I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Revel dear, you're not listening again.
revel wrote:
In any event, (pressing on ) if the porale officer ordered an arrest warrant, would he then be able to turn judge and jurry on his own and put the poralee into jail witout any kind of due process?
Yes. The parolee has already enjoyed his due process before he was convicted. Think of parole as an ultra-minimum security classification. If your parole agent deems you so much as a minimum risk (instead of ultra-minimum), it's back to jail you go. No Court in the land will hear your plea because you already had your day in court. This was a silly aside anyway, remember? Don't sweat it.

Now for your last sentence. I don't know how this got stuck in that paragraph, but I'm guessing you don't remember the movie.

Revel wrote:
And this is how it is still not like that movie of accused regardless of politics, we are talking about rules and processes and laws here and we always have been.
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. The movie will make your blood boil, but it makes this point in spades. Now keep that description in mind while you re-read this post.

If that is the case with parole officers that they get to do that, well, that just seems wrong to me. I mean no one person should be able to just decide that someone is reguilty of something without having to prove it to someone else. Because they had their day in court does that mean from now on they never get another day in court but that someone who might even have less than noble motives can just say that they are guilty of something and the parolee would have to go to jail. That is not right.

In any event lets just scratch the entire messed up analogy.

I saw the movie, I promise I did. Smile

I still do not believe that the two equate.

You did not have a world standing around doing nothing while saddam rapes his country. We were in the process of the Weapons inspection when Bush decided to end it and go to war on his own.

Also at one time we ourselves stood around and did nothing.

Also at one time we even were the ones enabling saddam to rape.

So the whole moral issue just don't compute. I suggest you give it up.

It is better to rely on the whole security issue than the moral issue because we are seen as the hypercrits we are when we try to use that justification because of our past actions which involved those presently in charge of things today.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Does anyone dispute that Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers?

I do, as this did not occur a single time.
Please don't make me play 20 questions Craven. What's your angle?

Saddam did not once pay "large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers". Nor small sums of money.

He paid their relatives, who often had nothing to do with the terrorist attack (most of the relatives find out about it with everyone else) but whose houses would be bulldozed in Israeli retaliation.

Said relatives often lost breadwinners and their homes and Saddam tried to curry Arab favor by sending them, not the suicide bomber, money.

Not to defend his publicity stunts but your claim is false, and the slight prevarication segued into "conspiracy" in the crime.

You appear to be parsing a tenuous distinction here. The relatives are clearly third-party beneficiaries of the deeds of the homicide-bombers. The payments were made because of the acts of the bomber, and it is probable these payments were an incentive to many of the bombers.

Additionally, there was doubtless a tacit agreement between Saddam and the bombers: He offered to pay money to their families if they blew themselves up; they accepted that offer by blowing themselves up; there is clearly consideration supporting this agreement; and the relatives are the third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. All of this is contingent, I believe, upon the bombers being knowlegeable about the offer, but I am assuming Saddam's offer was wide-spread in Palestine, and Hamas used it as a recruting tool.

One can hardly argue that these payments were not incentives. So while you are correct that the payments did not go to the dead bombers, the incentives were paid to their families, and yours is a hollow distinction. Surely you are not discounting completely the effect the knowledge that Saddam would make those payments had on the mindset of the would-be bombers.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone in the US solicited someone to kill his wife ... or announced to a group of thugs ... or let's say posted on their website that he would pay $20,000 to the family who would kill his wife .... if someone thereafter killed his wife, the husband would be charged with a crime. Guaranteed. Hell, the mere offer, even without an actual murder, constitutes an anticipatory crime. It would NOT be a stretch.

Saddam's offer to pay the families of terrorists is clearly supportive of terrorism.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
What if someone's definition of "lose," as it pertains to the war in Iraq, is "withdraw all American troops immediately and take whatever steps necessary to repair or mitigate the damage done by the war?" If that person favored "losing" under that definition could he still be a patriot?

No.

Why not?

Ticomaya wrote:

And by the way, this seems to be your best tactical approach yet in this argument: Limit your definition of "lose" to "withdraw all American troops immediately and take whatever steps necessary to repair or mitigate the damage done by the war?" But it does take the pizzaz out of your thread title, doesn't it:

"I want the US to withdraw all American troops immediately and take whatever steps necessary to repair or mitigate the damage done by the war."

I offer no opinions about the "pizzaz" of my thread titles.

Ticomaya wrote:

Had you said that, and attempted to designate yourself a patriot, you would not have gotten an argument from me.

That's exactly what I said in my initial post:

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.And yet I still got an argument from you.

Ticomaya wrote:

Obviously, the description you provided in your hypothetical is not the only way one could be a patriot, but one holding beliefs such as that person does not preclude them from being a patriot. I sense you are having a bout of confusion similar to that you had when you were failing to grasp my assertion that one could be a "traitor in thought only" and not be a traitor, but also not be a patriot.

