assume we're talking a zero-sum game here.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

How nice. The same could be said about the kamikaze pilots who gunned and then slammed their planes into our ships at Pearl Harbor.

Was that addressed to me? If so, note a crucial difference -- in WW2, Japan attacked you. Now, you attacked Iraq.

0 Replies

This thread is great.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Just exactly why are they the enemy, Tico?
Reason #1: They are shooting at and trying to blow up our troops.

You occupied their country.

If your country is occupied, you tend to start shooting at the occupiers.

Since they are now shooting at you, you consider them your enemy.

Correct.

nimh wrote:

Question is, would they ever have become your enemy if you hadn't first occupied their country?

That IS a question, but I don't see how it is pertinent to this discussion.

nimh wrote:

Does "patrotism" really equate with supporting your government in any foolish endeavour it might enter once it entered it, and considering whoever happened to end up the unfortunate brunt of it, and responded with violent resistance, your enemy?

Not in my book. If you didn't understand me earlier, "patriotism" does NOT equate with rooting for the enemy when your country is at war.

0 Replies

(And no, I dont actually want the insurgents to win. But I am still mad as hell about your government creating this bleeding mess in the first place.)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
How nice. The same could be said about the kamikaze pilots who gunned and then slammed their planes into our ships at Pearl Harbor.

Was that addressed to me? If so, note a crucial difference -- in WW2, Japan attacked you. Now, you attacked Iraq.

Not you ... BPB. I've edited that post to clarify this.

But you raise an interesting point: Are you saying that a deciding factor in whether one can be considered "patriotic" when they root for the enemy of their country is whether their country was the country being invaded or the country doing the invading?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

[quote="nimh]Does "patrotism" really equate with supporting your government in any foolish endeavour it might enter once it entered it, and considering whoever happened to end up the unfortunate brunt of it, and responded with violent resistance, your enemy?

Not in my book. If you didn't understand me earlier, "patriotism" does NOT equate with rooting for the enemy when your country is at war.

Interesting. Does patriotism mean supporting your government, or your country? Are you are saying there is no difference between the two?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

If you didn't understand me earlier, "patriotism" does NOT equate with rooting for the enemy when your country is at war.

Logically speaking - if you considered the war in Iraq from the start to be an unjustifiable endangerment of the US and its soldiers - if your interpretation of what is good for your country and what is not holds that its presence in Iraq is most definitely not - then your patriotic love of your country would lead you to want it to retreat from there as soon as possible, wouldn't it?

Only two solutions possible there; either a direct victory or a clear defeat. Someone who considered the Iraq war a colossal misjudgement from the start is not going to believe direct victory is possible. So, wanting what he thinks is best for his country, he can only hope for defeat to come as soon as possible, so as to avoid any further new soldiers being sent into that hopeless disaster and the government to return instead as soon as possible to things he does think are good for the country - right?

I mean, if patriotism does not equate with supporting your government even if you think it is making a colossal mistake that's bad for your country - and you think that any further presence in Iraq is a colossal mistake that's bad for your country - then, logically speaking, what other option do you have but hope for a speedy defeat, which will cost a lot less lives than the only alternative you'd be able to imagine - a protracted defeat?

I think I said the same thing twice in different words just now.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
Does "patrotism" really equate with supporting your government in any foolish endeavour it might enter once it entered it, and considering whoever happened to end up the unfortunate brunt of it, and responded with violent resistance, your enemy?

Not in my book. If you didn't understand me earlier, "patriotism" does NOT equate with rooting for the enemy when your country is at war.

Interesting. Does patriotism mean supporting your government, or your country? Are you are saying there is no difference between the two?

I'm not drawing a distinction between country and government. I'm drawing a distinction between "supporting" your government/country and rooting for the enemy of your government/country. It's fairly debatable, I suppose, whether the former ought to brand one as unpatriotic; it is not even close as it regards the latter, IMO.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The correct answer is "No." I have never thought that someone who was against the Iraq war was unpatriotic for that reason alone. Dissent is fine ... speaking one's mind against the war is fine. However, if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, you are rooting for the enemy.

