I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Re: I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

joefromchicago wrote:

"Can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic?"

NO.

Why?

0 Replies

Thomas Hayden wrote:

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.

bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq, neither did AQ until after we invaded the country on either lies or misconceptions (take your pick).

If the elections go off as planed, why can't we withdraw without it seeming to be running from a situation that we created? After all our stated goals after getting saddam was to turn the Iraq country into a democracy. If the elections goes off as planned we will have met that goal and can go home.

Our war is with AQ which is why a lot of them went to Iraq to fight us by stirring up trouble with those discontent with the US occupation. Since we are the target of AQ it seems to me if we leave then so will a lot of the killing in that country.

0 Replies

...and when did Syria replace Iraq in the axis of evil? What did I miss?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

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.

One can still hope.

kickycan wrote:

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 want the US to rectify the damage that it has done in Iraq and return to obeying the rule of law. That can only be accomplished by an immediate withdrawal. Absent that, I find it difficult to distinguish between eventual victory and eventual defeat. A long, costly war that ends in victory would have much the same result as a long, costly war that ends in defeat: in both cases, the US would have defied international law, reneged on its promises, and irreparably damaged its interests. As such, the only reason to prefer one result over another would be to prefer a less bloody conclusion over a more bloody one; victory or defeat, in that event, would be largely irrelevant.

kickycan wrote:

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?

We can never anticipate what statements we make today will be "meaningless" tomorrow. The idle, utopian dreamers who, in early 2001, hoped for an American invasion of Iraq can attest to that.

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're hung up on the idea that wanting the US to admit the futility of the current action and cut our losses amounts to "rooting for the enemy." That for the US to "lose" someone else must "win." Nothing could be further from the truth; the fact that you cannot see a difference is your problem, not Joe's.

Ticomaya wrote:

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?

No. There is a difference between losing a battle, which would result in US casualties, and losing the war, which could mean an immediate withdrawl with no US casualties.

I can definitely imagine a "winning" scenario that costs many more US lives than an immediate withdrawl. Doesn't that mean the folks that want to continue the action in Iraq must want our American soldiers to be killed?

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

This is absurd.

I ask you again Tico, or other supporters of the US adventure in Iraq:

1. Show me a practical winning scenario. (What has to happen, how long does it have to last.)
2. Give me odds.
3. Give me casualty estimates.
4. Tell me again that it constitutes winning.

I've been asking for days, and no one has taken a stab at it. You keep saying we have to win. You can't even define win. Doesn't that mean we've already lost?

P.S. Don't give me a Merriam-Webster BS answer for defining "win."

0 Replies

a winning scenario...the corporations who support and assure the election of their lap dogs in order to create a sort of perpetual political motion own Iraq and profit from it's resources regardless of the outcome of this adventure....this has always been the goal for the outcome.....beautiful in it's simplicity and made to appear complex in order to keep the proles confused....

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

a winning scenario...the corporations who support and assure the election of their lap dogs in order to create a sort of perpetual political motion own Iraq and profit from it's resources regardless of the outcome of this adventure....this has always been the goal for the outcome.....beautiful in it's simplicity and made to appear complex in order to keep the proles confused....

While I'm quite willing to attribute greed as a motive for quite a number of sins, I think this one has more to do with simplistic ideas and wishful thinking.

But since Bush, like the Pope, is infallible we have to continue on down this horrible, messy, blood-spattered road until everyone chokes on the stench of death.

0 Replies

We've already won the war. The objectives of war were met. Saddam Hussein, nor the Ba'athists are in power.

If we leave now, we're simply cutting out on a promise, and leaving, arguably, a worse situation that we found.

Only a monster would cut at this point.

Leaving successfully would require a standing govt in Iraq--and a well-trained law enforcement--and a well-trained military.

Since our presence is attracting terrorists, it is in our interests, and those of Iraq, for us to wipe out as many of them as we can.

The terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and military trainees. Sort of hard to recruit them.

Rumsfeld was wrong about how many troops it would take to pull this off. We need an overwhelming force for several months to clean out the terrorist hot spots--and to maintain control and safety--while we possibly ship trainees to locations harder for the terrorists to reach.

If we can get them trained and in place--and a few months after elections, we should be able to rotate out.

0 Replies

but drew...at the end of all things...it is all simple....you can dress it up all you want but the goal is simplicity itself...power and money and the retention of it at any cost. Period. The rich are rich because it's the thing that matters most to them, therefore they will do anything in the pursuit of what matters most to them. Same with the poweful.
It's perverse beauty lies in it's simplicity.

0 Replies

So lash I suppose it's safe to say then that "Peace
Is Not Healthy For Living Things" I see an opportunity here for a whole new line of black light posters and tshirts.....

0 Replies

DrewDad: As you know, as I write this the US military is fighting Iraqi insurgents in Iraq. Joe didn't say he only wants "the US to admit the futility of the current action and cut our losses." He didn't limit his remarks to saying he wanted to see the US pull out of Iraq. He said he wants to see the US "lose the war". Those were the words he used. In the current context, that means he wants to see US forces lose on the battlefield where they are fighting and dying on a daily basis.

I agree it's "absurd." It's absurd that he considers himself patriotic for thinking the way he does.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

We've already won the war.

Hollow laugh.

Lash wrote:

The objectives of war were met. Saddam Hussein, nor the Ba'athists are in power.

Quite a few Ba'athists in the police forces nowadays.... OK former Ba'athists.

If the objectives were met, then why do we still have offensive operations? You can call it whatever you like, but our soldiers are still being killed.

Lash wrote:

If we leave now, we're simply cutting out on a promise, and leaving, arguably, a worse situation that we found.

