I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

So - your point now is that people should not think or talk about what men of action such as yourself do?

And - because you have a large population, people thinking about stuff doesn't matter even more than it doesn't matter here?

Oh - and you still prefer rudeness to thought - and you STILL don't like intellectuals?

(Actually, I do not count myself amongst sych, BTW - I do not know about Joe - I believe the pursuit requires more discipline of study and effort than I put in)

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Now you, Tico, seem to think that wanting the US to lose the war entails acting treasonously.

What lead you to that wrong conclusion?

You summed up my point when you said ....

Joe wrote:

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.

It seems to me that the principle difference between you and a traitor is an overt act in furtherance of your desires. That's my point.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Joe wrote:
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.

It seems to me that the principle difference between you and a traitor is an overt act in furtherance of your desires. That's my point.

Tico, I feel you may be hung up on the word "lose."

If Joe were to say he wants the US out of Iraq as quickly as possible, whether or not the "mission" of creating a stable democratic Iraqi government is accomplished, would you say that is a "traitorous thought?"

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

So - your point now is that people should not think or talk about what men of action such as yourself do?

And - because you have a large population, people thinking about stuff doesn't matter even more than it doesn't matter here?

Oh - and you still prefer rudeness to thought - and you STILL don't like intellectuals?

(Actually, I do not count myself amongst sych, BTW - I do not know about Joe - I believe the pursuit requires more discipline of study and effort than I put in)

Don't waste your time dlowan, he's just trolling.

0 Replies

Also:

My friend has a new bike.

I desire my friend's bike.

My friend does not want to loan or sell me his bike; there is no legal way for me to gain ownership of the bike.

Yet I do not steal the bike.

The only difference between me and a thief is that overt act of theft....

Can I still call myself a friend even though I want his bike?

0 Replies

I am not patriotic and have never been patriotic but I love America for what it ideally represents and sometimes I agree with our decisions and sometimes I don't and I voice my beliefs on both. It really don't bother too much if someone says that I am unpatriotic or even anti-american. I don't consider it the same as saying that I am anti-america which would bother me. (thought about the issue some more after it was brought up on the other thread)

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that I wish we would loose the war as that would mean troops dying, but neither do I want us to win the war as that would mean a lot of their people dying.

Furthermore, I hope that Rumsfeld and Bush don't achieve their objectives of turning that country into what they feel it ought to be. But I do hope that the Iraqis someday have their country the way they want it however that is, even if it is an islamic style state or even if it is a democracy.

I am glad that Saddam Hussien is no longer in power but I think it could have been done another way with fewer lives lost and even if not, we still had no right to invade the country when we did since we were never in any clear and present danger from Saddam Hussien nor was he doing anything to any of his neighbors that would represent some kind of immediate danger that had to be deal with right away.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

dlowan wrote:
So - your point now is that people should not think or talk about what men of action such as yourself do?

And - because you have a large population, people thinking about stuff doesn't matter even more than it doesn't matter here?

Oh - and you still prefer rudeness to thought - and you STILL don't like intellectuals?

(Actually, I do not count myself amongst sych, BTW - I do not know about Joe - I believe the pursuit requires more discipline of study and effort than I put in)

Don't waste your time dlowan, he's just trolling.

Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!

Craven accused someone of trolling.... Does that mean I can do the same?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Tico, I feel you may be hung up on the word "lose."

No ... if I'm hung up on anything it's the fact that someone believes himself to be patriotic even though he's rooting for the enemy in our current conflict. You do realize that someone who wants the US to lose must also want our American soldiers to be killed when they go into battle with the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, right? That person must cheer when he reads in the morning newspaper that another roadside explosion has claimed the life of more US Marines, because that is what he wants to happen at this point. He believes that if a few of them die that is in the overall best interests of the US, and because he believes he has the best interests of the US in mind, he believes himself to be patriotic.

DrewDad wrote:

If Joe were to say he wants the US out of Iraq as quickly as possible, whether or not the "mission" of creating a stable democratic Iraqi government is accomplished, would you say that is a "traitorous thought?"

No.

DrewDad wrote:

Also:

My friend has a new bike.

I desire my friend's bike.

My friend does not want to loan or sell me his bike; there is no legal way for me to gain ownership of the bike.

Yet I do not steal the bike.

The only difference between me and a thief is that overt act of theft....

Can I still call myself a friend even though I want his bike?

