I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

JustWonders wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

a man who is essentially a mass-murderer of millions is at large?

That was the only justification I needed.

Lots of other contenders out there doing the same or similar things. Should their countries all be invaded?

Well then, ya gonna be awfully busy!

Along the same criteria, I believe that an American who sincerely believes that the best thing for his America is for it to lose this stupid war in order to all the better succeed at things he believes are right for his country, is thus indeed being patriotic when he argues that, well, he hopes the US will lose this stupid war.

I follow Tico's logic, thus, in where he implies that a man's intention is what counts, not the objective evaluation of his choices. A man who wants his country to win the war by letting US soldiers commit unspeakable atrocities would, of course, do tremendous harm to his country if he got his way. But what counts here, if I get Tico right, is that he sincerely just wants what he thinks is the best for his country.

Where I part with Tico, is where he narrows down patriotic intention from - as I would say - wanting what is good/best for your country, to wanting your country to "win".

That seems a tenuous distinction to me, and one hard to rationally argue. For what is "winning" other than wanting your country to do good, to come out on top I mean? So why wouldn't someone who wants his country to come out on top suddenly count as patriot anymore just because what he thinks will get his country out on top involves, inter alia, a military defeat in a war that's bad for it?

This is that subjective v. objective test. Wanting your country to "lose" cannot be equated with wanting your country to "win" (unless, of course, you have a skewed definition of "win").

nimh wrote:

But the end-all that, see, proof is in - Saddam did have "connections to terrorists"? Only if you believed it already ... strongly believed it already ...

I don’t see why additional ties to terrorists are even important. Does anyone dispute that Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers?

Suicide bombing is an act of terrorism, and all parties to that crime are terrorists.. If you pay for a crime; you are a party to that crime. Hence Saddam Hussein, himself, is a terrorist.

How does it make any sense that if a man is part of a conspiracy to commit a single murder; there is no statute of limitations on that crime… and we all agree he should be pursued until apprehended with haste… and that every country in the world should cooperate in apprehension and extradition if he should flee… yet we squabble over jurisdiction when a man who is essentially a mass-murderer of millions is at large?

What makes his being a party to the crime of Palestinian acts of murder less important than if he was a party to the crime of Al Qaeda’s acts of murder?

Forgive me for asking, but is it because they are Jews?

Maybe the rest of the world doesn't see this as being too "civilized" Bill? Maybe the rest of the world doesn't see the extreme right wing US way as the best way? Now cut this out, Bill! I'm beginning to think you might actually mean what you're saying!

Oh, I'm quite serious Ms Olga. But, worry not... virtually no one agrees with me.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Oh, I'm quite serious Ms Olga. But, worry not... virtually no one agrees with me.

About wanting the US to attack all & sundry for being evil? Come on!

Well, I don't know what to say, then .... that's bewildering.

Does anyone dispute that Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers?

In the Accused, Jodie Foster is gang raped in a bar room full of people. Her lawyer charges that not only were those doing the raping guilty of the gruesome crime... but those who stood by and did nothing were guilty as well, because they had failed to do something.