The limits of US power - Illusion in Iraq

I think I've caught the occasional conservative being critical of America, too. Wink

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

I think I've caught the occasional conservative being critical of America, too.

<gasp> Which one?

An aberration, I'm sure.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Back to the thread...

I've said it before, but the US military is designed to project power. It is unsurpassed as an offensive weapon. But maintaining order in Iraq calls for a constabulary, not a military force.

The articles are not just about bloody America!

They are talking about changes in what strategies work in modern warfare, and they are actually about Iraqis and their experience and unelpful beliefs, too.

But hey, while there can be a fight about American loyalties, utilizing the tired conservative/liberal dichotomy perceived to exist, why bother with ideas about anything else?

0 Replies

Er....

Sorry.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Back to the thread...

I've said it before, but the US military is designed to project power. It is unsurpassed as an offensive weapon. But maintaining order in Iraq calls for a constabulary, not a military force.

The articles are not just about bloody America!

...

Hmm. It appears the thread's author intended to address "bloody America." No?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
a number of the liberal A2K posters are disloyal Americans.

And you are number one on that list. I'm sick of your posts telling others that they are disloyal for just bringing up things that might make a complete paranoid like yourself uncomfortable. Osama and his buddies want us to bankrupt ourselves by fighting this possibly unending war, and you defend it. Congratulations Brandon, you've jumped ship, and are now officially helping aid and comfort the enemy. I don't hate you for it though. I pity you. How sad that you can't think past George Bush's a$$hole, which you seem to have your lips cemented to. Think about it, for a change, please.

It is clear that people who do nothing but geelfully trumpet any conceivable failure of the US, and ignore utterly the positive, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How am I by criticizing them for doing so? Are you capable of anything more substantial than name calling? I doubt that you will give anything like a rational answer.

0 Replies

Dunno.

You might try reading the things.

But hey, I give up.

Dinna worry DD, that tactic used by Brandon and now Tico is very effective. Pathetic, but hey, it works.

See?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Even supposing, which I do not, that the decision to invade was incorrect, that does not make the Americans any less disloyal who ignore any success we have, ignore any Iraqi who likes us, and gleefully trumpet any potential military or other failure.

I didn't want to comment at first. I don't want to derail the thread. But.

In my opinion, if one's country's government decided to invade another country, and the decision to invade was "incorrect", it is the duty of the citizens to critizise their government. It is their duty to ignore any success an unlawful invasion might render. It is their duty to ignore any collaborators in the invaded country.

I don't understand how anybody could reach any other conclusion.

I didn't. I clearly must explain this as to a small child. I said that people who post nothing but criticisms of America, trumpet any conceivable military failure, including imaginary ones, with glee, and never mention any of the positive things which certainly must be occurring, are disloyal. I did not say that anyone who criticizes the war is disloyal. This is just a strawman to make it possible to argue with me.

However, during time of war, even a war that one doesn't agree with, a loyal citizen may criticize it, but will not criticize it in such a way as to make military defeat substantially more likely.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Then perhaps you're not one of those who has posts that quote various potential miltary setbacks with comments like, "Look, we're failing here," and "looking we're getting creamed here," and "Ha ha look what jerks we made of ourselves here." In fact, wasn't there an A2K liberal thread for a long time with some title like, "I Want Us to Fail in Iraq?"

No, it was I Want the US to Lose the War in Iraq. And it wasn't a "liberal thread." Some of the participants may have been liberals -- just as some of the participants may have been conservatives -- but the thread itself was apolitical.

Don't diss the thread, man.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
a number of the liberal A2K posters are disloyal Americans

Yeah! Like dlowan and blatham!

Strawman. Where did I include them?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Dinna worry DD, that tactic used by Brandon and now Tico is very effective. Pathetic, but hey, it works.

See?

I don't see. Which tactic might that be, Deb?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
a number of the liberal A2K posters are disloyal Americans

Yeah! Like dlowan and blatham!

Strawman. Where did I include them?

Are you truly devoid of any sense of humor? You really need to lighten up a little.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Dunno.

You might try reading the things.

But hey, I give up.

Dinna worry DD, that tactic used by Brandon and now Tico is very effective. Pathetic, but hey, it works.

See?

Aw... don't get all up in Tico's face. I'd meet him for a beer, even if he is a flippin' Republican.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Back to the thread...

I've said it before, but the US military is designed to project power. It is unsurpassed as an offensive weapon. But maintaining order in Iraq calls for a constabulary, not a military force.

The articles are not just about bloody America!

They are talking about changes in what strategies work in modern warfare, and they are actually about Iraqis and their experience and unelpful beliefs, too.

Wait a minute... The thread says limits of US power! Neener neener!

0 Replies

Sorry, dlowan, but sometimes it's just impossible to resist. Usually I try to stay out of these fights, but every once in a while, I feel like I have to jump in and say something.

Brandon9000 wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
a number of the liberal A2K posters are disloyal Americans.

