Ticomaya wrote: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.
It's not that I don't like your opinion. I really have no feelings for it one way or the other. I just don't happen to agree with it. And you've given me no reasons to change my opinion (and there's no need to supersize my name -- I'm not hard of seeing).
Ticomaya wrote: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.
I am opposed to the war because I view it as an illicit conflict and I believe that, ultimately, its further prosecution will do more harm than good to the US. As such, it is eminently reasonable to want the conflict to end as quickly as possible, both because prosecuting an unjust war is itself unjust, and because the more we fight the more damage we inflict upon ourselves. And if ending the war sooner is better than ending the war later, then ending the war
now is the best option available. And if people believe that ending the war now would mean defeat for the US, then, logically, defeat is the best option for the US to pursue.
Given my premises, I think the conclusion is inescapable. If one opposes the war for the reasons that I've given (and I'm not sure why someone would oppose the war for different reasons -- but I'm willing to listen to divergent viewpoints), then one should want the US to lose the war, and the quicker the better.
Ticomaya wrote: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?
Of course I disagree. Let's say you want a bicycle. You see a bicycle in a store window. Are you therefore entitled to steal it?
To desire a particular outcome, one is not obliged to desire all the means possible to achieve that outcome. Aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war is illegal.* I want the US to obey the law; it would be extremely hypocritical of me to say that I should be able to achieve that end by breaking the law myself.
*I'll assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that there is both a war (something on which
OCCOM BILL, for instance, is not entirely clear) and an enemy. Those are points that are, at least theoretically, debatable, but since any treason prosecution would most likely be brought by the Bush administration Justice Department, there is no practical likelihood of those premises being questioned.
EDIT: corrected a spelling error
Since I also think we'd be leaving Iraq in worse shape than we found it, I find your position morally bankrupt.
