Iraq: we won, now let's leave

By the way, Thomas, if anything here is "Orwellian," i'd have to think it is your attempt to hold two contradictory opinions at once. You say that you are opposed to peddling either "Orwellian" lie. So does that mean you assert that we have not won or lost? If we have won, of course, there is no reason not to trot out this "meme" (silly word). If, however, you assert that we have not won, then what is your objection to "we lost," and an assertion that the best thing to do is to pull out? If you assert that both are lies, then upon what criterion would you assert that we can say we have "won" or "lost?" Do we need to stay longer, because we have not reached a threshold of tragic and unnecessary deaths of American and coalition military personnel which would entitle us to assert categorically that we've lost? Do we need to stay longer because there is a goal we can achieve which will allow us to justifiably declare that we've won?

Help me out here, Thomas.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Okay, let's assume for the sake of the discussion that Democrats and Republicans agree "we won". How is that not an argument for voting Republican in 2008? How is that not an argument for President Giuliani starting similarly "successful" wars against Iran and North Korea?

The Bush administration got us into this war despite the fact that we never had a Testeresque "we won!" conclusion to our last major war, so I doubt very much that adopting a "we won!" approach to this war will provide a bad precedent for future administrations. Bush has proven conclusively, I think, that a president can get the nation involved in idiotic foreign adventures for all sorts of idiotic reasons.

In any event, the GOP will adopt one of three possible positions on the Iraq war in 2008: (1) we won!; (2) we're winning!; or (3) we would've won if it hadn't been for those damned liberals! All three, of course, would be lies, and anyone voting for a GOP candidate will be suckered into buying into the prevailing lie, whatever it might end up being. I'm all in favor of the lie that gets us out of the war -- I'm prepared to deal with the consequences of that lie afterward.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

By the way, Thomas, if anything here is "Orwellian," i'd have to think it is your attempt to hold two contradictory opinions at once. You say that you are opposed to peddling either "Orwellian" lie. So does that mean you assert that we have not won or lost?

No. It means I assert that (1) you have not won, contrary to Tester's Orwellian lie that you did, and (2) the Democrats have not stabbed the Republicans in the back, contrary to Karl Roves lie-in-preparation that they did. I fail to see how denying both Orwellian lies is doublethink, or even just contradictory.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm all in favor of the lie that gets us out of the war -- I'm prepared to deal with the consequences of that lie afterward.

That brings us back to your assumption that Tester's lie will get you out of the war earlier. As I said, I'm not buying this assumption. But rather than go in circles, let's just wait and see.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

However, the point is dealing with the electorate, which you seem intent on ignoring.

Are you suggesting the electorate is so much dumber than you that it'll buy a lie that you and I and Joe and parados can see through in a nanosecond? If so, you ought to get off your high horse in my ever so humble opinion.

0 Replies

Thank you for the clarification. I had thought that you asserted that we had not won, and neither had we lost.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
However, the point is dealing with the electorate, which you seem intent on ignoring.

Are you suggesting the electorate is so much dumber than you that it'll buy a lie that you and I and Joe and parados can see through in a nanosecond? If so, you ought to get off your high horse in my ever so humble opinion.

In my never so humble opinion, the electorate is not stupid, but is rather intellectually apathetic. It is my experience, both in my lifetime and in reading history, that the electorate in any country and age view electoral politics as an entertainment spectacle, as much or more than viewing it as a great ideological struggle to which they intend to apply a rigorous logical analysis. If you can convince the electorate that you have most plausibly presented your agenda, including all the lies which they expect from politicians, you will very likely succeed to the office to which you aspire. It is equally as plausible that the electorate would be entertained by a plausible plea of this type, and appreciate the added benefit that it gets us out of a situation in which they no longer wish to see us involved.

I recall that Parados expressed a certain contempt for the intelligence of the electorate (if he did not, my apology for incorrectly characterizing what he wrote). I did not. I do not appreciate having you speak down to me from your "reverse" intellectual high horse by imputing to me an elitist point of view which i have not expressed.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I recall that Parados expressed a certain contempt for the intelligence of the electorate (if he did not, my apology for incorrectly characterizing what he wrote). I did not. I do not appreciate having you speak down to me from your "reverse" intellectual high horse by imputing to me an elitist point of view which i have not expressed.

Fair enough. I'm sorry.

0 Replies

No problem.

Now, if you'll excuse me, i need to go puke . . . this conversation has deteriorated into far too civil an exchange for my taste . . .

0 Replies

Well, I think the electorate is, on the whole, not intellectually qualified to vote. I've said so many times.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I recall that Parados expressed a certain contempt for the intelligence of the electorate (if he did not, my apology for incorrectly characterizing what he wrote).

I am not sure I would characterize the electorate as unintelligent. They just find that many other things, including American Idol, are more important to their every day lives than politics as it is played in the US. It could well be that the intelligent response to politics is to watch American Idol.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, I think the electorate is, on the whole, not intellectually qualified to vote. I've said so many times.

What a horrifying collection of quotations. The lack of resect so many of today's liberals have for democracy never ceases to astound me:

joefromchicago wrote:

Which all goes to reinforce my long-held opinion that people, in general, should not be allowed to vote.

No wonder you don't want to support Iraq's fight for democracy, since you don't even support the institution in theory.

0 Replies

Resect?

Typical strawman à la Brandon--upon what reasonable basis do you assert that Joe's personal and idiosyncratic view of the qualifications of the American electorate authorizes a blanket condemnation of "today's liberals?"

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

What a horrifying collection of quotations. The lack of resect so many of today's liberals have for democracy never ceases to astound me:

Who you callin' a "liberal?"

Brandon9000 wrote:

No wonder you don't want to support Iraq's fight for democracy, since you don't even support the institution in theory.

I don't support Iraq's fight for democracy -- not that there's much there to support. I suppose if the Iraqis showed any inclination toward wanting democracy, I'd support it, but they haven't so I don't. I have long held that the only thing keeping American troops in Iraq is the Bush administration's quixotic attempt to impose democracy on the country. I'd much prefer to see the US install a dictator in the manner of a Musharraf who can impose order and give the US the excuse to quit that damnable place.

0 Replies

Iraq: we won, now let's leave

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know