Well, I'm not quite sure I understand your distinction. Are you suggesting that criticizing the war is fine as long as everyone, in the end, supports the war? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I know that there are a lot of opponents of the war who can't bring themselves to admit -- to themselves as well as to others -- that they also want the US to lose the war. I suppose they're much like John Kerry, who said the war was a mistake but who couldn't bring himself to admit that US soldiers were dying for a mistake. Well, I'm not a politician so I can't square that particular rhetorical circle. The war is a mistake, and US soldiers are most assuredly fighting and dying for a mistaken cause. And if the only way to prevent more of them from dying for a mistake is to end the war immediately -- by marching out and declaring defeat -- then that's the way it should be.

Ticomaya wrote:

Anybody who roots for the enemy in a battle against their own country, is not a patriot in my book. They are decidedly unpatriotic. You can spin it how you want, but I question your patriotism if you are rooting AGAINST the US.

I love my country so much that I want to see as many of my countrymen live long, productive lives safe within its warm, comforting embrace. In my opinion, that's not rooting against the US.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
If you didn't understand me earlier, "patriotism" does NOT equate with rooting for the enemy when your country is at war.

Logically speaking - if you considered the war in Iraq from the start to be an unjustifiable endangerment of the US and its soldiers - if your interpretation of what is good for your country and what is not holds that its presence in Iraq is most definitely not - then your patriotic love of your country would lead you to want it to retreat from there as soon as possible, wouldn't it?

I do not agree with your premise -- I do not share views such as the ones you have asked me to consider, and therefore I am unable to answer what the "patriotic love" of one who does embrace such views would lead them to want to do.

nimh wrote:

Only two solutions possible there; either a direct victory or a clear defeat. Someone who considered the Iraq war a colossal misjudgement from the start is not going to believe direct victory is possible. So, wanting what he thinks is best for his country, he can only hope for defeat to come as soon as possible, so as to avoid any further new soldiers being sent into that hopeless disaster and the government to return instead as soon as possible to things he does think are good for the country - right?

Wrong. I disagree with the notion that what is best for your country is to hope for a quick defeat of your country.

nimh wrote:

I mean, if patriotism does not equate with supporting your government even if you think it is making a colossal mistake that's bad for your country - and you think that any further presence in Iraq is a colossal mistake that's bad for your country - then, logically speaking, what other option do you have but hope for a speedy defeat, which will cost a lot less lives than the only alternative you'd be able to imagine - a protracted defeat?

I think I said the same thing twice in different words just now.

I suppose you have several options available to you, including remaining patriotic and not rooting for your enemy and for a quick defeat of your country.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

But you raise an interesting point: Are you saying that a deciding factor in whether one can be considered "patriotic" when they root for the enemy of their country is whether their country was the country being invaded or the country doing the invading?

Could be. Yeah, I'd say it would definitely make a difference.

Then again, I can even think of scenarios in which a true patriot would "root for the enemy" even as it invades his country, though it definitely takes more of a stretch of the imagination.

Luckily, there's a very topical example at hand. Ask yourself this: could a true Iraqi patriot, last spring as the foreign armies started landing in Iraq, occupying his country and fighting his country's army, feasibly have "rooted for the enemy"?

I mean, you stated here, if I understood correctly, that "rooting for the enemy of your government/country" is by definition unpatriotic. So does that mean that, in your opinion, a true Iraqi patriot could never have wanted the Iraqi army to lose the war against the American and British invaders?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I think I said the same thing twice in different words just now.

But you said it very well.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Instigate wrote:
We arent fighting the Iraqi people. Just terrorists and some remaining Saddam loyalists This war has had the effect of drawing terrorists out of surrounding Middle Eastern countries into a centralized and open location where they can be more efficiently and quickly destroyed than if they were still dispersed throughout the ME.

