I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

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.

Quite possibly one of the finer posts I've read on A2K. Thanks, Lusatian!

I agree with every single, well-made point, and fully understand the need of some here to defend their "patriotism". Along with others, it doesn't surprise me that there are those willing to admit they wish defeat for our efforts in Iraq, even if they feel a need to preach it on an internet message board.

I suppose the immaturity and impatience of some of our "older" members surprises me, but that's merely my opinion.

Of course, I realize that those opposing our struggles are in complete agreement that in wishing for our defeat they're also thankful for the courage and sacrifice of our men and women serving. Of course they are.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you want the US to lose this war, then you ought to actually take steps to see that it does lose, such as giving weapons to the enemy, sabotaging US military plans, etc. If hoping your country's army is defeated is patriotic, then surely taking steps to see that it is defeated must be even more patriotic.

the quintessential Brandon response......gives one a feeling of comfort and continuity.....

Name calling only demonstrates that you cannot answer my point.

Name calling? Where? Let me rephrase slowly and clearly......that represents the kind of post I have come to expect from Brandon....he is being 100% predictable in the style and content of his reply.... I offer no judgement of him or his post...merely observe that Brandon continues in his familiar style.....

I certainly hope that assuages any fears you may have that I was throwing either sticks or stones your way.....

I was being sarcastic, of course.

My point is that wanting your army to lose is not patriotic, because if it were, helping your country to lose would then be even more patriotic, which, clearly, it isn't.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you want the US to lose this war, then you ought to actually take steps to see that it does lose, such as giving weapons to the enemy, sabotaging US military plans, etc. If hoping your country's army is defeated is patriotic, then surely taking steps to see that it is defeated must be even more patriotic.

the quintessential Brandon response......gives one a feeling of comfort and continuity.....

Name calling only demonstrates that you cannot answer my point.

Name calling? Where? Let me rephrase slowly and clearly......that represents the kind of post I have come to expect from Brandon....he is being 100% predictable in the style and content of his reply.... I offer no judgement of him or his post...merely observe that Brandon continues in his familiar style.....

I certainly hope that assuages any fears you may have that I was throwing either sticks or stones your way.....

I wouldn't worry about it too much Bear, you have shown your own predictability and style in much the same Brandon has. Some things will never change.

I was being sarcastic, of course. My point is that wanting your army to lose is not patriotic, because if it were, helping your country to lose would then be even more patriotic, which, clearly, it isn't.

When replacing a damaged cam-shaft with a new one that doesn't quite fit the way it should I usually reach for a bigger hammer. Doesn't everyone?

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

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. ....

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:

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.

....

someone who wants the US to lose a war, and takes steps to further that desire (e.g., giving military secrets to the enemy), is a traitor.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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:

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm sorry you feel that way Joe. I believe the death toll would be higher if we did it your way. Since I also think we'd be leaving Iraq in worse shape than we found it, I find your position morally bankrupt.

That's because you ignore half of my argument. As I stated in my original post: "It is ... 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." Leaving Iraq immediately, without any effort to rectify the grave injustice that the US has wrought by its aggression, would indeed be morally bankrupt. That's why I do not endorse such a position.

When replacing a damaged cam-shaft with a new one that doesn't quite fit the way it should I usually reach for a bigger hammer. Doesn't everyone?

Lol - a thread of parables!

Brandon9000 wrote:

I was being sarcastic, of course. My point is that wanting your army to lose is not patriotic, because if it were, helping your country to lose would then be even more patriotic, which, clearly, it isn't.

I understood your point and disagree with the logic behind it.

Compare:

If wanting Kerry to lose makes one a good Republican then killing him makes one a better Republican.

This is not a true axiom without some prerequisite reductions of what helping acheive your goal constitues.

Furthermore it is a reduction of reality, as there are superceding criteria you ignore.

Joe named one: law.

If a main element of his opposition to the war is rule of law then breaking it is contrary to a superceding criteria.

Ticomaya wrote:

someone who wants the US to lose a war, and takes steps to further that desire (e.g., giving military secrets to the enemy), is a traitor.

Again the logically unsound reductionism.

No, your axiom is not true as there are steps that can be taken (speaking out is one) that do not constitute treason and that do not make one a traitor.

A traitor that does not take that affirmative step in furtherance of his desires is not a patriot.

Are you saying, then, that wanting the US army to be defeated may be patriotic, but taking any action at all to insure that it loses is unpatriotic?

I thought we were playing a game: you bold my name; I bold, capitalize, and enlarge yours; you bold, capitalize, enlarge, italicize, color red mine; etc.

Bear in mind that I am not talking about a "thought crime." (The desire to have a bicycle is not a crime, but taking any action in furtherance of that desire is.)

When I asked you, "Do you disagree?", I was asking you whether you believed that the hypothetical person I described who acts in the manner I described upon beliefs that you hold, is a traitor. You did not answer that question.

If you were to be honest in your response, I think you would respond in the affirmative .... someone who wants the US to lose a war, and takes steps to further that desire (e.g., giving military secrets to the enemy), is a traitor.

You are inviting us to agree that someone who believes the very same things as that traitor, but just doesn't act on their beliefs, is a PATRIOT? I decline that invitation.