I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

"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.

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

Methinks you underestimate our country's true grit....defeatists among us notwithstanding.

Mornin', Larry.

Come to stir the pot?

BPB - I see this is a difficult subject for you comprehend.

You see, my position is that our nation went back into Iraq and forced compliance of the terms of surrender. During the 10 years of non-compliance, Iraq had started rebuilding it military. As a result, there was a clear and present danger which was eliminated once the regime was removed.

As far as I am concerned, the coalitions objective was accomplished and we should have left then. Yet, our leaders in conjunction with coalition leaders felt it necessary to stay so as to insure the establishment of a somwhat democratic govt in Iraq. The people in Iraq agree with this, The UN agrees with this (but will not publicly admit it).

I hope their successful.

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.

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.

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.

I can see how ridiculing a person for holding certain views rather than taking the time to argue well reasoned points against those views (as some have done) would be appealing.

Actually Ducky, I am quite sure there are well reasoned arguments for the occupation of Iraq. Perhaps, in time, we shall see some of them on this forum.

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.

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....

You got an ETA on that Bear? I'm not as young as I was.

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.

And if you decide that it wasn't not unpatriotic of him, after all, how is it unpatriotic for an American like Joe to want his government to suffer a quick defeat in the war he considers a colossal mistake, in order for his country to have a better, safer future?

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....

I then posted this......

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


Now, Tico old buddy I challenge you to show exactly where I said the enemy are my friends.....and since you can't...I will ask you to retract your purposefully inflammatory and completely untrue statement.....