Thats bull, Instigate. To all accounts, the overwhelming majority of insurgents are Iraqi. Hell, some of the insurgents by night are members of the newly created Iraqi police or army by day.

Furthermore, elsewhere in the "surrounding Middle Eastern countries" - and even as far afield as here in Europe - the Iraq war has succeeded in mobilising ever new radical Muslims for the extremists' "holy war". So to the extent that the war is "drawing terrorists out", it is drawing them out from a pool that is more than replenishing itself. There is no rational reason to assume we're talking a zero-sum game here.

Extremist terrorist groups were growing before the Iraq war ever started. If terroism had been on the decline and US action had reversed that, I might buy your point. As it stands, were taking a very proactive approach to the terrorist problem. Destroying their funding and infrastrucure world wide while attempting to insert an antidote to extremism into the middle east. Of course its gonna piss em off, but that cannot be avoided. Its gonna take some aggresive moves on our part because this problem too far underground and widespread.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
The correct answer is "No." I have never thought that someone who was against the Iraq war was unpatriotic for that reason alone. Dissent is fine ... speaking one's mind against the war is fine. However, if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, you are rooting for the enemy.

Well, I'm not quite sure I understand your distinction. Are you suggesting that criticizing the war is fine as long as everyone, in the end, supports the war? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It doesn't surprise me to see you type this, Joe. If you think you are patriotic for hoping the US loses the war in Iraq, it comes as no surprise that you don't see the distinction between being critical of the war, and rooting for the enemy of the United States.

joefromchicago wrote:

I know that there are a lot of opponents of the war who can't bring themselves to admit -- to themselves as well as to others -- that they also want the US to lose the war. I suppose they're much like John Kerry, who said the war was a mistake but who couldn't bring himself to admit that US soldiers were dying for a mistake. Well, I'm not a politician so I can't square that particular rhetorical circle. The war is a mistake, and US soldiers are most assuredly fighting and dying for a mistaken cause. And if the only way to prevent more of them from dying for a mistake is to end the war immediately -- by marching out and declaring defeat -- then that's the way it should be.

Sadly, I think you are correct that a lot of opponents of the war want the US to lose the war. Just last week I watched as a "conservative" poster on this board stated their belief that a "liberal" poster secretly wanted the US to lose the war. That conservative poster was castigated for daring to question the patriotism of the liberal poster. I observed this exchange without any feelings one way or another about that particular liberal poster, but with the firm belief that many opponents of the war are not just opposed to the war, but in fact are hopeful the US loses.

I won't type out what I think about these people, but I will state what they are not -- patriotic. You might think the war is a mistake ... as far as I'm concerned, you have every right to think that. As much right as I have to think the war is a valid and justifiable cause. But you are mistaken if you think that by wanting the US to lose this war you are exhibiting patriotism.

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Anybody who roots for the enemy in a battle against their own country, is not a patriot in my book. They are decidedly unpatriotic. You can spin it how you want, but I question your patriotism if you are rooting AGAINST the US.

I love my country so much that I want to see as many of my countrymen live long, productive lives safe within its warm, comforting embrace. In my opinion, that's not rooting against the US.

If you are rooting for the US to lose this war, you are rooting for the enemy of the US, and you are rooting AGAINST the US. You can try and rationalize this in your mind all you want, but you are not patriotic.

0 Replies

Thanks, Joe!

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:
Logically speaking - if you considered the war in Iraq from the start to be an unjustifiable endangerment of the US and its soldiers - if your interpretation of what is good for your country and what is not holds that its presence in Iraq is most definitely not - then your patriotic love of your country would lead you to want it to retreat from there as soon as possible, wouldn't it?

I do not agree with your premise -- I do not share views such as the ones you have asked me to consider, and therefore I am unable to answer what the "patriotic love" of one who does embrace such views would lead them to want to do.

