I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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

So if we evacuated immediately and bloodlessly, would that constitute a victory? If that's the case, I'm all in favor of victory.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

The folks in the Bush administration are still calling it a war. For once, I'll take them at their word.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

You have hardly given me hope, O'BILL: although we may have won the war, it seems we are really doing very badly at fighting the peace. But if all we need to do is declare victory and withdraw immediately, then I am all in favor of victory.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

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?

Well, JOE, you are correct that it is my say-so. It is my opinion, so it is my "say-so," I suppose. If you don't like my opinion, feel free to ignore same.

I think it is very easy for a patriotic fellow to be an opponent of the Iraq war and a proponent of US victory. The reasons for this persons' opposition to the war could be multi-faceted and various: they might be generally opposed to war because they are pacifists; they, like you, might think the war is a big mistake; they, like you, might have formed the opinion that the war was "illegal"; etc. Whatever the basis for this person's staunch opposition to the war, the fact that they are opposed to the war does not necessarily mean they must be opposed to a US victory in that war. A person can disagree with the reasons for going to war, and more than that, wish we weren't in the war, but not allow themselves to root against their country in the war. I'm at a loss for why you think that if a person is opposed to the war they must be opposed to the US winning the war.

joefromchicago wrote:

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?

Let's say you act on your beliefs, and let's also say you are privy to some US military secrets, and through some connections you provide these to Iraqi insurgents who use same against the US military. The reason you do this is because you "want what is best for the US and its citizens," and you are convinced that if you provide secrets to the enemy, the enemy will defeat the US sooner, and in your mind that is what is in the best interests of the US. In doing so, you might think you are a patriot, but in fact you are a traitor. Do you disagree?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

The folks in the Bush administration are still calling it a war. For once, I'll take them at their word.

Its a context thing Joe. It's much easier on our fearless leader to tuck everything in the envelope marked "war on terror", which is still going on. But we already whooped the soldiers in the war. That's why we call the fools we're now fighting insurgents. :wink:

joefromchicago wrote:

You have hardly given me hope, O'BILL: although we may have won the war, it seems we are really doing very badly at fighting the peace. But if all we need to do is declare victory and withdraw immediately, then I am all in favor of victory.

I'm sorry you feel that way Joe. I believe the death toll would be higher if we did it your way. Sad

Since I also think we'd be leaving Iraq in worse shape than we found it, I find your position morally bankrupt.

0 Replies

I want us out of there as quickly as possible while still not setting up people who supported us in our endeavors for some kind of massive retribution. I don't care what people call our leave-taking, be it victory, defeat, loss, or some different sort of word, or words I might prefer, like wise withdrawal. It could even be called financially smart; I'd wince but that would be ok.

I have a slightly different angle to my world view than most others here on either side of the patriotism argument, and that is than I am not a fan of going in and bombing countries, no matter what the engaging reason. I don't think it is a good thing for the country I have believed in and am patriotic about to be doing.

I think it only breeds hatred and that hatred is a reasonable human response, and it breeds it far and wide for a long time. Not to mention it destroys the life of cities and peoples, however collaterally.

Just consider the reaction to a plane hitting a tower in our country, and magnify that, how you'd feel about people bombing you, ostensibly to help you and others.

I'm not a complete pacifist, I get why there are some "good" wars, but I think they should be far between.

This one hasn't won much in the way of hearts and minds, and isn't that the original somewhat quixotic idea? Sons of sons of sons will be against us after this.

I am also not against fighting despotism. I don't really know the details of the right way to do that, except by clear good example, the kind of example we seem to used to be, back in some ideal minute in our history.

Saddam was complicated in that we fed him some of his despicability, which shouldn't be how we act in the world, feeding people like him various weapons of mass obliteration.

It's a bad business from the start, and we should clean our own house.

0 Replies

Hmmm - I made my somewhat-overstated-for-discussion-starting-purposes-
but-largely-as-I-see-it statement of belief about patriotism here http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=398042#398042 a long time ago.

I am wondering how you define patriotism, Joe?

By most of the definitions I see, I would not want to be patriotic - since I see a strong element of irrationality in it.

