Where am I on your continuum?

Put me down as FOR the United States but AGAINST the stupid war. If you can't indicate that on your continuum, then it's a pretty useless instrument when it comes to gauging where Americans stand these days.

I would help a U.S. soldier, but I would not knowingly help a person sworn to destroy the United States.

I do believe in God. I also believe that God is on God's own side for God's own reasons. But I do believe the pope when he says that the God who said "Thou shalt not kill" is against wars. It would make sense then that we cannot count on divine help while engaged in an enterprise of which God does not approve.

God is under no obligation from us to be on either side.

I also believe that the Almighty allows us to experience the consequences of our own actions, with very few exceptions. You stick your hand in a hornet's nest that is occupied by those critters, and you're probably going to get hurt.

But the God thing is really neither here nor there in this argument--I was actually trying to introduce a little levity. "My bad."

I am a loyal American, but a member of the loyal opposition when it comes to George W. Bush and his misadventures. It doesn't mean I have to sit by quietly while he continues to make a mess of things. I oppose Dubya, not my country.

I understand that. But it doesn't address the flaw that I've exposed in your model. Unless you believe its reasonable to be both for and against Al Qaeda at the same point of time. Which is it?


I understand that you think that, but your model doesn't even approach a state of being fact. Containing logic doesn't make it so, especially when the premise is invalid as I pointed out in my original post that you chose not to address.

Any review of political science research methods would further invalidate this approach. The state of being "at war", does not reduce the variables to a simple boolean flag or a parabolic continuum. Only application of some nationalistic constraint (which is unsupported by you) would even get close and even then its still not valid because it fails to take into account any number of variables that may exist in the formulation of a decision as to whether or not to support an armed conflict. Nationalism would only be one such variable in that formula. And by the way, any attempt to measure such variables and apply them to your continuum would inevitably produce an outcome possible of equating to zero, which further invalidates your position that neutrality is impossible.

So, because I asked where I stood on your continum, that gave you open permission to say I was anti-US and one step above terrorists killing Americans in the trenches? I believe such hollow self-rationalisations are blatant enough to not be worth the effort to rebut.



'Clearly on the side against the USA', yes how could I possibly have taken offense at that?

As to the rest, All I can do is repeat my oft-ignored point: "In your opinion". Thats all this chart is, an expression of your personal extreme opinion of how dissent against President Bush equates to treason. Not Clinton of course, I notice you ignored that point as well, just President Bush, because you like him, therefore there is no room in your entirely subjective model for such things.



How on earth can you claim this is not judgemental or entirely biased? You have determined, based on your own extreme political views, that to be against a war is to be against the country. There is no basis for that, nor have you attempted to provide any basis for it. You cannot even explain how your model works, one minute is measures actions and the next minute it measures intentions and not actions. Why did you bypass that complete self-contradiction? Did you refuse to address it because you chose not to, or because you were unable to do so? Did you not feel it important that your chart have a shred of consistency?

The only factor of any significance in making determinations on your chart is your personal political opinion, nothing else. No general criteria, no impartial measures or regulations, simply what you believe. McCain is fine because in your mind he is currently loyal to the same things you are loyal to. Many democrats and opponent Republicans are not because you disagree with their opinion. The great majority of the American people are anti-American according to you, because you don't happen to like what they think. That is the sole, universal and only deciding factor in this entire excersise, your personal extreme political opinion.

Yet again and again you pretend that it is 'just maths', or that it somehow impartial. Yet even you don't know how it is judged, deeds or intentions, it changes with each person you assess so that you can pass judgement based on your politics, and nothing else. You cannot even explain your criteria, and ignore questions asking for some measure of precision.



You do not reject it, you ignore it. Yet sadly it is the 800 pound Gorilla in the room. According to your own criteria, he is vehemently anti-American. Now you reject this of course, because the criteria you originally set up are irrelevant, and change as you see fit, the only thing that matters to this chart is what you want to matter, thus you are able to ignore the facts presented above regarding president Bush without the need to address or rebut them, and just pretend they do not exist.


Since it is clear your only desire is to label anyone who dares dissent as being anti-American, why not just come out and say that? Why hide behind this paper charade of a 'chart' pretending to be impartial, and pretending to care about any other situation?

You openly called me anti-American and one step above an Al Qaeda terrorist, and why? Because I disagree with the stupid decisions President Bush has made throughout this war. Yet so does everybody else. In fact in his speech three days ago, president Bush came out and admitted he had made mistakes. Does daring to question himself during wartime make him a traitor? Does the fact that everyone who pointed out his errors earlier were absolutely right not matter?

Your repeated insistance on the 'impartial maths' of this undeniably subjective and personally motivated attempt to demonise people you disagree with on war is descending into farce. I mean no offense, but then as you have already called me far worse in this thread, I don't believe such a comment is unwarranted.

I can only wonder what planet someone is from who can detect anything elegant or profound in the pronouncements of George Bush.

But leaving that aside, here is proposed nothing less than the fascist model, which asserts the national determination of individual identity and will. The Fatherland is pole star around which the moral cosmos spins. There is but one moral dimension; the Fatherland is at one end; and the Enemy is at the other. The Enemy, that is, as defined by The Leader. The Nation is AT WAR, you see, and you must choose; either to the death, defend Berlin against the Red Army, or lose your soul.

Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!

http://www.worldmilitaria.com/newsite/Medi...tWesselLied.mp3

LH, I'll try doing this a different way to you, what qualifies as a win in Iraq? Okay, now, take that definition of a win and recognize that not everyone sees a win in Iraq the same way you do. That's my point; if you believe that a win is installing a pro-American gov't in Iraq and someone else believes that there is no such thing as a win because we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place, then your model fails to incorporate their beliefs...They aren't against the country because they see the war itself as "against" the country.

