I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Now there's a point, joe. Is the act of surrender treasonous?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That's just it, Joe. They don't. They have more in common with organized crime than they do an actual military. No central command, no code of ethics, no uniforms, etc. They don't look, walk or quack like ducks.

If you're genuinely serious that there is no war going on in Iraq right now, then I suppose there's no enemy either. After all, we don't call common criminals "the enemy," do we? And if there's no war and no enemy, then there can be no such thing as "treason" in this affair. So you'd agree, then, that an American who aided and abetted Iraqi insurgents would not be guilty of treason, correct?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The meaning of "Win a war" around here has been distorted to an extreme measure. As I read through the various criteria people have listed to consider a "victory" I'm taken aback. As usual, the bar has been set ridiculously high for the United States. We have destroyed our enemy's chain of command and taken control of the country. By any normal definition, that constitutes a victory. Saddam & Sons Inc is permanently out of business. That enemy is no more.

If the enemy is no more, why are our troops still fighting and dying? Practice for the next war?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Joe, that's exactly what we're trying to do. If those pesky insurgents would just get out of the way, we'd be well on our way to having done it. How do you suggest we deal with the misguided fools who are murdering the very people attempting to carry out your noble wishes?

Why do you call them "misguided?" Aren't they Iraqi patriots acting patriotically?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Now there's a point, joe. Is the act of surrender treasonous?

Depends. Who's doing the surrending and under what circumstances?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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

He's also not a traitor. There are no crimes without acts. If someone has treasonous thoughts, but those thoughts are never translated into actions, then there is no treason.

0 Replies

I was just following the reasoning that acting to bring about a loss for one's country is treasonous. It seems that surrender is one such action, though I could see how surrendering when you have the capability to win is different from surrendering when you are overcome by the enemy.

At any rate, I see your point that desiring an outcome is not the same as acting in an unlawful manner to bring it about.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

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

Sez you. And it is contingient on you defining treachery and patriotism for your own point.

Yes, sez me. What say you? Do you believe a traitor in all but deed is a patriot?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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.

Craven has already addressed the reductionist aspect of your argument. If the only way to advocate defeat were to act treasonously, then your argument would be sound. You have, however, made no showing that there is no other way to advocate defeat than to act treasonously.

And you have not explained why the thoughts you hold are in any way different than the thoughts held by that traitor. That being the case, it appears you are a traitor in all but deed. I'm not saying you are a traitor, mind you, but I am saying you are no patriot.

joefromchicago wrote:

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

He's also not a traitor. There are no crimes without acts. If someone has treasonous thoughts, but those thoughts are never translated into actions, then there is no treason.

Although I said it above, I'll say it again, I agree that such a person is not a traitor. We're not talking about whether a crime was committed. We're talking about whether this "traitor in thought only" is a "patriot" or not. I say he is not, you seem to be saying he is.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's just it, Joe. They don't. They have more in common with organized crime than they do an actual military. No central command, no code of ethics, no uniforms, etc. They don't look, walk or quack like ducks.

If you're genuinely serious that there is no war going on in Iraq right now, then I suppose there's no enemy either. After all, we don't call common criminals "the enemy," do we? And if there's no war and no enemy, then there can be no such thing as "treason" in this affair. So you'd agree, then, that an American who aided and abetted Iraqi insurgents would not be guilty of treason, correct?

Pretty tricky, eh? That's the dilemma that the "War on Terrorism" has created. Aren't our legal-eagles trying to work out the details as we speak?
Do you disagree that Saddam's Iraq is gone for good? Even if we pulled out today, our defeated foe would not be the one doing the victory dance. Idea

Today we are fighting heavily armed, very determined extremists who are struggling to fill the power void left by the defeat of our enemy. They do not represent Saddam's Iraq. This more closely resembles a civil war. In this new struggle, we are allied with the new Iraq against would-be conquerors. While there is still war, it is not the same war... as the first was already irrevocably decided. Do you disagree that Saddam's Iraq is gone for good?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Joe, that's exactly what we're trying to do. If those pesky insurgents would just get out of the way, we'd be well on our way to having done it. How do you suggest we deal with the misguided fools who are murdering the very people attempting to carry out your noble wishes?

