George W. Bush, made the clear, yet elegantly profound statement after 9/11/01 that countries (and therefore individuals) were either "for the USA or against the USA" in our "war on terror" in response to the Islamists attack on our cities on 9/11. This clear declarative statement has raised the ire of many around the world.

However, I believe that President Bush hit on a basic truth that has obfuscated by war critics who have hidden behind our concepts of free speech, dissent, etc, in order to cloud the true impact of their actions which is to be "against the US during wartime" and therefore "for our enemies".

My assertion is that when a country is at war, there are only two logical possibilities for both citizens and non-citizens. One is either "for" one side or the other.

At first glance, a third choice, the concept of "neutrality" is possible. After all, countries such as Switzerland and Ireland declared themselves "neutral" during WWII. The US has officially stayed "neutral" in many of the world's ongoing conflicts as well. But were they "really" neutral?

I maintain that this is logically impossible.

If one pictures the possibilities as a continuum, not a "black and white" choice, one may see why I believe this.

Picture a continuous scale where on each side, one has 100% partisanship with the war's opponent(s). Between those two extremes, the partisanship toward one side decreases until the balance shifts to favoritism toward the other nation.


Country A ------------------------------------------ Neutral --------------------------------------- Country B

The "band" of the continuum represented by "neutral", upon examination is infinitesimally small... in fact it's "width" approaches zero mathematically. Even the smallest, almost immeasurable action that favors either "country A" or "country B" would logically push that person more to one side or the other. Therefore, they would not be "neutral". Neutrality would be a logical knife edge that standing on, for any length of time, would be impossible.

Yet, people have deluded themselves into believing that during war, the possibilities are more nebulous than my continuous model. They make declarations such as "I'm for the troops but against the war", or "I'm for Country A by being against Country A when they are at war. Or, they can "declare neutrality" as several countries did during WWII and yet give financial, logistical support to one side, or obstruct, however subtle, the war efforts of one party or the other. Both factors push them to one side or the other of the knife edge... therefore they are not "neutral". Granted, the factors might be complex and in some cases contradictory... but when one sums the net impact of those factors, I still maintain they put one on one side of the center point or the other.


The questions for debate:

Is my model correct or not? If not, why?

As a follow up question, if you accept my model, where on the continuum do many leading Iraq war critics fall with respect to the "side" of the US and the "side" of our enemies?

Is my model correct or not? If not, why?

Completely incorrect.

Let's say Ms. Clinton became president, and in 2010 decided to invade Canada for no good reason. Lordhelmet I know you don't care much for her... what would your reaction be? How would you feel about such a war, led by a Democratic president against a benign neighbor? Would you merely support it without question, or would you speak out? Thinking the war is an awful idea, would that make you "against the USA?"

Of course this is an extreme example, but it shows how your model is fallacious. Or can you truly not even imagine a war we might engage in that you really disagree with?

Your model is also wrong-headed because its logical conclusion is complete authoritarianism. Such an either/or approach could easily be extended to the policies of whomever is in office. If President Ed Kennedy is for giving crackheads $5000 each, plus free pipes, then that policy is AMERICAN policy, and to be against it would be anti-American.

By your own standard, then, you have quite often posted incredibly anti-American posts here at AD.

And I can bust your model in another way entirely. I am not against the "Iraq War" or the "Vietnam War" or the whatever war. I am against War. Entirely. Therefore, I am by definition just as opposed to the violence employed by the "enemy" as I am by the US Armed forces. So how could I possibly be "for" the terrorists by opposing the war on terror? Why do my incriminations focus on American policy and not terrorist policy? Well duh, I have a voice here, and I live in a country where dissent is a core value, where voices raised together can enact changes. I have no sway with Al Qaeda!

If we were talking about something like a football game, where everybody knows who the two sides are, and everybody knows what the definition of victory is, this model would be useful. (And it would be very easy to be neutral.) However, military conflicts are much more complex. It may not even be clear who is fighting. (Terrorists? Insurgents? Freedom fighters?) Depending on what each side does, one's loyalty may be quite variable from moment to moment. (Atrocities and the like.)