I understand completely what your saying, LH. My point is that if I see a "win" in Iraq differently than you then your model is moot. Okay, say I'm someone who believes Iraq was a mistake from day one and is not worth the lives lost, that having been said I believe we should pull out immediately because in my opinion installing a pro US gov't is not a win. In that circumstance I am not against the US winning because I see the war as unwinnable.

CP

Wow...what an interesting model. I guess I agree with it in theory (it's almost impossible to be neutral in any conflict as slight actions give benefit to one side or the other) but I think it suffers in implementation as you don't choose an objective enough premise. Had you said (for example) "I believe that invading Iraq was a good decision and that the US should remain in that country until such time as the government is stable and pro-US, the country is at peace, and the US has a permanent military base in the region and I don't think it's possible to be neutral on this question in practice as any opinion you offer or not, any action you take or forgo relative to this issue has impact" then I'd agree; it's difficult to be truly neutral on anything (save via ignorance of the opinion/event) although a good deal of support or opposition is effectively meaningless. The trouble emerges when you try to extrapolate support for a given policy to support for a grander vision or goal; that is the above opinion on Iraq is specific and most opinions and actions would put you on one side or the other. When you decide, however, that such a specific policy prescription is the ONLY possible approach to the WoT and all others are, by definition, against the US' interest, then your model breaks.

As CP and others have pointed out, how you define a win becomes vital here; if one believes that the best thing to do for the WoT is to withdraw from Iraq an focus on homeland security, are they "for us" or "against us"? If one believes that troops pacifying Iraq would be better served conquering Iran, are they "for us" or "against us"? If a general looks at the progress of the war and decides that the best strategic/tactical decision that could be made is withdraw and regroup, is he "for us" or "against us"?

Now, let's twist it a bit more; if one believes that the best approach for winning the WoT is to engage the middle east diplomatically and that anything that hinders that engagement works against the US' strategic interest and therefore act to get us out of Iraq, are they "for us" or 'against us"? If one believes that all war is wrong and that therefore the use of force is bad for the US and will, in the long term, not deliver us from the threat posed by jihadists, are they "for us" or 'against us"?

I could go on and on but what it comes down to is a subtle translation; you seemed to have equated "what Lord Helmet thinks is the proper approach to the WoT" to "not in favor of terrorists and jihaists killing Americans and defeating the US". But why is your policy necessarily the correct/best one? Who gets to decide what a "pro-US" action is in the WoT vs an "anti-US" action?

In fact, since I'm questioning your model and since you are (by your own definition) "for" the US, does that mean that I am against it? If I take no other action via Iraq save to argue with you, I am now aiding terrorist in their effort to kill my countrymen? That seems to make you a very important person indeed and suggests that the existence of America's Debate is defacto treasonous for allowing folks to disagree with you. Additionally, you've commented before that you think your opinion is in the minority in AD (not saying I agree or disagree) so AD must be doubly treasonous, it allows these treasonous opinions to be communicated more regularly than the non-treasonous ones.

But you're a sponsor of AD. So you sponsor a treasonous organization. Doesn't that make you against the US too? Even if you "net" out as a positive contributor to the US, you've reduced the amount you COULD support them by giving money to an organization that allows treasonous ideas to be published without penalty and since you're doing less than you can, and since you are not required to make these contributions, you are choosing to reduce your support of the US in the WoT.

Just sayin'

I did not justify the Iraq war on just the terrorist threat. I thought the WMD issue was stronger and still do. Lets remember that in 2001 there were no inspectors in Iraq and no resolution to the WMD issue there. Some say it was gone and I disagree – history will tell us. I would have waited for France and the UN to show their true colors before invading but that is history.

Invading Iran would be a disaster at any time and unwarranted. The government could fall when the young population is tired of the Islamic rule. In any case we would have a tougher time there than in Iraq and in 2003 Iran was not publicly enriching uranium for nukes.

And assuming, of course, that any pro-US government actually has the chance to last, which I doubt.
It's like planting a seedling in a hostile climate where the ground has never been worked and where what the gardener calls "weeds" are healthy, aggressive and abundant.

If the continued presence of our troops in Iraq serves to boost the recruitment of more resurgents and terrorists, then who's really winning?


...to which the reply was made:

This president has even dismissed the studied and carefully-considered opinion of his "Iraq Study Group" headed by his longtime family supporter, James Baker.

The will of the people, as evidenced by the polls and the results of the last election, is not being honored by this president. He has made the ludricrous statement that he'll continue with what he's doing even if he's supported only by his wife Laura and his dog Barney, for pete's sake! Was that supposed to be funny?!

You know, lordhelmet, I think that if you really want to support our President, perhaps you should go to the nearest recruiter and sign up for a stint, or two, or three fighting in Iraq. Bush needs people like you, because his supporters are becoming fewer in number with each day that passes. It will ensure you a hero's place on your continuum.

Assuming we just don’t run out and let the plant die you mean – Oh ya the DEMS plan. Sure to work well. But if you want to win you have to actually do what it takes. And BTW the terrorists have all the recruites that need. The stat is Al Qaeda only takes 15% of those who want to join and this goes back before Iraq.






When exactly did James Baker ever have a plan that worked? Not in Africa and not in the Middle East under previous administration. What is in his “plan” exactly, that you think will work? And no president in history has ever, ever run a war by polls. Lets not start now.

The USA did not create terrorists. A belief in radical Islam did. By your logic, surrender to those fanatics would reduce their numbers while confronting them (as Bush has) would increase their numbers.