Very few things could rival the confusion engendered by your nebulous notion of a "traitor in thought only." But perhaps I'm beginning to understand your position. Someone who wants to spare as many lives as possible but who wants the country to lose cannot be a patriot, whereas someone who is a genocidal nut but who wants the country to win is a patriot. So maybe the key to being a "patriot" is wanting to "win," regardless of whether the concept of "winning" is objective or purely subjective.

Suppose, then, that someone's definition of "win," as it pertains to the war in Iraq, is "withdraw all American troops immediately and take whatever steps necessary to repair or mitigate the damage done by the war?" If that person favored "winning" under that definition could he still be a patriot?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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").

Nonsense. You have stated a false logical axiom that is easily disproven.

Lose X
Win Y

If they are mutually exclusive and one feels Y supercedes X in import then they can easily want the country to lose X in order to win Y.

Thusly, with your logical reductionism, there can be an equation of "wanting your country to 'lose' and wanting your country to 'win'".

Your logical analysis fails to consider the premise which I've stated several times now, but which was not clearly stated in the words you quoted. X and Y are mutually exclusive, but the rest of your analysis has no bearing on how X and Y relate to the character of patriotism, in the context of my premise. Putting it in the terms of your logical equation, my premise is that one who wants X in order to acheive Y, where X requires a military loss, is not a patriot. Your logical analysis has not disproved that premise, you apparently simply do not agree with it.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The relatives are clearly third-party beneficiaries of the deeds of the homicide-bombers.

0 Replies

Tico,

Have you ever heard the phrases "he won the battle but lost the war" and "pyrrhic victory?"

Santa Anna eventually took the Alamo... but it cost him too much time and allowed the Texas revolutionaries to defeat him. Would a member of his staff who recommended bypassing the Alamo be un-patriotic? Even after shots were fired? I think not; the goal is to win the war not the particular brawl you are in.

what about a diversionary attack? The general knows that lives will be lost; the general knows that the attack will not succeed; is this general unpatriotic? You might question the tactics but not his patriotism.

Can a tennis player throw a particular game, and still want to win the match? Yes. Does that make them "unsportsmanlike?" I think not.

In my view, the current adventure in Iraq is only a piece of a larger conflict. I would much rather win the larger conflict.

I think your definition of patriotism is a little narrow. A patriot wants what is good for his/her country. That may or may not mean winning a particular battle.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
And then there's this Iranian student. He's a "real" vigilante

http://www.nysun.com/article/7065

Gathering signatures for a petition makes one a vigilante!?

I dont see any analogy here ... I'm guessing there isn't any, just one of those rhetorical associative links ...

Nimh, I don't have time for a long post, but when I was in San Diego over Christmas, there were petitioners in front of most of the grocery stores there collecting signatures in opposition to issuing illegal aliens drivers licenses. There were no brown shirts coming to drag them away and beat them and I doubt your government would jail and beat you for collecting signatures for your parking lot analogy.

The fact that this man had to "escape" and that he isn't allowed dissent in his own country made me see him "as a bit of a vigilante"....he's working for change towards democracy in the face of danger to himself.

I disagree with you that Iran won't be pasting a huge bullseye on its back by obtaining nukes and a means to launch them. At least, I don't think the US and Israel would share your view on that. Just my opinion, though. (As for North Korea....I have lots of thoughts on that one, but no time to share right now).

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
The relatives are clearly third-party beneficiaries of the deeds of the homicide-bombers.

What is causing your confusion, nimh?

0 Replies

You ever read an interview or two with those family members, Tico? Their son has just died. Many of those parents did not know their child would do such a thing - many suicide bombers are impressionable teenagers, lured by the political-religious cult of local militants in a community where those kids have nothing to do but hang round on street corners with the toughies all day (what, with most employment gone and schools malfunctioning). At best, you see those parents trying to put up a brave face going, well at least our son became a martyr, since that's what the militants are telling 'em to think. Many others are just devastated. To call 'em "clearly third-party beneficiaries" of their son's suicide seems a bit - off.

0 Replies

It never ceases to amaze me that people will defend homicide bombers and those that support them.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me that people will defend homicide bombers and those that support them.

me neither...and yet we reelected the guy who ordered the dropping of thousands of them on Iraqi civilians and their country who hadn't done anything to us....

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

You ever read an interview or two with those family members, Tico? Their son has just died. Many of those parents did not know their child would do such a thing - many suicide bombers are impressionable teenagers, lured by the political-religious cult of local militants in a community where those kids have nothing to do but hang round on street corners with the toughies all day (what, with most employment gone and schools malfunctioning). At best, you see those parents trying to put up a brave face going, well at least our son became a martyr, since that's what the militants are telling 'em to think. Many others are just devastated. To call 'em "clearly third-party beneficiaries" of their son's suicide seems a bit - off.