My sense is that, under most definitions of patriotism that I have seen (on the thread I refer to, most people just defined it for themselves, and many, as I recall, made up definitions the living out of which I would find perfectly reasonable - but, to my thinking, they were not examples of patriotism as defined sharply - look at Larry's definition, for instance - ("Patriot: : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests" ) you cannot be patriotic and want America to "lose" in Iraq.

This is not, in my view, to make any criticism whatever of your stand - but simply to say that there is an element of irrational support of one's country, whether right or wrong by any reaonable definition, (and above other loyalties - eg to justice and fairness between nations) - inherent in, I believe, the concept of patriotism.

I think you can be absolutely right and ethical in what you want - and be a strong proponent of your country's and people's physical, intellectual and ethical well-being - but I do not think you are being a patriot, as it is usually understood.

I think what you are wanting to be is BETTER than a patriot, as it happens.

This view is certainly arguable - and I am interested to hear how you might define patriotism.... however:

When I looked patriotism up - in a number of different places - this is the definition I found, broadly speaking:

"Love and support of one's country - devotion to one's nation."

Love and devotion - I think there is an edge of irrationality here.

The thesaurus gives us a close alliance to nationalism - which is defined as "believing that your national culture and interests are superior to any other".

Other definitions stressed preparedness to sacrifice oneself - which is reasonable, I think.

Egad - enough rambling!

Edit: I finished reading the thread - and saw this: "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?"

There is your definition of patriotism - I would argue that it does not fully encompass the normal meaning of patriotism - but it is a reasonable working definition. Using that definition i could easily agree that you are a patriot.

0 Replies

Re: I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

joefromchicago wrote:

Just to summarize those remarks and to make my opinion clear, I think the US's attack on Iraq constituted an illicit war of aggression, contrary to the UN Charter and international law, and that the persons responsible for the decision to attack should be held legally accountable for their actions. The war in Iraq, in short, is an unjust war.

Having resolved this question, it becomes rather simple to assess whether or not US troops are dying "for no good reason." It is, I would contend, never a good reason to die in an unjust war. Indeed, the only honorable response for an individual to take would be to refuse to fight in such a conflict, just as an aggressor nation's only honorable response is to cease hostilities and attempt to rectify its wrongs. And that, in sum, is what I want the US to do.

To be sure, an immediate cessation of hostilities would require an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. That's true, and I want that as well. Of course, such a precipitous withdrawal would undoubtedly lead to chaos -- although it might be difficult to distinguish that chaos from the chaos that currently reigns in Iraq, but at least fewer Americans would be dying. It is, nevertheless, incumbent upon the US not only to cease its aggression but to make amends, i.e. to make it so that Iraq is in no worse position than it was before the war, and preferably to make it better. This is no place to lay out all the possible scenarios for this to happen; I believe, however, that it is at least conceivable both for the US to withdraw and for it to take steps necessary to make Iraq a stable, peaceful state. And since it is possible, it must be done: to do otherwise would be to act unjustly.

Now, for most people, such an immediate withdrawal would signal defeat for the US. As I mentioned before, I'm not quite sure what "defeat" means in this context, but if immediate withdrawal means we are defeated then so be it. Better that we admit defeat and recognize our obligations under international law than to prosecute an unjust, lawless conflict.

I'm sure that Bill O'Reilly and his kind would say that no patriotic American could hold such a position. Does that mean that I'm not a "patriot?" Well, I want the US to stand for legitimacy and order in the world. I want it to uphold its promises and fulfill its solemn obligations. I want it to cease acting in a way that threatens not only its own safety but the very fabric of international society. I want it to avoid acting in a way that threatens to destroy an international regime of laws that, up to now, has only benefitted it. Truly, if a patriot wants the best for his country, then there is no one more patriotic than me.

So, can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic? Yes. And I am one of those Americans.

EDIT: corrected some spelling errors

Joe you thoroughly validate the saying "An intellectual is man who will use more words than necessary to tell more than he knows." Your longwinded political statement, while well written, could also be summarized as:

Your higher learning and bloated intellect have positioned themselves diametrically against the war in Iraq.

You are willing to spend long hours preaching to others who agree with you why your higher learning and bloated intellect have positioned themselves diametrically against the war in Iraq.