Your logic is absurd.



Well, there are a number of items to address in this section of the post.

1. The will of the people put Bush in office for 8 years. That doesn't change as a result of congressional elections. They are co-equal powers, the executive is not subject to the will of the congress. Did you demand that Clinton cave to the "will of the people" when the GOP took over congress in 1994? Somehow, I doubt it. Like I've said before, if the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

2. The Iraq study group? So what? We're in war and I'm all for smart people working together to help us win it. Their findings aren't going to cause me to abandon support for my country.

3. Ah, the old "if you support the war in Iraq, you should enlist argument". The same argument that Michael Moore (I'm from Michigan and I'm ashamed that he's from Michigan) has made and that is parroted by a variety of left wingers in this forum and elsewhere. First off, I am on AMERICA'S side on this war. In spite of what I may believe about the tactics, preconceived notions of the government, motivations by the poll-driven democrats who authorized it, etc, that fact still remains and is PARAMOUNT. So, I"ll use your logic against your argument as well. What is the flip side to your position, Paladin? Should those who oppose the war, and who want the US to lose enlist in the Jihad? Strap on bomb vests and take out US civilians? That is the symmetry to your argument and it illustrates the ABSURDITY of your argument. What personal risk does "your side" take other than the potential straining of vocal cords at a noisy protest or tripping in one's birkenstocks over the inevitable litter that left wing protests leave in great quantities?

I'll try again, LH...Hi, I'm John Q. Citizen, I don't believe that installing a pro-US Iraqi government is in our country's best interest because it isn't worth the lives lost; I don't believe that installing such a government is a good thing for our country or a "win". Where am I on your model? Answer: Nowhere, because your model doesn't take into account someone who doesn't share your view of what exactly constitutes a win.

CP

We already went through this. My model indicates which side of the "for-against" equation you're on while you're focused on the end result.

The end result is INDEPENDENT of who's side you are on.

Where are you in the model? Well, are you for the USA in this war? Are you on our side? Or, are you doing everything in your power to undermine our efforts, subvert our troops, and thus help the enemy?

You tell me.

No, you're continuing to make an argument based on something I NEVER SAID.

I never said it wasn't. What I AM saying is that your model ASSUMES that everyone who is against the war sees a victory the same way you do. The end result is independent on who's side you're on, but your model is not independent of how you DEFINE the result. Once again, if someone DEFINES [I'm not saying this is the result, I'm merely spelling out a different DEFINITION of "win"]a win differently than you then your model falls apart. If someone sees an immediate withdrawl from Iraq as in their country's best interest, then in their view, they are pro-America and it is YOU who is against this country. Do you see what I'm saying. It's all subjective. If I don't define Iraq in the same way as you, it doesn't mean I want us to lose, all it means is that I don't see a "loss" the same way you do.

I cannot put what I'm saying any more clearly than that.

CP

Aside from the basic lack of logic to lordhelmet's scale (or rather, binary system), there is another flaw. Not all wars are the same, so this scale really can't apply to them equally. Specifically, wars like Vietnam and Iraq, The Balkans, and Afghanistan don't have a readily apparent or clear outcome. To use the term "loss" is problematic when talking about Vietnam. Classically, losing a war means that the winning country sets the terms of surrender and of what comes after. In the wars I mentioned, cessation of fighting never could have meant that any of those nations could set terms for us.

If I start beating up on someone who's fighting capability is much less than mine, if I stop beating on him have I "lost?" When America withdrew from Vietnam, we were not subject to the whims of Ho Chi Mhin. If we were to withdraw from Iraq, how could we consider it a loss? Even using the fraudulent yardsticks invented by this administration, we could withdraw and declare it a victory - we got rid of Saddam Hussein, we made sure there were no weapons of mass destruction, we set up the basis for a democratic system.

In asymetric warfare it is almost impossible to define what a "win" is. As the powerhouse in this fight, the US can say, well, we've won when X, Y, and Z are accomplished. But if we stop after Y, is it really a loss? I'm sorry but that type of thinking is exactly what perpetuates warfare on this planet. Because there's always more goals, more reasons... finding reasons to fight is pretty easy.

"Stopping" a lopsided fight is not the same thing as losing a war. It just isn't. And our visions of the outcome are highly pertinent. We want what is best for the country. To some of us that might mean stopping fighting in Iraq. To some of us it might mean shouting huzzahs until our supreme righteous leader decides in his infinite wisdom that we have achieved the requisite results to declare "victory." But I'll tell you right now, that neither of those two people are on the side of Jihadists, or terrorists, or whoever it is you claim is the "enemy." They are both on the side of America. This is obvious on its face. You, sir, will either get it or not. But it is true nonetheless.

Every time another example using the same logic is brought up, you have dismissed it by saying that war is an exception. However in doing this you misunderstand the intent of examples, instead, obdurately, you insist we are talking about content rather than form. What I must insist to you is that the examples being brought up are concerning the form of your argument, not its content. The form of your model fails every possible scientific observation.

You are so convinced in your own righteousness, and that I, Lordhelmet am so utterly wrong, that you've completely lost sight of my "model".

My model simply asserts that one is either "for" or "against" a country during wartime. That's it. It doesn't talk about who's side is winning, what the definition of winning is, or even what constitutes being on one side or the other. It simply states that there is no "middle". If you aren't "for" one side, you are for "the other".
And war is a special set of circumstances. Can you think of another one where a nation intentionally tries to kill large numbers of another country's citizens? Don't you hold such a situation in unique status? How can you possibly equate that situation with, say, the debate on minimum wage or social security tax rates???