Where would one find an interview like that? I can see your point, but don't you think that the guy who is thinking of becoming a martyr might have more incentive to go through with it, knowing that Saddam is going to take care of his family? And if you do, then wasn't Saddam, at the very least, promoting these atrocities?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

You ever read an interview or two with those family members, Tico? Their son has just died. Many of those parents did not know their child would do such a thing - many suicide bombers are impressionable teenagers, lured by the political-religious cult of local militants in a community where those kids have nothing to do but hang round on street corners with the toughies all day (what, with most employment gone and schools malfunctioning). At best, you see those parents trying to put up a brave face going, well at least our son became a martyr, since that's what the militants are telling 'em to think. Many others are just devastated. To call 'em "clearly third-party beneficiaries" of their son's suicide seems a bit - off.

It's not "off." By way of explanation, let me provide another example. If I hire you to cut my parent's lawn, and my parent's don't know anything about my arrangement with you, all they know is they came home and their lawn is mowed.

My parent's receive the benefit of my bargain with you, and are thus the third-party beneficiaries to our agreement, notwithstanding the fact that they did not know we had entered into an agreement in the first place.

And I'm not trying to cast the parents in a bad light, or blame them for the actions of their children. (Although there are doubtless parents who DO know full-well what their children are planning on doing. Let's not be naive enough to think that doesn't occur.) They merely received the benefit of their children's acceptance of Saddam's offer.

(And I'm not trying to make a case for an enforceable contract ... so resist the urge to reply with legal attacks on the sufficiency or legality of the contract.)

0 Replies

Maybe my example is clearer and addresses your concern more closely if the purpose of the bargain in my hypothetical is not the cutting of my parent's lawn, but the burning of my parent's lawn. (In other words, something they don't want to happen.) If you offer to pay my parents $500 if I burn my parent's lawn, I then do burn my parent's lawn, and you pay them $500, they are the "beneficiaries" of my agreement with you, even though they may not think it's a bargain.

0 Replies

Fealty to faith. Fealty to flag. Patriots everywhere as far as the eye can see.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your typical liberal rhetoric and strawmen are no excuse for people that strap explosives to them selves for the sole purpose of killing other people. You can take your sympathy for those people and blow it out your ass. They deserve none of it and it sickens me to think anyone would.

Sympathy for a suicide bomber /= sympathy for the family of a suicide bomber. Who is left dealing with things, they probably didn't want their son or daughter or husband to do it, etc.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

i don't get why there isn't as much outrage over the saudi involvement in the suicide bombings.

those guys have even held telethons to raise money for the families of the suicide bombers and other hamas operations.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Where would one find an interview like that?

In the newspaper? TV report? That's where I've seen them here. Don't your media ever interview them? It's instructive enough ...

Never seen one here. Ever. I guess that's the kind of thing that you have to do a little digging for. I'll look around. Thanks.

nimh wrote:

kickycan wrote:
I can see your point, but don't you think that the guy who is thinking of becoming a martyr might have more incentive to go through with it, knowing that Saddam is going to take care of his family?

Dunno. I would think, by the time someone was embittered (or at least as likely, indoctrinated) enough to be willing to blow himself up, a wad of dollars or the lack of it wouldn't really make much difference either way anymore. But who knows, it might play a secondary role. Didn't feel a strong enough opinion on the question one way or another to get into that discussion (which, you may notice, I didn't).

nimh wrote:

kickycan wrote:
And if you do, then wasn't Saddam, at the very least, promoting these atrocities?

Was Saddam promoting the practice of suicide-bombing in Israel by spending propaganda money on those families? Yeah, probly - it shows he was at least eager to look like he was. Why, did I say he wasn't?

All I have said is that Saddam spending some propaganda money on the Arab side of Israel's Intifadah wasn't a valid reason for the US to go to war with him and occupy Iraq. Not even sure his sending of cash through to the bombers' families makes for "connections with terrorists" - well, the same way I have "connections with Greenpeace", I guess.

Okay, then. Makes sense. Carry on...

0 Replies

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Your typical liberal rhetoric and strawmen are no excuse for people that strap explosives to them selves for the sole purpose of killing other people. You can take your sympathy for those people and blow it out your ass. They deserve none of it and it sickens me to think anyone would.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sympathy for a suicide bomber /= sympathy for the family of a suicide bomber. Who is left dealing with things, they probably didn't want their son or daughter or husband to do it, etc.

Looks like Cyclo already answered that one for me ... thanks Cyclo.

McG is the master of straw men, and was unsurprisingly the first to pose one in this case too ... as you point out.

But he still hasn't noticed, apparently. Like I asked him earlier today, "can you really not read or do you just prefer not to?" I'm still guessing it's the latter. Which just kinda makes it worse.

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know