Why do you call them "misguided?" Aren't they Iraqi patriots acting patriotically?

From their perspective I'm sure they are Iraqi Patriots acting patriotically. That is precisely why I call them misguided. Idea

I believe history will reflect that their fight was against the best interests of Iraq.

0 Replies

If defeat is inevitable, would it not be one's patriotic duty to protect one's countrymen by ending hostilities as soon as possible?

In the absence of victory, there is only defeat.

I'll ask again:

1. Please define how you would characterize victory.
2. Then give me odds on whether that will occur.
3. Then tell me how many lives you are willing to sacrifice to accomplish it.
4. Then tell me again if that is victory.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you disagree that Saddam's Iraq is gone for good?

I'll agree that it's gone.

It is yet to be seen if it is for good.

Although I think you mean "never to return." I'd say that is a correct statement.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Yes, sez me. What say you? Do you believe a traitor in all but deed is a patriot?

There is no such thing as a "traitor in all but deed" in law. If you are operating with your own definition of "traitor" I suspect it is entirely possible for someone to also be a patriot (under the definition of wanting what the individual thinks is best for their country).

Using your own definitions of both "traitor" and "patriot" it is unsurprising that you could declare arbitrary incompatibility.

But that would make your argument nothing more than an ipse dixit (sez me).

0 Replies

while we are focused on arguing semantics of course...the bush administration goes on about the business of doing exactly as it pleases.....after all no ones paying attention.....

0 Replies

I have to leave now and am only up to page 9, but I thought Drewdad encapsulated the Iraqi situation with this simple statement....

Quote:

If we can't win then we've already lost. All that remains is throwing our troops in front of bombs and bullets until the administration can admit what a stupid idea this war was. And they, need I remind you, are incapable of admitting to a mistake.

Particularly the part about the Bush administration, and especially Bush himself, incapable of admitting a mistake.

Bush would be willing to see several million American soldiers die rather than admit he was wrong.

The man is a pathetic megalomaniac.

And I don't consider myself to be less of a patriot for calling him that.

0 Replies

hear hear Drew and Gus....

0 Replies

I guess Gus won't be donating to this year's Inaugural Ball fund.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And you have not explained why the thoughts you hold are in any way different than the thoughts held by that traitor. That being the case, it appears you are a traitor in all but deed. I'm not saying you are a traitor, mind you, but I am saying you are no patriot.

I, like Craven, am completely baffled by the notion of "a traitor in all but deed." That phrase is meaningless. If, however, you are asking what differentiates an American who wants the US to lose and one who acts treasonously, the answer is rather obvious: the act of treason.

I would not act treasonously as a means of furthering my goal of seeing the US lose the war, since (as I've explained before) it would be hypocritical of me to act unlawfully in order to restore the US's respect for the rule of law. And since I would not act treasonously, I would not consider acting treasonously. I would, in other words, neither act treasonously nor think treasonously.

Now you, Tico, seem to think that wanting the US to lose the war entails acting treasonously. You have, however, not demonstrated that the former entails the latter. For you to contend that I am a "traitor in all but deed," you need to establish that necessary connection.

Ticomaya wrote:

I said it above, I'll say it again, I agree that such a person is not a traitor. We're not talking about whether a crime was committed. We're talking about whether this "traitor in thought only" is a "patriot" or not. I say he is not, you seem to be saying he is.

I say no such thing, since I cannot understand the entire concept of a "traitor in thought only." You'll have to do a much better job of explaining this idiosyncratic notion.

0 Replies

I thought prior to now that I was the only one who wished we would lose this war. Glad to see I am in good company. We might as well hang together as seperately.

0 Replies

Actually - if I had my wishes - you'd win the damn thing - fast and clean - and actually manage to establish a working and fair government there.

I think repairing what has been broken - (however bad that was) - and leaving something better is a higher moral obligation for the US (and my damned country and Britain) than the US's moral well being.

Problems with this:

I become increasingly more pessimistic about it being doable - and I do consider the death toll there very heavily. Iraqis and allied soldiers.

An America - being the superpower it is - with no respect for the rule of law - has the capacity to do harm that may well be argued to outweigh the harm of leaving Iraq a worse cesspool.

Not being a patriotic American, I have less concern for the intrinsic wellbeing of American society than Joe does.