Yet, this thread has seen endless gyrations by people working like crazy to support their own personal positions with respect to Iraq. In all honesty, that's what I expected would happen to this thread. Ask a simple question and leave it to A-D members to give a completely complex and convoluted answer.

And then the topic really spins off the rails when people attempt to rationalize their own positions; which are arguably contrary to their stated positions (that they are "for" the US in the Iraq war), via the deployment of the shop-worn tactic of moral relativism.

Can't we always depend on the concept of moral relativism to muddle up a perfectly good logical argument?

These topics are all outside of my "model", but I'll address them anyway.

"It's all relative", we're told. Those who are against us are really "for" us. Those who are for us are really "against" us. The relative standards are very flexible. They can be twisted to suit any agenda and thus is the appeal of moral relativism.

Vietnam? Well, many so-called American citizens during that war were CLEARLY against the US during that war. They directly undermined the war and took the side of the enemy (the Viet Cong). They even flew the enemy's flag, visited the enemy's military compounds, and participated in rally's that openly advocated the defeat of the evil imperialistic American forces. They helped spread enemy propaganda. They undermined our military at every turn. They gave aid and comfort to the Vietcong thus took a strong position against their own country. And the moral relativists, and their allies in the left wing media will tell us that those who took the side of the enemy, who prolonged the war resulting in 50,000 US deaths, and who eventually forced our defeat (which brought a decade of Soviet militarism plus genocide in S.E. Asia) were "patriots". Ah, the convenience of moral relativism. One can ALWAYS be right, in spite of the reality.

And now we have Iraq. Those who work to undermine our military and our government are "for" the troops (who are being killed) and "for" our country. They, not those actually backing the efforts of the troops and their chain of command, are the "patriots". Is it no wonder that many of the same characters who led the charge against the USA during the Vietnam are out in front again? Mere circumstance? Or just a bad habit?

And it doesn't stop there. Islamists are not motivated by their warped religion or their quest for power, they are the result of.... you guessed it, our President who "created" them! A wise Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled this pathology "blame America first", and she was exactly right.

But, I digress because my model is simple, logical, and elegant. It's really independent of the Vietnam war and the Iraq war, and all others.... since they are "all different".

If you look back, I made a simple assertion; that one is either "for" a country or "against" a country during war. That's it. Nothing more than that. But what's been interesting (to me) is the reaction against such a simple and straightforward assertion.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT! If a win is not defined than how the hell can you say someone is "for" one side or not? It's impossible. I can't be for one side if I don't know what a win is; that's what I and several others have been saying for a fairly long time, LH. That is a fatal flaw in your "model".

CP

I'll keep it simple: to me the entire population of Iraq is not worth the scraped knee of one of our troops. They are just completely irrelevant to me. I am an American and I care about Americans. Therefore to me, getting the troops out of that 3rd world toilet is FOR the troops and FOR our country, and keeping them there is AGAINST the troops and AGAINST our country. To me defeat, is letting our troops remain there, period. Because to me, a stable, democratic, gold plated, or whatever else kind of Iraq is not a win. It is an irrelevancy. All I care about is OUR country, OUR troops, OUR billions being poured down the drain.

How does that fit into your model?

Untrue. I am entirely unconvinced of my righteousness. I do think your model is wrong. It has been demonstrated as wrong by almost everyone who has replied to this thread.



Lordhelmet, we all get what your model is. As I stated previously, the counter examples are to demonstrate that the structure, or form of your construct is unsound. The content doesn't matter. I wonder if you are being purposely obtuse about this - because you seem to dismiss everyone's counters with arguments about content, while ignoring that the true criticisms are of structure. Indeed, it is your standard riposte here that no one understands your model, that their disagreements must be emotional or based on their huge egos. Methinks the lad doth protest too much...



I don't know what else to say to this - do you truly not see the irony of your assertions in this thread? Your view in this matter seems rather myopic. You accuse us of "rationalizing" positions opposite our stated positions. Do you not see that this "opposite" only exists in your opinion of the matter?



Eh? Wait, you mean the people who YOU SAY are against us, but who have themselves said they are for us? And you continue to call MY argument self-righteous?? Here is the problem in a nutshell, right in this sentence. You fit everything into your model, convinced you are stating the 'obvious' truth. Everything that differs can be attacked - as equivocating, moral relativism, self righteousness, etc etc.



This is called "projection." No one here, as far as I know, has stated that people who claim to be supporters of the war are actually against "us." People have only used such ideas to establish the lack of structure in your model.


In short, you say that people who speak against a war - any war, as you said - are de facto for the enemy. I say, no they are not. Both, my friend, are opinions. I think you'll find that is really all any of us is trying to tell you. You can continue to accuse me of having some sort of inflated ego and being self righteous, but sir, only one of us is claiming their opinion as not just truth, but obvious and complete, defining truth.

There's nothing wrong with your reasoning process, it just happens to be based on a completely subjective premise, and therefore cannot be of sound structure - unless everyone agrees with your subjective premise.

Nice ducking of the issue Paladin Elspeth brought up Lord Helmet. Is there a bit of French in your lineage? If you're FOR the war why are you AGAINST fighting it?

Or are you just neutral?

If you are on AMERICA's side in the war why haven't you enlisted and fought for it? Why aren't you encouraging your son to fight for his country? What's wrong with the notion that those who support the wars should be the ones to fight it? You rant and rave against Cindy Sheehan, but she's already seen her son march off to war only to come back in a flag-draped coffin? She didn't pass the buck off to some other mother's son. Her family paid the price for your right to sit back in luxury and agitate for a war you're unwilling to fight and win.