You have found a nuanced and verbose arguement why your higher learning and bloated intellect have positioned themselves diametrically against the war in Iraq.

And you can't understand, or are rather aggravated, when others don't agree with your understanding. I mean, why can't they see why your higher learning and bloated intellect have positioned themselves diametrically against the war in Iraq.

Here's my response to you, in an equally abbreviated form:

Your opposition to the war has absolutely no effect on the outcome of events and therefore is merely the lengthly speeches of a disgruntled intellectual, akin to hundreds of thousands of other disgruntled intellectuals who have come and gone.

You are neither participating in any way, shape, or form in the war in Iraq, or the war on terror, and therefore you have absolutely no stake in the facts on the ground outside of what may be seen on CNN.

The great majority of those who are participating in any way, shape, or form, could really care less that there is another member of the vaunted pseudo-intelligensia who opposes what is transpiring in their day to day lives.

Are you a patriot, even if you oppose the war? Who cares! You could be the direct descendant of Benedict Arnold, and as long as you fulfill a position that has absolutely no bearing on our national security nobody cares whether you are a patriot or not. If it makes you feel better I would gladly call you a patriot. Or at least an excellent opportunist. After all you are definitely exercising the right to free speech and freedom of expression that others (with far less learning and much less bloated intellects), work in a variety of unpleasant circumstances to provide you.

Does my opinion matter? No! But, at least I'm not too surprised. Laughing

0 Replies

Was there some sort of rational discussion or argument in there?

or could we summarise:

"You disagree with me, therefore I shall ignore all your points and be rude?"

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear 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.

Are they your friends, Gus?

Of course they are...we blew half their f*#king country up and then started shooting at them....I don't believe they were shooting at us before that.....it would sure be more convenient if they'd just lie down and let us kill them....but the inconsiderate bastards just won't cooperate....

At which point did they become your friends? When they cut off Nick Berg's head? When they set an improvised explosive device alongside the road so it would blow up scores of Marines driving by?

I don't really care so much if they are your "friends." Others may think that line crossed at some earlier point -- I don't -- but when you start rooting for them over the US, it is precisely at that point that you cross the line with me, and have become unpatriotic.

This is an absolutely rivetingly off beam post.

Gus and Bi-Polar Bear were attempting to address your comment about "rooting for the enemy" (which is actually not what Joe is talking about, but nemmind) by looking at why some Iraqis are shooting at allied troops - ie because we invaded their country. Some would argue that this makes a difference - but again, nemmind., this is not what I am commenting on.

YOU then - either because you are impassioned about this, or as a rhetorical device, (or mebbe some other reason - I dunno) chose to act as though Bi-Polar Bear and Gus had said that he considered the people shooting at allied troops as their friends.

This a very cheap rhetorical trick.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Larry434 wrote:
Well, that certainly turns the definition of what a patriot is on its head.

Patriot: : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

A patriot supports it's countries authority....a true patriot recognizes when the leaders of the country are overstepping their authority and putting it's citizens at risk and speaks out.....whether popularly or not.....motivated by love for his/her country.....

Question: What is our country's authority?

Answer: It is government, freely elected by the citizens to represent them.

If they do not represent the majority of the electorate, we will elect a new government. We had that opportunity last month and elected to stay with the government we have, thus giving them a vote of confidence that we the majority think they are representing us better than any alternative that was offered would.

That is the way of our Republic. A patriot supports that process and result.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
they're not my friends...they are people being told they must kill their enemies...just like our people are being told they must do the same...the real enemies here are the handful of leaders...on ALL sides of a war...who force people to kill others in order to be good citizens and patriotic countrymen....they issue their orders from different sides but they will all burn in the same hell for it.....IMO

How nice. The same could be said about the kamikaze pilots who gunned and then slammed their planes into our ships at Pearl Harbor. You might have even considered them your "friends." If you rooted for the Japanese and hoped that they beat the US in WWII, do you think you should be considered "patriotic"?

(And BPB I noted you never said you were rooting for the enemy against the US. You appear to be playing "devils advocate," and that is why I'm engaging you, and not Joe, who appears to be the only one (along with Gus, I suppose) who has admitted to be rooting for the enemy.)

how do you compare the iraqis to kamikaze pilots? where's the possible connection? In WWII the japanese attacked us....the iraqia did not by any stretch attack us...how can you possibly make that connection?