That's two different things. I know you personally do not share the view that the war in Iraq was bad for the US - but what premise is it you disagree with? I am asking you to consider what options would be open for you, as a true patriot in your definition of the word, if you would not support the war. Are you unable to imagine such a position?

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:
Only two solutions possible there; either a direct victory or a clear defeat. Someone who considered the Iraq war a colossal misjudgement from the start is not going to believe direct victory is possible. So, wanting what he thinks is best for his country, he can only hope for defeat to come as soon as possible, so as to avoid any further new soldiers being sent into that hopeless disaster and the government to return instead as soon as possible to things he does think are good for the country - right?

Wrong. I disagree with the notion that what is best for your country is to hope for a quick defeat of your country.

What if you did not believe victory was possible in this particular war? If you saw your country locked in a conflict you saw as doomed? Might a quick defeat not seem a relatively merciful resolution for your country?

I can see calling that fatalistic -- but does fatalistic necessarily equate with unpatriotic?

More than any of this, though, I would like to hear your take on the hypothetical Iraqi I just mentioned - the one who, last year, rooted for his country's army to lose against the foreign armies invading his country. I'm sure there were plenty of those.

According to the principles you laid out here, if I'm correct, that guy could never call himself an Iraqi patriot. Are you sure?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The correct answer is "No."

....

Anybody who roots for the enemy in a battle against their own country, is not a patriot in my book. They are decidedly unpatriotic. You can spin it how you want, but I question your patriotism if you are rooting AGAINST the US.

I agree. You have given the correct answer.*

* As long as you get to decide what is good for America, who "they" are and what constitutes patriotism.

[sketch]
For example my uncle once came across an American performing an injustice on some foreign chick.

He didn't wish her well because that would not have been the patriotic thing to do. The American assaulting the woman insisted that it would "be against the US" to do so.

Some hoidy-toidy people who are fond of thinking and the like tried to convince my uncle that patriotism may well encompass more than a mere "us vs. them" mentality and that righting said injustice is a greater boon to our nation than the primitive tribal thing and that it needed to be judged on the weight of its merit.

They even made things all confusing-like by raising the possibility that the American has no more right to declare his position that of America that anyone else, but my straight shooting uncle would have none of it, he screamed "USSSSS VS. THEEEEM!" until those silly intellectuals started to try to avoid them.

Sometimes I wonder if right and wrong supercede arbitrary cousinhood, and whether patriotism is wanting what is right and best for my country or agreeing with whatever buffoon most forcefully declares would constitute patriotism on my part.

My reverie is almost always interupted by my dad or my uncle screaming "USSSSS VS. THEEEEM!" and bumping chests while watching the game.

I'm glad life is as simple as sports. Were morality more complicated I'd have to like think and stuff.

That would, like, suck.
[/sketch]

0 Replies

JoefromeChicago wrote:

"Can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic?"

No, losing means we get our ass handed to us and that means dead countrymen mate.

Good news though! The question is a nonstarter anyway. We already won the war! It's the peace; we're having trouble with and it certainly isn't unpatriotic to want to abandon a humanitarian effort like that. Not too nice IMO, but not unpatriotic. If the newly elected Iraqi government asks us to leave, I believe we'll pull out shortly thereafter and our boys and girls will come home, the victorious heroes that they are. If the Iraqis continue to wish to work with us, we'll continue to do the heavy lifting in terms of dealing with their outlaw gangs of thugs and would-be oppressors until such time as a sufficient number of Iraqis are trained for the job. I do hope we are able to win the peace... but make no mistake; we won the war. Proof? Iraq's CIC is sitting in the slammer.

Nimh wrote:

, could a true Iraqi patriot, last spring as the foreign armies started landing in Iraq, occupying his country and fighting his country's army, feasibly have "rooted for the enemy?