What would the hero of your avatar General Patton think of your reluctance to lay your life on the line? Why are you so gung-ho to send somebody else to fight the wars you believe in with such vehemence? Stop off at the White House, pick up Barb. Jenna, Mary Cheney and all of you can troop on down to the nearest recruiting station and sign up. There's plenty of job openings in the Army and Marines. Seems another 25 positions opened up over the weekend in what was the third deadliest day for American troops since the war began.

Then again, our soldiers over there don't really matter to you. They're just the guys stuck with carrying out the failed ambitions of a failed president whose own political party are abandoning him.

Well, there's always Dubya, lordhelmet and Barney the dog to carry on. Do the Patton thing, LH and go over to Baghdad and shoot a few terrorists in the belly. Send back pictures and collect a few ears and scalps, why don'tcha?

You talk the talk but can you walk the walk? Oh, right. Asked and answered.

Nope. It's a great war. Just so long as somebody else is fighting it.

Coming up soon will be the Supper Bowl, an annual ritualized combat on which millions of dollars will be gambled. I can’t think of a finer “mathematical” example of something to illustrate the concept of being neutral. I think I read somewhere that New England won 3 of the past 5 Supper Bowl Games. If I flipped a coin, therefore, I would stand about a 1 in 10 chance of correctly identifying the outcome of the past 5 years bowl games…and I “watched” the games.

I watch that one bowl game every year because the ads are supposed to be outstanding. The advertisers gamble millions of dollars annually on the fact that viewers like me will tune in for that one hour a year. I have yet to change the brand of car I drive because of an ad. Despite free annual replays of the Apple Computer ad that they only paid to run one time, my personal computers are PCs. Budweiser has yet to persuade me that I should buy a six pack.

Sometime this evening, George W. Bush will deliver his annual State of the Union Address. The commentators are so certain of what he will say, down to his closing prayer that they have already conceded that it will be a waste of our time to tune in. “The Democrats will have an easy rebuttal this year.” seemed to be a recurrent theme on the news yesterday.

The outcome of the Supper Bowl is totally irrelevant to me. I haven’t been inside a football stadium while a game was in progress since 1963. I don’t think Detroit has a team playing this year, so Michigan is not facing a win or lose riot after the game. I never bought a beer last year, and I’m unlikely to buy one this year. I have twice as many cars in the driveway as drivers, so short of winning the lottery; I’m unlikely to find myself in the market for a new car.

I used to work with a “Christian” who was easily as fanatical as any Islamic Jihadist. His interpretation of “God’s Law” was that he should kill his homosexual brother-in-law. When he came in to work quoting Shakespeare, everyone knew that he had met with another attorney who was only willing to defend him using the state’s laws. He wanted to have an attorney on retainer before he loaded his rifle.

George W. Bush has led our nation to a war against Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of Saddam Hussein and his sons. By what stretch of his imagination those actions pose a threat to Osama’s Been Forgotten or to the hijackers who attacked us on 9/11/2001, I am totally clueless.

There may be a war on terrorism that can be won; but Iraq is not the venue for that war, and George W. Bush is not a leader.

This is a new standard that leftists such as yourself now hold patriots to. If you support the USA during a war, you must YOURSELF fight it. To them, the only moral position is to be "against war" or "neutral". I've already commented on the fact that those two options are not possible. One is either for or against a country during war.

Well, if you're against it, and are supporting actions that help our enemies kill more of our troops, then I say you are morally obligated to enlist in the Jihad. You sure can talk the talk, but are you willing to make yourself a human shield?

It's a great Jihad, at long as it's OTHERS who are blowing themselves up to kill our troops.

This sort of personalized logic is twisted. But it's just as twisted as previous posts that claim that US Citizens who are not "black" have no "right" to comment on "racial" issues.

The same alleged US-citizens who are leading the charge against the USA in Iraq made their bones, if you will, during Vietnam when they openly supported the Vietcong, waved their flags, visited anti-aircraft batteries, called each other "comrade", and of course, called our troops "baby killers" while they spit on them upon their return from SE Asia.

That part they took some heat for. So they modified their tactics and while they are JUST as anti-American as before, they've thrown in a new twist. We're "against" the war but "for" the troops.

A logical fallacy. But one that a surprising number of people buy into. Why? Because it makes them feel better about themselves. It allows them to rationalize the lack of support for their OWN country while we are in the middle of a war that was APPROVED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

Of course, these anti-war types will say that THEY didn't agree from the start. So what? What if I don't agree with legislation passed by our process and signed into law? Does that give ME the right to violate the law as I see fit? Because I think I'm right? The time for dissent, for protests, and for fulfilling your obligation as a citizen to make your representatives know how you felt was BEFORE the authorization vote. Where were you then? Why couldn't you convince the leaders in your own party to represent YOU and YOUR point of view? Why did the leaders such as Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, Lieberman, etc., go right along with Bush and sign us up to this war??? Or were you like them? For it then when it was convenient and now against it when it's not? When the going gets tough..... Mrs. Clinton gets going.

With respect to Sheehan, her adult son VOLUNTEERED to fight that war. She had nothing to do with it. The rest of that son's family, including the boys father who RAISED him have disowned that lunatic woman.

When people like you attack our country while we're in the middle of a fight, when our president is accused of actually "killing" the troops and "causing" the terrorists in the first place, the memory of people like Sheehan's son and the rest of the brave who've sacrificed their lives is dishonored by your tacit support for our enemies.

Ah, but I haven't "enlisted" in the war and "shot some terrorists in the belly". Therefore, according to the left's twisted logic, I have no "moral authority" to support it.