One particular complication in warfare is that one must consider if the cost of a goal, even if it is clearly desirable, is acceptable. For example, let's say that the goal of the United States in Iraq is to have a stable, secular, representative government free from terrorism. This is obviously a good thing. In this sense, then all Americans, with the exception of a tiny number of unimportant extremists, is on the side of the USA in this war, without question. Everybody (with the noted exception of fanatics) would like to see peace and freedom in Iraq. However, many people question whether this goal is even theoretically possible. Some believe it might be possible only at an enormous cost in human suffering, a cost which is too high to pay. (This is where war becomes something other than a football game.)

Therefore, if we accept the two-dimensional model you offer as a very simple model of attitudes to the war in Iraq, then I must conclude that all critics of the American effort, except a tiny number of radicals, are on the side of the United States to exactly the same extent as the supports of the American effort.

To return to the football analogy, everybody wants the home team to win; but they may not be willing to have a player be severely injured or killed in pursuit of that goal.

Is my model correct or not? If not, why?

No, a nation could refrain if allowed to and desire or have no interaction with a specific conflict. In which then it would take no side and thus be neutral or of no consequence on the war.

As a follow up question, if you accept my model, where on the continuum do many leading Iraq war critics fall with respect to the "side" of the US and the "side" of our enemies?

The variables that you have to take into account are not neat or clean, or the reality is there is to many simply because not everyone thinks alike, and then you basically would have to install a particular take on reality as the only one by force or law really.

In my opinion the current war in Iraq to me is aiding the enemy, I don’t find myself unpatriotic I just feel our current leadership has no real clue what to do really with a situation I don’t think ever should have occurred.

Then to Afghanistan, not to sidetrack your thread to much, I fully agree with the situation there, not simply because its positive overall compared to say Iraq, the situation itself garners support from how I view things, plus it helps that AQ and the Taliban are there, the people that actually committed 9-11 and caused the GWOT.

So in short, it would be a person to person thing, using liberty and freedom to make a personal choice to support or not support any particular military action our government takes. To deny that is to invite a form of tyranny overall that I don’t think America should accept. An instance on this site is people that utterly support Iraq in my opinion because of being a bush supporter, that in the same instance utterly hate on military actions Clinton made, because of political bias, even though the environment that gave you Blackhawk down is not really all to far from Iraq standards.

Quarkhead, you declared my model "completely incorrect", yet you've not refuted one aspect of the model I proposed.

To your theoretical question involving a President Clinton and the invasion of Canada....

Well, first off, we don't live in a totalitarian state, so I suspect that I and the congress, and the people would be against such a war against Canada while a few might support it. A president cannot just "decide to go to war" and then do so without congressional authorization. This would be true in a war against Canada as it was in the war against Iraq. I would lobby my representatives to vehemently oppose such a war before it ever took place. It is the civic DUTY of an American citizen to make sure his/her representative knows what they think. In this case, massive protests, letter writing campaigns, etc, would be appropriate BEFORE the vote was taken to authorize the war.

However, once the process of representative government had played out, and if the opponents were not able to deter Ms. Clinton, and war was authorized and the shooting started, the situation would become completely and totally different.

In war, one has a choice. I could choose to oppose it, refuse to go along with it, etc. And that would mean that I would have taken sides against country the USA and FOR Canada. Via the model, the point that I would be on the continuum would be on Canada's side and that would be irrefutable.

It seems that you're so enamored with "nobility of the dissident" that you're missing this clearly defined logic.

And my model is NOT authoritarian. And you've projected it beyond what I asserted with your faulty analogy that asserts that being against a domestic policy makes one "anti-American". I have limited this model to "war" which I believe is an extreme and clearly defined set of conditions. War involves the use of military force against another nation with the expressed aim of killing those people until they capitulate. Certainly you can see the distinction between "war" and a hypothetical Ted Kennedy social give-away program?

And my model is a continuum. One might be "slightly" on the side of the US or our enemies. But, I assert that during wartime, once you're on the side of the enemy, you are against us, not for us..... however "mildly" you might be against us.