Yep. It just depends on how he defined his enemy. I'd say his biggest enemy was the person who pocketed billions in grocery money, effectively starving millions of his fellow citizens to death. Lucky for him, his new friends, the US showed up to help. His enemy was too strong to be defeated without help, so now if he's a true Iraqi patriot, he's quite grateful.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

It doesn't surprise me to see you type this, Joe. If you think you are patriotic for hoping the US loses the war in Iraq, it comes as no surprise that you don't see the distinction between being critical of the war, and rooting for the enemy of the United States.

As far as I can tell, Tico, your position boils down to: criticizing the war is ok, wanting the US to lose is not ok. That's fine as a conclusion, but it doesn't really work as an argument, since there is nothing there to support your position except your bare say-so. To help you form some kind of an argument, however, you can answer this: how can someone consistently be an opponent of the war and, at the same time, a proponent of US victory?

Ticomaya wrote:

I won't type out what I think about these people, but I will state what they are not -- patriotic. You might think the war is a mistake ... as far as I'm concerned, you have every right to think that. As much right as I have to think the war is a valid and justifiable cause. But you are mistaken if you think that by wanting the US to lose this war you are exhibiting patriotism.

According to whom? How do you define "patriotism?"

Ticomaya wrote:

If you are rooting for the US to lose this war, you are rooting for the enemy of the US, and you are rooting AGAINST the US. You can try and rationalize this in your mind all you want, but you are not patriotic.

I want what is best for the US and its citizens. That, to my mind, makes me an American patriot. I also believe that losing the war in Iraq will be best for the US and its citizens. That means that I can want the US to lose the war and still be a patriot. How am I mistaken?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
But you raise an interesting point: Are you saying that a deciding factor in whether one can be considered "patriotic" when they root for the enemy of their country is whether their country was the country being invaded or the country doing the invading?

Could be. Yeah, I'd say it would definitely make a difference.

Why would it make a difference?

nimh wrote:

Then again, I can even think of scenarios in which a true patriot would "root for the enemy" even as it invades his country, though it definitely takes more of a stretch of the imagination.

Luckily, there's a very topical example at hand. Ask yourself this: could a true Iraqi patriot, last spring as the foreign armies started landing in Iraq, occupying his country and fighting his country's army, feasibly have "rooted for the enemy"?

I mean, you stated here, if I understood correctly, that "rooting for the enemy of your government/country" is by definition unpatriotic. So does that mean that, in your opinion, a true Iraqi patriot could never have wanted the Iraqi army to lose the war against the American and British invaders?

Yes, I suppose it does. See below for more on this.

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
Only two solutions possible there; either a direct victory or a clear defeat. Someone who considered the Iraq war a colossal misjudgement from the start is not going to believe direct victory is possible. So, wanting what he thinks is best for his country, he can only hope for defeat to come as soon as possible, so as to avoid any further new soldiers being sent into that hopeless disaster and the government to return instead as soon as possible to things he does think are good for the country - right?

Wrong. I disagree with the notion that what is best for your country is to hope for a quick defeat of your country.

What if you did not believe victory was possible in this particular war? If you saw your country locked in a conflict you saw as doomed? Might a quick defeat not seem a relatively merciful resolution for your country?

It might seem that way, but don't consider yourself patriotic for hoping for the defeat of your country.

nimh wrote:

More than any of this, though, I would like to hear your take on the hypothetical Iraqi I just mentioned - the one who, last year, rooted for his country's army to lose against the foreign armies invading his country. I'm sure there were plenty of those.

According to the principles you laid out here, if I'm correct, that guy could never call himself an Iraqi patriot. Are you sure?

If the guy loathed his country so much that he rooted against it when it was invaded by a foreign country, he could not be considered patriotic. If subsequent to that invasion that same guy now loves his country to the point where he would not root against it in battle and did not hope his countries' enemies were victorious over his country, that person may be considered patriotic.

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know