Is Bush now a Defeatist?

Tell me what's wrong with my logic.

That is just so much claptrap. Who is "the enemy?" ...

...What is meant by embolden?

How is one to reliably recognize either the effect or the object?

The claim is sufficiently vague as to not admit of proof or disproof--a perfect sort of thing for a politician, though, of course.

I have not deposed any terrorists, so if that's the kind of evidence you seek, I have none. As I said, I agree with the notion ... you are free to disagree if you choose.

But it is, after all, simple logic. The criticism of the war I'm referring to primarily, are the exclamations that we "cannot win the war," or that we have to "cut and run" and set a date to pull out. It is asinine -- and illogical -- to believe the terrorists see Americans turned against each other on this issue, and are not emboldened. The effect of that is to increase their morale ... after all, all they have to do is hold out and win a war of attrition. Conversely, if America was united in the war effort, they would not be so emboldened. Tell me what's wrong with my logic.

It's logical, Set ... which I've come to see is not your strong suit, based upon prior discussions of ours.

Ticomaya wrote:

I have not deposed any terrorists, so if that's the kind of evidence you seek, I have none. As I said, I agree with the notion ... you are free to disagree if you choose.

I'd be happy with one "terrorist" saying something like: "I would not be attacking the Great Satan if it hadn't been for this article about Jack Murtha in The New Republic that I read last week."

Ticomaya wrote:

But it is, after all, simple logic. The criticism of the war I'm referring to primarily, are the exclamations that we "cannot win the war," or that we have to "cut and run" and set a date to pull out. It is asinine -- and illogical -- to believe the terrorists see Americans turned against each other on this issue, and are not emboldened. The effect of that is to increase their morale ... after all, all they have to do is hold out and win a war of attrition. Conversely, if America was united in the war effort, they would not be so emboldened. Tell me what's wrong with my logic.

Well, let's see ... everything.

It's not just that you have no evidence that the "enemy" gives a rat's ass about American public opinion, it's that there's no evidence that even suggests a connection. Iraqis were killing Americans when the war had a 70% approval rating, and they're killing Americans now that the war has a 35% approval rating. If the war becomes more popular, do you expect that the killings will diminish?

No doubt, you would argue that, when the war was popular, Iraqis killed Americans to weaken the war effort, and, now that the war is unpopular, Iraqis are killing Americans because they are emboldened by opposition to the war. So, in effect, if we support the war, we encourage the killing of more Americans, and if we don't support the war, we encourage the killing of more Americans. Well then, what can't we do to encourage the killing of more Americans? Setanta's right: your assertion cannot be proved or disproved. It is logically barren. And that is what's wrong with your logic.

Ticomaya wrote:

It's logical, Set ... which I've come to see is not your strong suit, based upon prior discussions of ours.

No, it's not at all logical, because it's just vague bullshit. I'm not fighting anyone, so there's no "whoever we're fighting."

But your inability to frame coherent thought leaves me in no doubt that this will be the best you can come up with. I didn't need your dicitionary definition of embolden, what i was seeking, and what you have not provided is any scarp of evidence that anyone anywhere has been emboldened.

If you mean insurgents in Iraq, or Palestinians or Hezbollah, ...

... i'd point out to you that strapping explosives to one's body and walking into a crowd to detonate it is about as bold as one can get. How do you suggest such individuals are "emboldened."

You wouldn't know logic it if it bit you in your considerably expansive ass.

But hey, Tico, don't let little stuff like clearheaded thinking stop you from continuing to defend something inane.

Well, the next time I'm down 'round Gitmo, I'll ask "one."

The fact that I have no evidence they give a rat's ass is not evidence they don't give a rat's ass.

We know when we found al Zarqawi's body that he had an Arabic version of Newsweek nearby. Do you suppost he was just interested in the cartoons?

I'm not suggesting the terrorists would give up if the war had a 70% approval rating, but I don't see how you can honestly claim a 30% approval rating does not have the effect on the "enemy" that I'm suggesting it does.

No, I don't argue that ... I'm suggesting the opposition to the war such as I'm referring to has the effect of bolstering the morale of the "enemy." (Looking to relatively recent history, we know this was the case in Vietnam.) This is certainly logical.

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, the next time I'm down 'round Gitmo, I'll ask "one."

You "do" that.

Ticomaya wrote:

The fact that I have no evidence they give a rat's ass is not evidence they don't give a rat's ass.

No, but it's proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

Ticomaya wrote:

I'm not suggesting the terrorists would give up if the war had a 70% approval rating, but I don't see how you can honestly claim a 30% approval rating does not have the effect on the "enemy" that I'm suggesting it does.

If you're not suggesting that the terrorists would give up if the war had a 70% approval rating, then you're admitting that there's no cause-and-effect relationship between support for the war and the motivation of the "enemy." And if there's no cause-and-effect relationship between the two (in other words, if supporting or opposing the war leads ultimately to the same result), then there's no reason to complain about domestic opposition to the war.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I don't argue that ... I'm suggesting the opposition to the war such as I'm referring to has the effect of bolstering the morale of the "enemy." (Looking to relatively recent history, we know this was the case in Vietnam.) This is certainly logical.

Even if you were right (and I doubt that you are), why should we care? If the "terrorists" kill Americans when their morale is low at the same rate as they kill Americans when their morale is high, what practical difference does it make? Why should we care if the guys shooting at our troops are sullen and morose or giddy with delight?

I've seen your picture, too, Tico, ...

... and it's nothing like your fantasy avatar.

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, the next time I'm down 'round Gitmo, I'll ask "one."

You "do" that.

I "will."

No ... it's proof that I have no evidence, and nothing more.

I never claimed all of the terrorists would stop fighting but for the objections to the war of the anti-war left. But if they think they can win a war of attrition, the terrorists are emboldened by any successes of the anti-war left.

Do you think it is better, in terms of their fighting ability, for the US Armed Forces to have a high or a low morale? What is the point of trying to maintain a high morale? The negative physical and psychological effects of a poor morale can be devastating on a fighting force. Again, we know this to be true based on experience. Without question -- you don't question it, do you? -- the US military wants its enemy to have a low morale.

In the big picture, it is better if our troops were happy than if they were unhappy, although morale is important not just because it impinges on combat effectiveness. Furthermore, I'll grant that it's possible that the morale of the "enemy" in Iraq may play some role in its combat effectiveness, but I have seen scant evidence for that, and I doubt that you have either (or else you would have cited it by now). I have no reason to believe that frowny-faced Iraqis are any less adept at killing Americans than happy-faced ones.

I'm glad you agree with me.

I downloaded his picture taken at the meeting last May of the A2K'ers and showed it to some of my lawyer friends...

Good Job, Joe from Chicago, but why don't you tell the truth- You are as bald as a billliard ball in the May picture!!! Is that because you are still "growing"?