Furthermore, the factors that play into my model are more sophisticated that your analogies which miss the point. The factors that contribute to one's position on the continuum are cumulative. Take a hypothetical Iraq soldier for example. He may HATE president Bush. HATE the war. He may parrot anti-American propaganda to his family back home. He may write letters to the editor railing against the fact that we are at war. And then he may go out into the streets of Bagdhad and shoot and kill the enemy.
When you add those all up, guess what? He ends up on our side of the continuum. It's the "sum total" of all the factors that count. Similarly, Ireland may have declared themselves neutral during WWII. But, they may have given logistical support for the allies, allowed overflights, landings, intelligence, etc. In that case, they were not neutral, they were on the side of the allies, not the axis. Take another example, Senator John McCain. He has been critical of the war. No doubt, our enemy has used his words against us in their propaganda efforts. That is a factor "against" us. He's been critical of the president in public. Another factor that our enemy would use against us. But, he advocates a change in policy BECAUSE he wants us to win the war in a more decisive way. That trump card, like the whining soldier who goes out and does his duty, puts McCain solidly on the "FOR THE USA" side due to the cumulative effect of my wartime model.

On the other hand, take Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and the rest of the American far left. Nothing they say or do helps our effort while the shooting is taking place. Therefore, they are clearly on the side of the enemy, no if's, and's, or butt's. In some cases, these individuals are STRONLY on the side against the USA.

I assert that war is a special set of circumstances and that everyone (Americans and otherwise) have a choice. At the end of the day, they are either on our side or not. You may be against "all war". That also doesn't change the fact that you are either on our side or not. War is larger than you or any individual. The sun doesn't revolve around you and neither does the concept of "war". My model works even with your pacifistic stance especially when one digs beneath this declarative statement. For example, your strong support of Noam Chomsky, a high profile and extremely outspoken America hater, would push you in a certain direction in spite of your "stated" neutrality. As I said, neutrality is mathematically impossible in my model.

You may not like that "inconvenient truth", but you've not disputed it in any way, shape, or form. You're certainly welcome to try again though.



We're not talking about a football game, Victoria. We are talking about something far, far, far, more important. Therefore, football analogies are inappropriate. My model works even with your "we don't know who we are fighting" model. Why? Because one side of the continuum is perfectly clear. The USA. What to call "Country B" is just semantics. Call them what you want, it doesn't matter. The same was true, for example, in WWII. We were fighting Germany, Japan, Italy, and the Vichy government of France and several other lesser countries allied with our enemies. But, in that conflict, there was a mathematically unachievable neutral point that everyone was on one side of or the other. That's the beauty of my model, it takes your emotion out of it.

My assertion is a statement of fact. It doesn't even judge those who fall on the side against the USA. That's for another debate topic. I am simply asserting that when one distills the entire human history of warfare (not football games, political domestic policies, etc.), that the extreme nature of war results in a very clearly defined, and irrefutable continuum such as I described.




But Gordo, I assert that "neutrality" is unachievable. The slightest tendency, trend, impulse, etc, even as small as the beating of butterfly's wings would push one off the exact mathematical "neutral point". In other words, one can only asymptotically approach neutrality but never achieve it.

One may be "slightly" on the side of the US, or slightly against us. But one would still be "for" us or "against" us and thus uphold my model.

Is my model correct or not? If not, why?
Your model has two flaws in it.

First, the most basic flaw lies in the presumption of a linear measurement of loyalty in this equation. There is a far cry between being against this war, and all of the nuances surrounding it, and being for the opposition.

In most political science research methodologies, this scale would at a minimum lie on 2 axis (is there a plural for axis?), instead of the one you have chosen. If you were providing a survey on this, you would be measuring attitudes on a number of factors: support for the President, for the invasion, against Al Qaeda (a false choice in my opinion, but I'm offering this for the sake of argument), against Saddam/Iraq, etc.

The second flaw was addressed by Quarkhead, but I'd like to expand it further to look at the syllogism presented. Your picture gets clearer in a subsequent response:
Let's write this in a logical syllogism:

Doc is opposed to invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam in 2003
Iraq & Saddam is the enemy we are fighting
Therefore Doc supports Saddam

As Quarkhead has pointed out, there is at least two conditions or factors in this model which aren't accounted for which makes the conclusion invalid. First, QH is against war in all forms. Being so rules out support for any aggressive action by either party.