The US has already lost this war....we are now merely continuing the fighting and death out of some cowboy pride...Vietnam was no different.....just a big dick contest......

0 Replies

It one thing to post on A2K that you want the US to lose this war. That's easy and takes no guts.

Go up to a soldier, especially a wounded soldier, and tell him/her that.

0 Replies

Quote:

That is the way of our Republic. A patriot supports that process and result.

Then I shall state emphatically that Im no patriot under that definition.When my country engages in a military adventure, the premise of which has been forensically shown to be fraudulent, I have no alternative but to call all the armchair "patriots"a bunch of cowards who will not stand among the less popular Patriots as defined by John Adams.(he was one of our earlier patriots who layed his life on the line for a cause that was also not universally popular)

the connection between this Iraq adventure and the WAR ON TERROR is a gapinghole in logic that about half the voters of the US came out to vote AGAINST on Nov 2. Sadly , the huckster administration used an argument sort of like this
'We know that this war is illigitamate but were the best ones to prosecute it"
The hell of it is that the record voter turn-out has resulted in this country being fairly well split, with this residual stance on the war still maintaining its 'legs". .

I want my countries kids home.Period. Why oh why do you armchairs want them to continue dying?- for what? you know deep down that the "war" is a faux piece of failed diplomacy.the rest of the world knows it. No matter when we leave, the civil war threat will be realized and there aint squat all that we can do about it. We are becoming like imperial Japan when it trumped up its attacks on China to help start WWII.
Yet you armchairs stand around being a bunch of self proclaimed 'patriots" and defining "patriotism" for the rest of us, as if that point has any validity for keeping the war going and believing all that crap can prevent further deaths and will make us all feel safer and better.

I consider Joe a patriot , you armchairs are toadies of the administration.

Then, on top of it, because Joe is able to articulate a point so brilliantly he is accused of being an antipopulist elitist , not for his point, but his gift to express it.
JEEEZUS H CHRIST, The theme song of Yorktowne oughta be playing in the background.

0 Replies

I have just read this thread and, amazingly, I don't think anyone here as changed their position on anything.

Was nice reading though.

And, thanks, Dlowan, for defending me in my absence.

0 Replies

Nice post, farmerman.

0 Replies

well said frmerman...and while we jerk off in Iraq...Russia and China schedule joint miltary training operations.......our dollar falls against the Euro...our Social security system is failing....more jobs re being shipped overseas....more of our country is being sold off piece by piece......what price to us for bush inc to profit?

Lose the war? We never had a chance to win it......

0 Replies

Another bogus argument some use on here is calling those against the war pacifists. There are very few pacifists. Most who are against the war would be willing to back a justified war. Just show them one.

0 Replies

"When my country engages in a military adventure, the premise of which has been forensically shown to be fraudulent"

IMO, you hold a narrow view as to the cause of this war which the left have echoed since day 1.

The actual cause of this war was NOT mearly WMD. It was as a result Iraqs refusal to comply with the terms of surrender it signed after it invaded Kuwait. As a result of the Worlds, especially the US, refusal to force compliance, Iraq was correctly identified as a security threat to this nation.

The objective has been achieved, removal of the Saddam regime. The war has been won. The challenge we face today is in the installation of a new Gov't in Iraq and eliminating those who oppose that effort. The Iraqi people clearly support our efforts.

While I do not support that effort by my Govt, I would NEVER EVER say I WANT OUR NATION TO FAIL IN THIS EFFORT AND CAUSE OUR SOLDIERS TO DIE.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

I have just read this thread and, amazingly, I don't think anyone here as changed their position on anything. .

gosh imagine that...and after two years of watching people change their opinions through sincere dialog and respecful give and take.......weird.....

0 Replies

I have noticed that some of the biggest talkers and backers of the war in Iraq are people that have never themselves been in the military.

But they're hell with a keyboard.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

While I do not support that effort by my Govt, I would NEVER EVER say I WANT OUR NATION TO FAIL IN THIS EFFORT AND CAUSE OUR SOLDIERS TO DIE.

I don't recall anyone saying that.

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know