But do you have moral authority to oppose our country? You gladly take our freedoms. The freedoms that brave troops died for, and continue to die for. You gladly take the wealth that our country's policies has generated. You LIVE here. You raise your children here. Yet, you undermine the system that made your luxurious life (by world standards) possible. What's the moral authority in that? What are YOU giving back to help us win this war? Nothing? How does undermining our troops and our government HELP the troops?

But, ah, the nobility of the dissenter. It's the protester, the anti-American zealot, the propagandist, etc, who is the true patriot. But, of course, ONLY when a republican is president. When a democrat is in, the protesters against the government are "terrorists", and they deserve to be destroyed in a hail of bullets and/or fire like they were in Waco or Ruby Ridge. Where were you when Clinton was sending troops to the never ending action in Kosovo? Where were you when he was launching bombing raids and missile attacks against Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan? Where were you when he was sending troops to Haiti to support a left wing dictator and where were you when he was refusing to send armor to protect our troops in Somalia? You were SILENT, just like the rest of the left. Why? Because your boy was the president and protecting him was paramount. When he took our soldiers to war, when he sexually harassed his staff, and when he lied under oath. Politics, not patriotism, is the true objective for the left.

I never said it was a "great war". Only a lunatic would think such a thing. I think it's a total cluster and a complete mess that was the end result of a bipartisan effort in self delusion. And that's why it went forward. The Bush people's beliefs about Iraq WMD's , terrorist ties, etc., were verified by the Clinton administration's intelligence team and the Iraqi defectors. After 911 the people were clamoring for blood and Iraq seemed like a convenient target given their violations of the cease fire, their attempt to kill Bush Sr, and the repeated firing at our patrol aircraft; acts of war in themselves.

But, I waste bandwidth remind you and the other leftists of these historical facts. All that matters to people like you is that our country is at war and a REPUBLICAN president is in charge. Politics comes first. It comes before patriotism. It comes before doing what's best for our country and our troops.

Our troops and our country is in a tough spot. We need the support of all citizens.

I find it to be a complete and total shame that you and the rest of the left refuse to support them given their sacrifices.

Okay, I've had my fill of nonsense like this. You wanna know how you can be anti-war but pro-troops, it's pretty simple: "I don't think the troops should be in Iraq and I hope they come home soon, but until then I hope they don't die." How incredibly uncomplicated is that? It isn't subversive, or trechorous or anti-American, it's completely logical. The troops shouldn't be there, but I hope they remain safe [READ: Alive] until they come back home.

Now that we've cleared that up, I believe you were just about to explain to me how a model that ignores other definitions of victory could be seen as anything other than flawed.

CP

Thanks for clearing that up. So when our troops retreat in defeat and Jihadist take over Iraq, tell me how that will be "better" for the USA.

End result

What you're really saying is that you don't have the stomach for the sacrifices required for us to win this war and you just want it to go away.

Sorry, but that's not an option either. We're in the war. We either win it or we lose it. Running home in defeat wouldn't be classified as a "win" under any circumstances.

If you disagree, tell me how. And tell me how people like al-Zawahri wouldn't be emboldened to take the fight more aggressively directly to our people since we will have PROVED his contention that we are weak, degenerate, and incapable of standing up to the mujahideen?

I'm sure you'll clear that up too.

Sacrifices required for us to win this war? What do you mean by "us"? Surely you're not rationing things like coffee and sugar, and saving metal to recycle, are you? Are you part of a neighborhood Civil Defense team?
Sacrifices!?! Previous generations knew what sacrifice meant; our President and his administration cut taxes to the wealthy during wartime and just want the public to keep its mouth shut, sport yellow ribbons and wave flags.

Yes, dammit, we want it to go away! What part of what the six retired generals said who criticized the way the war has been handled, John Murtha's assessment, and the conclusion of the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group's conclusions didn't you understand? Are you going to accuse them of being for the jihadists, too? Good luck with that.




Hello? Troops alive? You seem to be the one so hung up on perception that you're willing for these heroes to lose their lives so that the USA can save face. Is prestige that damned important to you? The key is that the troops come home NOT in body bags.


Oh, yes--the ubiquitous, sinister "they" who spat on troops coming home from Vietnam. Since it was done by anti-war activists in the late '60's and early '70's, we must ALL be doing it. That's a load of bull manure, no, elephant manure, lordhelmet, and you know it.

I've concluded that this thread of yours is an attempt to justify your own position by vilifying the positions of others, notably those who do not back the President in this obvious folly. You have somehow convinced yourself that if this mess were the responsibility of a Democratic President that we would somehow be the acquiescent ones, trying to shout down dissenters.

I've got news for you: If Bill Clinton and Al Gore had said and done the same things that George Walker Bush and Dick Cheney did to get us into this Iraq mess, I would be just as vehemently opposed to the lies and subterfuge, the fearmongering, detentions, and invasion of a land that had not attacked ours, as well as to the leaders who perpetrated such ill-advised actions in the name of my country.

You can't force democracy on groups of people who don't want it. The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are going to have to figure this out, and in the meantime our troops are caught in the crossfire.

Your continuum is bogus.

The problem with some of these arguments is that they get Paladin Elspeth irate, the words jump off the page as she reads them to me, and I have to get involved. But not only are some of these arguments, bizarre, they are presuming facts not in evidence...


I have never worn a pair of Birkenstocks, even to try them on and walk to the nearest mirror. I grew up buying Wolverine shoes (Desert Boots) at the factory outlet store in Rockford, Michigan. For thirty odd years as a working man, I wore the steel toed safety shoes my employers required. I would go back again to the factory outlet in Rockford, but under NAFTA, the factory has relocated to Mexico. But I am perplexed at the concept that my position on war could be affected by the shoes I wear, as long as I am not wearing combat boots.