Second, time is not considered in the equation. For example, if you were to ask me if I thought we should have dealt with Saddam using military force at some time in the future, my answer would have most likely been yes (or at least a maybe). However, my arguing that we shouldn't invade Iraq in 2003 should not deliver any assumption that I somehow support the actions of the proposed country or leader we seek to invade or overthrow. By not supporting this action, according to your logic I support inaction, which is false. The only conclusion you can derive from me not supporting this action is that I don't support this action. The decision isn't a in a vacuum. It takes all kinds of factors into account.

As a follow up question, if you accept my model, where on the continuum do many leading Iraq war critics fall with respect to the "side" of the US and the "side" of our enemies?
Impossible to answer since I consider the premise to be flawed.

That relieves me somewhat concerning your position, yet I stand by what I said about your model being flawed. Let's look, for example, at the Constitutional angle. The Bill of Rights guarantees that political speech is protected, as is the right to assemble and petition the government. Dissent against policy is a fundamental part of the American politic. There are no mitigations enshrined in that document. It cannot be "unAmerican" to speak against wars or policies, no matter when that speaking happens - during a war or not. And while I am glad you do not follow this model when it applies to social policies, for example, the analogy is still apt. Being against something does not imply that one is for its opposite. Not even a little bit. Life is simply more complex than that.



Here's where I believe the logic of your argument really fails. You're mixing your personal ideological bent with an attempt at 'cold' logic. What is "helpful" to the country is subjective. You're quick to denounce people like Chomsky or Moore, but that is because, given your personal beliefs, you are incapable of seeing how their positions and statements might be beneficial to the country.

I'd like to expand on my idea of Ms. Clinton's war against Canada - I was pretty sleepy when I wrote my last post, and might not have really explained what I meant.

Let's say it plays out like this: Clinton and her administration present bits of "classified" intelligence to Congress, showing they are certain that Canada was behind the 2008 bombing of Denver. They declare the intelligence a 'slam dunk.' They manage to get the Congress whipped into a war frenzy, and get authorization to begin military operations. A year later, with the US forces stretched thin, casualties mounting, it becomes clear that the intelligence was false for the most part, played up by an administration that was already geared for war on Canada. Yet according to your continuum model, the people who start pointing this out, who start saying publicly, wait a minute, this war was for the wrong reasons, this was a mistake, are against America and for Canada. However, they may be right. If they manage to get enough support, they make their voices heard in Congress, and perhaps Congress decides to end this ill-conceived war. The benefit is clear: many lives have been saved by ending a war based on faulty premises. How is this dissent not beneficial to America in the longer term?

And if one's stance is, like mine, against war itself, we may ask, why is that? Obviously part of a philosophy that is anti-war includes the premise that it is far more beneficial to cultures and people to not engage in warfare. Therefore it cannot be anti-American to dissent against war, because the perceived benefit will be manifest upon the ending of war.



As far as I am aware, the earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves neither around me, nor Chomsky, nor any supporter of a war, nor someone presenting the false logic of "for us or against us."

It seems to me that your definition of what is "for" us is very narrow, and that you cannot conceive of actions and words outside of your view being beneficial. For example, you see Chomsky as an "America hater." Yet on what do you base this? The fact that you disagree with his politics? He is critical of American policies espoused by the two major parties. How does this translate into 'hating' this country? Can you provide some clear examples, beyond your just saying it is so? Ultimately, you see, your argument is based on a subjective idea of "benefit." You can certainly believe in your continuum, you can certainly believe that the reality is the way you have stated it. However, you simply cannot pretend that it is hard logic, which applies universally.



I agree, in part. It is true that historically, there have been no clear cases of a nation being actually neutral in a war. In that sense, there is a continuum where the middle point is impossibly small. But the actions of countries are different from the actions and words of individuals in those countries. You're extrapolating but it doesn't really work

The model has a problem in that it does not allow for legal dissent. No war in history has been supported by everyone and never will be. This does not mean a person against a war is “for” the other side – they may be just against the war or they may be a pacifist – and against all war. They have the right to their views and can express them openly and to their Congressmen. That is why Congress declares war.