That depends ... do you want your friend to die in an automobile accident so you can take the bike? Because if you do, you are not his friend.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Now you, Tico, seem to think that wanting the US to lose the war entails acting treasonously.

What lead you to that wrong conclusion?

Because of statements like this:

Ticomaya wrote:

It seems to me that the principle difference between you and a traitor is an overt act in furtherance of your desires. That's my point.

And the principle difference between you and a murderer is that you haven't killed anyone -- as far as I know.

Really, this is all nonsensical. DrewDad gives a very good analogy which highlights the invalidity of your argument. I would only add that, if the only way to further the ends of American defeat was to act treasonously, you might have a point. But you have (despite repeated opportunities) failed to demonstrate that the only way to further the end of American defeat in Iraq is to act treasonously. I will not, however, pursue this increasingly pointless discussion. If you think that I'm a traitor "in my heart," I will make no further attempt to disabuse you of your mistaken opinion.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

No ... if I'm hung up on anything it's the fact that someone believes himself to be patriotic even though he's rooting for the enemy in our current conflict. You do realize that someone who wants the US to lose must also want our American soldiers to be killed when they go into battle with the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, right? That person must cheer when he reads in the morning newspaper that another roadside explosion has claimed the life of more US Marines, because that is what he wants to happen at this point. He believes that if a few of them die that is in the overall best interests of the US, and because he believes he has the best interests of the US in mind, he believes himself to be patriotic.

Even though I've explained it at length, you still know nothing of my position.

I regret every single American death in Iraq, since those deaths do not serve any interest. I no more rejoice when Iraqis kill Americans than I do when Americans kill Iraqis, since none of those deaths were necessary. And I do not think that more Iraqis killing more Americans will lead to a quick defeat any more than I believe that more Americans killing more Iraqis will lead to a quick victory. The only morally and legally acceptable way to end this unjust war is for American forces to leave Iraq immediately. The killing should stop now.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Now you, Tico, seem to think that wanting the US to lose the war entails acting treasonously.

What lead you to that wrong conclusion?

Because of statements like this:

Ticomaya wrote:
It seems to me that the principle difference between you and a traitor is an overt act in furtherance of your desires. That's my point.

And the principle difference between you and a murderer is that you haven't killed anyone -- as far as I know.

What is it about my quoted statement that leads you to think I believe your wanting the US to lose the war entails acting treasonously? When have I said that? I certainly didn't in this statement. I identified that the difference between you and a traitor is your lack of action. If you acted treasonously, then you would be a traitor. As it is, all you are is NOT patriotic.

Since I haven't killed anyone, I'm no murderer. But if I want my friend dead so I can steal his bike, I'm not his friend. True, I'm also not a murderer, but that's hardly the point of this discussion.

joe wrote:

Really, this is all nonsensical. DrewDad gives a very good analogy which highlights the invalidity of your argument. I would only add that, if the only way to further the ends of American defeat was to act treasonously, you might have a point. But you have (despite repeated opportunities) failed to demonstrate that the only way to further the end of American defeat in Iraq is to act treasonously. I will not, however, pursue this increasingly pointless discussion. If you think that I'm a traitor "in my heart," I will make no further attempt to disabuse you of your mistaken opinion.

Then run with DrewDad's analogy. My remark to it still stands.

joe wrote:

I regret every single American death in Iraq, since those deaths do not serve any interest. I no more rejoice when Iraqis kill Americans than I do when Americans kill Iraqis, since none of those deaths were necessary. And I do not think that more Iraqis killing more Americans will lead to a quick defeat any more than I believe that more Americans killing more Iraqis will lead to a quick victory. The only morally and legally acceptable way to end this unjust war is for American forces to leave Iraq immediately. The killing should stop now.

I'll spend no more time discussing with you whether your wanting the US to lose this war means you want the US forces to be defeated in battle by the insurgents. That seems rather obvious to me, and it is nonsense to think otherwise.

Think what you will. You are certainly entitled to your views about the war. I honestly could care less. But don't think you are a patriot if you want the US to be defeated in battle. You are not.

0 Replies

Try reading this bit, Tico, of what Joe said:

"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."

This is what Joe is primarily meaning by defeat.

0 Replies

It doesn't seem to include a lot of killing of US soldiers.

0 Replies

It used to enrage me that President Bush's Iraq policy was seen as a failure. I've always considered the real failure was on the part of the weak and impoverished UN policy (an economic embargo and policy which kept a dictator in place to murder and torture much of Iraq's citizenry while only achieving the ruination of the Iraqi infrastructure). That was truly an abject failure...a charade, at best.