Litter? In the early 1960's, I walked along the beaches and highways of our state parks and picked up litter because it offended my eyes and hurt my feet. I wrote to my state's legislators and governor. I outlined the fact that the bulk of the problem was soft drink bottles and beer cans. Michigan implemented a deposit on soft drink and beer containers, and it has greatly reduced the amount of litter we see in this state. When we gather for peace rallies and demonstrations, we all want to ensure that we are welcome to return. We clean up after ourselves, then make a point of shopping at the local merchants and identifying what brought us to their store, restaurant, etc.


I was never SILENT. I was raised anti-war. In High School, I teased my friends who joined ROTC. I wrote letters protesting our involvement every time our military has been given orders to move. I have even written letters questioning the need for the Reserves and National Guard to take two weeks off for annual training.

I have worked with men who knew the legal definition of sexual harassment, knew the limit they could go to without losing their job, and exercised their "freedoms" within that limit on a daily basis. Within a staff of several thousand people, their behavior was well known and documented. I will grant you that Clinton lied about his behavior, most likely because he was embarrassed and trying to hide what he had done. The men I have known who have sexually harassed co-workers have never been embarrassed by their behavior, and tended instead to brag about their conquests. Evidence exists that Clinton had a sexual act at least one time with one woman who bragged to friends before leaving for Washington that she intended to pack her knee pads. That sounds like consensual behavior, and that does not meet the definition of harassment. That said, unless Hillary was trying to get pregnant at the time, Bill Clinton's sexual behavior could in no way result in the loss of any American lives.

This war in Iraq has cost us more American lives than were lost on 9/11/2001. It is in no way apparent that it is directed at the people who attacked us on that date. In trying to point out that George W. Bush is selecting who he wants to listen to, and what he wants to hear; I am reminded of the Fairy Tale of The Emperor's New Clothes. If this President wants to stand in front of a mirror in his bedroom and describe his magnificent wardrobe to his wife, that's his right. If the President wants to deliver the State of The Union Address tonight with no clothing on, I hope that someone has the courage to prevent that from happening. The reality is that too many Americans seem to still be willing to say, "He's the President, so he must know what we're doing in the Middle East."

I actually think we should stay in Iraq until we know terrorists cannot take over; I was simply explaining to you how someone can be pro-troops but anti-war. I'll say it again. Someone can say "the troops shouldn't be in Iraq, but until they come home, I hope they stay safe."

I'm starting to believe you're ignoring what I say on purpose. I've said this entire time that your model is dependent on YOUR definition of victory or a "win". If I [and I'm not saying I do] see victory as unreachable in Iraq or if I see a pull-out as in this country's best interest then I am not anti-US.

To some people leaving a country entrenched in a civil war that has taken the lives of thousands of our soldiers would be in our country's best interest. You and I may not be one of them, the difference is I acknowledge their existance.

Okay, now I KNOW you're not listening. I personally do not think we should leave Iraq. I personally do not believe we should leave Iraq. I personally do not think we should leave Iraq.

My point is that I understand the thinking behind people who do and I also understand that THEY want what's best for THEIR country. Honestly LH, why the HELL would anyone support something if they thought it would make them less safe? God Almighty, man. There are people in this country that believe that pulling out of Iraq is in the best interest of our country, whether or not you'll admit it. Your side doesn't hold the monopoly on patriotism.

CP

Counterfeit choices, lordhelmet.

"If you support the USA during a war, you must YOURSELF fight it." Oh my yes. Absolutely. What makes your life so much more valuable that you won't put it on the line in the defense of your country and your cause. How can you shirk from defending the nation preferring to wage your wars from the relative safety and comfort of your home computer?

I don't accept the bogus "either/or" scenario you concocted to justify your zealous support of a failed president and his failed war. I don't accept ultimatums, dubious conventional wisdom, or phony absolutes. Especially not from blind partisans setting up a false tautology where the odds are stacked, the results predetermined to produce a desired outcome and the fix already in. Especially not from those whom have not served in their country's armed forces while disparaging as "Jihadists" those whom have.

Life is not a series of bifurcated choices between "either" and "or." It is quite possible for an intelligent human being to entertain two seemingly contradictory and opposing thoughts. At least it is for those of us whom have developed some critical thinking skills.

Let's grant for a moment your absurdly false premise that "the only moral position" is "one is either for or against a country during war." Okay. I'm against the war. You're for the war. I don't want to fight it and I don't want my son to fight it. The only logical conclusion is YOU should fight the war and send YOUR son to fight it. Have a nice trip to beautiful downtown Baghdad.

What? You're not packing? You're not going? What's up with that?



Yeah. Pretty much you come up empty on the moral authority scale. If you love the war so much that you say it has to be fought and won but only as long as someone else does the fighting and bleeding and dying for you, that sort of zeroes out your credit line of moral authority. It's hypocrisy of the most repellent sort.

Yes, George W. Bush has the blood of our troops dripping from his fangs like a deep-fried Dracula with a bogus Texas twang. Yes, he has turned Iraq into the Disneyland of terrorists with his stupid macho rhetoric about "bring it on." Yes, he's done more to create a thousand little Osama bin Ladens than bin Laden himself. But that's Dubya all over; writing checks that someone else will have to cash.



You're confusing the issue (again), lordhelmet. Perhaps the Mark Twain quote in the "America Hater" thread went right over your helmeted little head? I do support our country. Just not the way you think I should. And as someone who has served our country, there is no need to justify myself to someone whose insights of the military are apparently limited to repeated viewings of Patton.