0 Replies

It seems that the "cogent" point of my post was lost on some of our more connotative members. The first question that comes to my mind, while perhaps the most irrelevant, is why doesn't any of my detractors allow Joe to respond for himself. They are all validating my statement that he began this thread preaching to the choir, something he has to have known - considering the amount of time spent discoursing with them at length in the past. So the "point" was lost now, was it? eg:

dlowan wrote:

I ask you, Just Wonders, because I see no points as such.

Huh? Ok - whatever - but - after all that, I am still unable to see a cogent point that Lusatian has made in relation to Joe's argument.

Craven de Kere wrote:

My brother had no point exept to deride. And I've long bemoaned that he thinks writing out long insults constitute an argument or an acceptable debate.

Since these are two of our most vaunted members, and firmly entrenched in their mental association with the "intelligensia" that dear Joe assuredly considers himself part of, I will underline my point.

Dlowan, Craven, and Joe talk is CHEAP. Talk is the orphaned child of ideas in action. If the discussion is intended to refine an actionable policy, agree on a course of action, or even formulate opinions that will then play a part in the subject aforementioned, then the conversation may have edifying aspects. But, the fact remains, undiminished from your opinions about my views, that none of you have any effect on the outcome, the unfolding of events, the STAKES of the war on terror or the war in Iraq outside of what might be seen on CNN. Point unclear Dlowan? Talk is cheap.

dlowan wrote:

Lusatian actually SAYS Joe has no stake - but to say that a citizen of the US has no stake in what is being done by the US seems to me so patently absurd, that I cannot believe he meant it. It is possible that he means that nobody who is not involved in pursuing the war ought to have a say in anything relating to it. I would love to see this opinion defended!

Okay I'll break it down. It's simple Dlowan:
Population of the United States = 293,027,571 (CIA World Fact Book July 2004 est.)
Joe from Chicago thereby equals about 0.0000000001% (Lusatian's conservative est.) of relevancy as to his thoughts that the US "lose" the war in Iraq.
Going by that statistic, since he neither participates in the war in either a direct (i.e. military, CIA, intelligence operative/analyst, law enforcement, even contrator), or even indirect way (TSA worker, military supplier, embassy staff, aide to policy-maker ... I'm even reaching here, etc), his opinion, and more importantly the talk spent defending it, should be given it's due - 0.0000000001% importance.

So regardless of cries of "ad hominem" or complaints that equate to "You're not part of the choir? Oh, you have NO point." facts stay the same. Talk is cheap. Stakes are non-exsistent for many talkers. So who cares if said talkers are patriots? I say, let them be "patriots". Let them talk.

Any clearer Dlwoan? I must beware as too much nuance just might render this Dlowan's arguement unargueable, in which case we might have to argue why it is unargueable and why I should use more words to argue, both the arguement, the unargueability of the arguement, and my arguementative nature throughout the arguement.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Pretty tricky, eh? That's the dilemma that the "War on Terrorism" has created. Aren't our legal-eagles trying to work out the details as we speak?

That's one of the dilemmas created by the "war on terrorism."

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you disagree that Saddam's Iraq is gone for good? Even if we pulled out today, our defeated foe would not be the one doing the victory dance.

I have absolutely no idea if Saddam's Iraq is gone for good. Saddam is still around, and it certainly is not unknown for a dictator to resume power after once being overthrown. And if Saddam's Iraq is gone for good, that's no guarantee that something equally bad or worse won't replace it.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Today we are fighting heavily armed, very determined extremists who are struggling to fill the power void left by the defeat of our enemy. They do not represent Saddam's Iraq. This more closely resembles a civil war. In this new struggle, we are allied with the new Iraq against would-be conquerors. While there is still war, it is not the same war... as the first was already irrevocably decided. Do you disagree that Saddam's Iraq is gone for good?

Well, it's good to see that you finally realize that there's a war going on in Iraq. Of course it's a different kind of war, but it's still an extension of the war that started when the US invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

From their perspective I'm sure they are Iraqi Patriots acting patriotically. That is precisely why I call them misguided. I believe history will reflect that their fight was against the best interests of Iraq.

Just as I am convinced that the US war in Iraq has been against the US's best interests.

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know