I'm much calmer now because I realize there will always be those Americans who will oppose whatever good might be accomplished and whatever peace might be achieved in the Middle East on the technicality that the war was entered into illegally. That's just a fact of life that has to be endured, but to much of the population it isn't a consideration.

So, although Joe might remain disgruntled in the face of a continuation of the present policy, I don't think he'd mind if there's a good outcome, a peaceful and stable Iraq, a nation that, while not immediately, may someday be grateful to this president and this country that was instrumental in bringing this peace and stability to them.

The majority of the 140,000+ soldiers serving in Iraq support the efforts there. This is the most intelligent military ever amassed. Many of the enlisted men rival their superior officers in education, all are high school graduates and many, many have bachelor's degrees and more.

Many of these men and women are more than willing to point out the progress being made in Iraq on a daily basis. Most are candid about the seemingly slow pace of the progress, pointing out that the massive rebuilding will take time. They are so patient, but then they see the fruits of their efforts.

O'Bill is right that the "war" has already been won. The concentration is now on the peace and stability and I've no doubts that we'll prevail. It will take a lot of time and a lot of effort and a lot of hard work. It isn't Vietnam revisited, although I know many here view it as such. It isn't.

I'm hopeful the elections will go forward as planned. I'm hopeful that the American press will heed what the troops are saying and start reporting "both" sides.

So, Joe shouldn't worry about how he's perceived or whether or not others question his patriotism. If he's unhappy with any aspect of this administration there's only one way to achieve his goals and how he goes about that is his business and his alone.

0 Replies

Joe, I have no problem with what you are saying in theory. But in reality, you must know that there is no way in hell the U.S. is going to pull out of Iraq anytime soon.

Given that cold hard reality, do you still wish the U.S. would lose this war? I know you have not said that, but I don't see how it is unreasonable for Tyco to follow the logic of your argument to that point.

I mean, if you say that the only definition of "losing" the war is an immediate withdrawal by the U.S., and that is an impossible dream scenario that will never happen, then isn't what you're saying basically meaningless?

0 Replies

There's always been the doubters, JW. Even after WWII. Check this out.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

There's always been the doubters, JW. Even after WWII. Check this out.

Amazing story, O'Bill!!!! I just happened to catch a law school student (veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom) speaking about that very thing! He's confident (as am I) that we're doing the right thing, but pointed out what happened during the reconstruction phase in Germany and Japan.

Patience! :wink:

0 Replies

Yes - there have always been doubters. Sometimes our reading of history suggests they were right, sometimes wrong.

For instance - Japanese folk who doubted what their government was doing in 1941 might be viewed by some as correct in their doubts - on both ethical and practical grounds.

The basis for doubt therefore needs to be examined in each situation - unless you are arguing that invading another country is ALWAYS right?

The fact that most of us would disagree with doubters about WW II does not actually have any rational link with whether or not doubts being expressed about the war in Iraq make sense or not. Interestingly, in your country, it was largely the right who did not want to see the US join in - but nemmind...

Therefore, your joy over finding doubters about WW II ought not to make you folk feel all warm and cosy about your views now.

There might appear - to the discerning observer - to be some somewhat noticeable differences between the situation in Sept 1939, when most of our countries began fighting WW II - or 1941 when the US did - and the situation with Iraq.

0 Replies

Nice reading - and as Gus already noted: "anyone here as changed their position on anything".

I haven't, too. Still reading my local paper "The Patriot". :wink:

0 Replies

As far as I see, the invasion of Irak is becoming a quagmire- just as Vietnam 30 years ago- . The easiest solution would be a quick withdrawal. There will be no more casualties, and Irak would retrieve political and economical estability, which will ultimately lead to peace in the Middle East and the end of international terrorism. Well, does somebody actually think this? I am afraid John Kerry did, and due to this he lost millions of votes.

If we withdraw, Bin Laden and his men will have inflicted a decissive blow to the US moral, even more destructive than the 11S attack. The countries which belong to the Axis of Evil - Syria, Iran, North Korea- will be encouraged to support terrorism, with no risk. Without American troops to ensure order, Irak´s weak political estructures will collapse and finally it will break out a civil war( which will make the invasion seem good by comparison). The winning faction will ally with US enemies all over the world...

What about the US soldiers who have sacrified their lives? Are we going to destroy their work? Just think about this. A war has never been won trough cowardice.

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know