Apparently, in the process of reminding the "leftists" of your selective historical facts you forget the protests against a DEMOCRAT president, Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam war. No surprise there as your politics come first with patriotism a distant second. It certainly comes before what's best for our country and our troops (whose existence you don't acknowledge beyond being props for you to manipulate in a ham-fisted attempt to bludgeon dissenting viewpoints into falling into line).



And the troops have my support. Just not on your terms where Americans fall silent and become complicit in the unsuccessful policies of our cretinous Chief Executive.

That's the thing about living in a free society. You cannot place limits of our right to question what the government is doing when they choose to wrap themselves in the flag and declare any dissenting opinion as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When a President lies about why he is sending our brave sons and daughters off to die, that President is no longer worthy of belief or support. That's where George W. Bush stands at this point in history.

If YOU want this war so badly, lordhelmet, YOU go fight it. Don't sneer at the patriotism of others when yours is limited to talking about it. You lack the moral authority to be such a fierce advocate for Dubya's brain-dead war. There is a real easy for you to get it though.

Go fight the war.

Just sign on the dotted line, raise your right hand and you're there. Then, the trick is getting back alive to assert your newly achieved moral authority. But if you want something you've never had, you have to do something you've never done.

I have to agree with the others here LH- I think it is very,very "morally relativistic" of you not to BE in Iraq- with your very wierd logic in this thread- they only way YOU can be "for" America is to enlist immediately- or, by your logic, you are actually against the war- because YOU are not doing everything YOU can to "win" this war. You still have a heartbeat, and that means you can, at the very least, jump on a grenade for a fellow servicemen, and if YOU are not doing that- you must obviously want a loss, and you are an AMERICAN HATER - Hey, cya there! Got a few cousins there that would be happy to trade places with ya!

Further to Nighttimer's point - while it is true that the majority of those who attend anti-war rallies and protests are on the political left, it is not true that they are mere partisan hacks who remain silent when a Democratic president sends the troops to war. There were protests against LBJ (hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today), and more recently there were protests when Clinton sent troops to the Balkans and to Somalia.

It's simply untrue to say otherwise.

And your model is still bereft. Its simple logic only makes sense if we accept the premise upon which it rests. And since that premise is your opinion, the model fails as an objective yardstick.

First of all, before I say anything else, I want to make clear that I do not think that those who criticize the war are unpatriotic. I think the vast majority of them are speaking out precisely because they think that doing so is good for America. I have stated this consistently on past threads of this nature, even before the war in Iraq began. However, I do also think there is a point in LH's model which does lend it credibility. That being that those arguing for bringing home the troops and putting an end to the war are inherently helping the enemy we are fighting. Not intentionally, but helping nonetheless. This is, IMHO, simply a fact. Let's take the emotion of the Iraq conflict out of it, and consider any other war we were in. If, during WWII, one supported disengaging our troops at any time in that conflict, how can one argue that such an action wouldn't have helped the Nazi cause? Now, one could argue that there are benefits from doing so that outweigh that aspect--but I don't think it can be argued, as LH has been saying, that not fully supporting your country's involvement during a war inherently works for the enemy's cause. The question to be debated then, IMHO, is whether or not other future consequences of those actions outweigh this. To carry this over to the model, one would have to use the sum total of those actions and consequences (a point which I believe LH made in one of his earlier posts in this thread)...which are unknown.

Where I think this particular war creates a huge grey area, is in whether or not the war itself is aiding the enemy cause--which is almost certainly one of the reasons it has become such a devisive issue. Arguments can certainly be made that the fighting of the war is itself lending support to the enemy by increasing support for their cause. Again, this would get down to the sum total of the consequences, which are unknown.

So we have the new definition of patriotism.

If one support the USA in a war the was decided upon by the constitutionally defined process involving the executive and legislative branches, one must enlist and actually FIGHT it. Amazing. Forget my citizenship. Forget the bill of rights and freedom of speech. It's like saying if one believes in abortion, one must actually HAVE one and if one believes in gay rights, well.........

My first reaction is that the people saying this in the prior posts are absolutely and totally nuts. But that would be a personal attack against the rules and we don't want that. So, I'll just leave it as "I vehemently disagree not only with what you all have said... but also the sniveling tone in which you've said it".

Under the new definition of patriotism, sedition, the undermining of our volunteer forces, and outright treason are not just warranted, they are NOBLE.

And those who support our country after the flag has been raised and the war started "love" this war. They "want" this war. And they, themselves, must strap on their M16's and fight this war. And those who take our freedoms and yet selfishly fail to support the brave individuals who make it possible and actually HELP those trying to take those freedoms away? Do they need to join the Jihad? Do they need to strap on bomb vests and blow themselves up or just act as human shields? NO. They just have to sanctimoniously declare their moral superiority.... from the comfort of their American homes, protected by the American rule of law and the American constitution. Those fair weather pro-Americans who were 80% behind the war when it started and 4 years later have jumped, like rats leaving a ship, when during the entire war we've lost the equivalent of 8 hours on Iwo Jima in the 1940's.... they are the noble ones. They, not the supporters of our country, are the patriots.

After all, THEY just want it to go away.

That's what young children say when faced with unpleasant choices.

"MOMMY! JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY!!"

And that's what our country has come to. Ungrateful exploiters of our freedoms. Self centered fair weather fans of our constitutional system. We are becoming EXACTLY what al-Zawahri and his boss, Bin Laden accuses of being.

And perhaps, just perhaps, he's exactly right?

The USA has become a spoiled, degenerate, and corrupt society that will split apart from the inside while the forces of the left via the ACLU, the champions of multi-culturalism, and the anti-war zealots who refuse to protect and preserve the USA gn