And you are number one on that list. I'm sick of your posts telling others that they are disloyal for just bringing up things that might make a complete paranoid like yourself uncomfortable. Osama and his buddies want us to bankrupt ourselves by fighting this possibly unending war, and you defend it. Congratulations Brandon, you've jumped ship, and are now officially helping aid and comfort the enemy. I don't hate you for it though. I pity you. How sad that you can't think past George Bush's a$$hole, which you seem to have your lips cemented to. Think about it, for a change, please.

It is clear that people who do nothing but geelfully trumpet any conceivable failure of the US, and ignore utterly the positive, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How am I by criticizing them for doing so? Are you capable of anything more substantial than name calling? I doubt that you will give anything like a rational answer.

First of all, where did I call you a name in that post? Oh, you mean when I called you a disloyal American? Oh, yeah, that name that YOU called everyone before. Oh, now I get it. Your condescending answers are, as usual, laughable, and also very Bush-like. You're learning well.

There is nobody "gleefully trumpeting" anything here, Brandon. And I never said that you can't criticize them. All I'm saying is that you trying to brand them disloyal and insult them by saying they give aid and comfort to the enemy is pretty ironic, considering the fact that you try to shout over any dissenting voice, which is exactly the path that will lead us down the same road we've been on, a path which will lead us further into the quagmire that we're already deeply mired in.

You are a lot like a guy in a crowd of people who are being blindly led right off the edge of a cliff, and whenever someone says, "hey, there's a cliff up here, we should stop!" you tell them, "Shut up and look at the positive! At least the view will be nice on the way down!"

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't. I clearly must explain this as to a small child. I said that people who post nothing but criticisms of America, trumpet any conceivable military failure, including imaginary ones, with glee, and never mention any of the positive things which certainly must be occurring, are disloyal. I did not say that anyone who criticizes the war is disloyal. This is just a strawman to make it possible to argue with me.

However, during time of war, even a war that one doesn't agree with, a loyal citizen may criticize it, but will not criticize it in such a way as to make military defeat substantially more likely.

I can't find any articles with positive things occurring in iraq, why dont you post some Brandon.

0 Replies

Deb, those are interesting quotes. I admit that I hadn't given much thought to the fact that most modern governments don't fully understand the role of the military in the modern world. That force of arms alone can't win a war (in any meaningful sense of the word 'win') should have been obvious by now.

There's an old, old saying about the Irish: We won all the battles but lost all the wars.

0 Replies

See?[/quote]
Aw... don't get all up in Tico's face. I'd meet him for a beer, even if he is a flippin' Republican.[/quote]

I've never met tico, but I'd have a beer with him. If I agreed with everything he posts on a2k, it'll just be a miracle - cause even all my siblings are republicans. LOL

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
In my opinion, if one's country's government decided to invade another country, and the decision to invade was "incorrect", it is the duty of the citizens to critizise their government. It is their duty to ignore any success an unlawful invasion might render. It is their duty to ignore any collaborators in the invaded country.

I don't understand how anybody could reach any other conclusion.

I didn't. I clearly must explain this as to a small child.

Nice. Well, what would Brandon have answered here?

Brandon9000 wrote:

I note that this ad hominem doesn't address any of the points of my argument.

So, let's move on.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I said that people who post nothing but criticisms of America, trumpet any conceivable military failure, including imaginary ones, with glee, and never mention any of the positive things which certainly must be occurring, are disloyal. I did not say that anyone who criticizes the war is disloyal. This is just a strawman to make it possible to argue with me.

You think way too much of yourself. It's neither a strawman I put up nor something you had said. You said

Brandon9000 wrote:

supposing [...] that the decision to invade was incorrect, that does not make the Americans any less disloyal [...]

You said, even if the war was illegal, any American who would criticize it would be disloyal. I specifically answered that one sentence. That's why I quoted it. If you wanted to say something different, you should maybe have posted it. But the way it is, I can only look at what you actually posted.

If you're incapable of wording your opinions the way you wanted to, it's not my fault, Brandon.

Brandon9000 wrote:

However, during time of war, even a war that one doesn't agree with, a loyal citizen may criticize it, but will not criticize it in such a way as to make military defeat substantially more likely.

We were not talking merely about "a war that one doesn't agree with". What we were talking about was that the "decision to invade was incorrect". A wrong decision. An illegal war. Well, you were talking about that.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question: Were Germans who criticized the invasion of Poland in 1939 disloyal?

0 Replies

Who is being disloyal to whom?

OK I'm a Brit so I'm talking in general terms not specifically American.

If a democratically elected government abuses its position and lies to its own people about the necessity for war...

If it tells the people they are in danger from the enemy's terrible weapons...

which it uses as justification for starting war, when it knows those weapons pose no danger

when it exploits the patriotism of young men and women and sends them off to give their lives for the profits of large corporations

when those same men and women are killed and injured and not properly cared for on their return home, but the adverts for more recruits pump out patriotic propaganda.

When journalists try and report the truth and get killed or their good name smeared, every effort being made to disguise the true nature of what is going on...

Who is being disloyal to who?

0 Replies

The limits of US power - Illusion in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know