But the objectives were met, no? No? OK.

Lash wrote:

Only a monster would cut at this point.

The US is already a monster.

Lash wrote:

Leaving successfully would require a standing govt in Iraq--and a well-trained law enforcement--and a well-trained military.

OK. At last, a definition of victory. Now tell me what are the odds that this will be accomplished, and how many lives it will cost.

I suspect that if the US left, the situation would stabalize fairly quickly. The clerics would take control and establish law and order. Not our law of course.

Lash wrote:

Since our presence is attracting terrorists...

A good point. Perhaps a good reason to leave.

Lash wrote:

...it is in our interests, and those of Iraq, for us to wipe out as many of them as we can.

Really? How so? The way I read it, killing these people just provides the terrorists with an ever-increasing pool of recruits. We don't need to kill the foot soldiers; we need to lop off the heads of the organizations.

Lash wrote:

The terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and military trainees. Sort of hard to recruit them.

Yep.

Lash wrote:

Rumsfeld was wrong about how many troops it would take to pull this off. We need an overwhelming force for several months to clean out the terrorist hot spots--and to maintain control and safety--while we possibly ship trainees to locations harder for the terrorists to reach.

Good plan. Too bad no one is implementing it. You mind calling up Rummy and letting him know?

Lash wrote:

If we can get them trained and in place--and a few months after elections, we should be able to rotate out.

OK. A few months you say? Really?

Like when this war was going to be a cakewalk?
Like when capturing Saddam would end all resistance?
Like when occupying Fallujah would end all resistance?
Like the elections are going to end all resistance?

C'mon, you gotta do better than that! This rosy scenario is pretty far from the hard realities of life in Iraq right now.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad: As you know, as I write this the US military is fighting Iraqi insurgents in Iraq. Joe didn't say he only wants "the US to admit the futility of the current action and cut our losses." He didn't limit his remarks to saying he wanted to see the US pull out of Iraq. He said he wants to see the US "lose the war". Those were the words he used. the current context, that means he wants to see US forces lose on the battlefield where they are fighting and dying on a daily basis.

I agree it's "absurd." It's absurd that he considers himself patriotic for thinking the way he does.

I find it absurd that you are so literal-minded that you can not distinguish a rhetorical hyperbole from an actual desire.

Or I find it absurd that you would claim to be so literal-minded that you can not distinguish a rhetorical hyperbole from an actual desire.

Absurd is as absurd does.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Since our presence is attracting terrorists, it is in our interests, and those of Iraq, for us to wipe out as many of them as we can.

Indeed, Lash, "bring 'em on!"

Actually, this notion of attracting terrorists to Iraq so that we can kill them all in a big bunch, nicknamed the "flypaper theory," has turned out to be rubbish. Most estimates place the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at around 500, although the number might be as high as 3000. In fact, if any group has been attracted to Iraq in great numbers to be killed, it is American soldiers, not Muslim terrorists.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Joe didn't say he only wants "the US to admit the futility of the current action and cut our losses." He didn't limit his remarks to saying he wanted to see the US pull out of Iraq.

"... 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."

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Lash wrote:
Since our presence is attracting terrorists, it is in our interests, and those of Iraq, for us to wipe out as many of them as we can.

Indeed, Lash, "bring 'em on!"

Actually, this notion of attracting terrorists to Iraq so that we can kill them all in a big bunch, nicknamed the "flypaper theory," has turned out to be rubbish. Most estimates place the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at around 500, although the number might be as high as 3000. In fact, if any group has been attracted to Iraq in great numbers to be killed, it is American soldiers, not Muslim terrorists.

Yes, there is a large difference between a foot soldier with a rifle and the kind of operative that can infiltrate the US, operate within the US for some undefined period of time without arousing undue suspicion, gather intelligence, plan an attack, and finally execute the attack.

Even the 9/11 terrorists were suspected; the memos from the field offices were discounted.

0 Replies

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

0 Replies

You can rest your mind, Joe--the war in Iraq is well and truly lost now. The problem is getting the hell out of there.

But the Neo-cons would not read the story of Brit involvement there in the 1920's before the war, and they won't read it now. You can bet the children or grandchildren of the PNAC membership aren't dying in Iraq, so you can also bet they don't give a rat's ass. The only question now is how long those bastards will hang on in the chimerical belief that they can "establish bases in southwest Asia."

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

Speaking for myself: Yes, yes, no.

Now will come the justification that Saddam was a monster killing his own people; that pulling out will cause more deaths than staying.

Saddam was a monster; the US tolerates many other monsters without invading. Go invade Sudan if you want to stop monsters. For that matter, funnel money into AIDS medication for Africa if you want to save lives.

Pulling out will cause some disorder; remaining will cause some disorder. Prove which one will cause more disorder.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Joe didn't say he only wants "the US to admit the futility of the current action and cut our losses." He didn't limit his remarks to saying he wanted to see the US pull out of Iraq.

"... 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."

If you are now claiming you only want the US to pull out immediately, perhaps you should start over and rename this thread to something that better signifies your "true" meaning. "I want the US to lose the war in Iraq" doesn't seem to carry the meaning you are now trying to nuance. Neither does ... "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."

Maybe a better title for your thread would have been "I want the US to immediately withdraw from Iraq." Then we could later debate whether such action would signify a "defeat" to the US. You could have gone on to claim to be patriotic for thinking such thoughts, and I could have saved a lot of time responding to you .... but perhaps that was your goal all along.

Others might have responded, for there are no doubt many who think you must support the US in everything it does in order to be a patriot. I am not one of those. But if you want the US to "lose," you are not a patriot.

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know