Is my model correct or not? If not, why?

Yes, and no. Its internal logic is correct, because as part of the model you assert that complete neutrality requires being exactly halfway between \"with us\" and \"against us\", and that such precise balance is impossible on a continuous spectrum (it might be on a particulate spectrum, but only if there are an odd number of particles in between \"with us\" and \"against us\").

However, US policy has changed over time. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 - the context in which President Bush made his \"with us or against us\" comments, and the one you cite - many countries were fully supportive of the USA\'s desire for a war on terror. France sent troops into Afghanistan, and French newspapers printed headlines that \"We\'re All Americans Now\".

The extension by the Bush administration to include the Iraq war has been well rehearsed on these boards over the years; for the purposes of this thread let\'s just say it is open to argument, and both sides have some valid points to make (Hussein-era Iraq had few contacts with al-Qaeda, but those few they did have had latterly become supportive).

A nation or person may have been entirely consistent in their opinions, and shifted from being \"with us\" to being \"against us\" simply by the repositioning of what, precisely, the War on Terror consists of.

One could be entirely supportive of the War on Terror, but disagree that the Iraq War forms part of it. Or, one could agree that it does, but disagree with the manner of the US proscution of it.

Your model also assumes that a person or nation has an entirely consonant position on all issues, and that any dissonant opinion (for or against) tips them entirely into the \"for\" or \"against\" camp.

Let\'s turn to Britain, then.

Britain has boots on the ground. Our service personnel are in harms way. Our Prime Minister does everything he can to support the Bush administration\'s prosecution of the war on terror, and (unlike the French) that support hasn\'t wavered over Iraq.

Yet London\'s traditional status as a safe haven for outspoken foreigners, critical of their own regimes still means it is a centre for Islamist fundraising; and a small number of British Muslims are known to be actively fighting the WoT against Britain and America.

Does that mean Britain is \"against us\"? To be given a wide berth, if not actually bombed?

That\'s not to mention the US\'s treatment of Saudia Arabia, which provided the bulk of the man power and funding for the 9-11 attacks, and yet because its government is outwardly friendly (and despite not one Saudi soldier has yet taken part in the WoT) it appears to be perceived by almost everyone who supports the War on Terror as \"with us\" - most notably by the Bush administration itself.

Meanwhile, in non-Islamic terror campaigns, the USA says little and does less. Whether that\'s because the Hindu-Buddhist terror campaign in Sri Lanka, supported by Indian Tamils (making it international terrorism, and therefore notionally part of the WoT), and the quiescent-but-still-bubbling Irish republican terror organisations (mostly funded through organised crime, but with a PR-friendly American fundraising arm which the US government refuses to criminalise) are just much lower down on the list, or because the USA doesn\'t consider them to be part of the WoT at all, I don\'t know.

I suspect the latter, myself, in which case the USA itself isn\'t entirely \"with us\" on the war on terror. Of course, here is where we start arguing about what types of terrorism do and do not constitute the WoT, person A defines it in such a way that person A is right and everyone that doesn\'t agree with person A has to be wrong, and we\'re back to square one.

Really, your whole model is like looking at a rainbow and saying \"if a colour is not red and is not violet, it must be either red or violet\". Evidently, orange is closer to being red that it is to being violet. Indeed, some shades of orange are so red that the human eyes can\'t really tell the difference between \"so red it\'s almost orange\" and \"so orange it\'s almost red\". But it\'s still doesn\'t make the round citrus fruits that they grow in California orange groves anything other than orange.. They have a phrase for a model like that - colour-blind.

As a follow up question, if you accept my model, where on the continuum do many leading Iraq war critics fall with respect to the \"side\" of the US and the \"side\" of our enemies?

I don\'t accept your model, so this question is moot for me.

I think your model is too simplistic, doesn’t specifically address how you reach the point on your continuum and it’s flawed under the basic fundamentals of a free society. We’re dealing with a highly emotional subject and in this situation the complexities with the war on terrorism don’t make it any easier. We’ve really never had a “war” like this before in our short history.

If you came up with a list of war “issues”, for example:
Cost in lives of our troops.
Cost in lives of civilian.
Cost in dollars.
Is the “enemy” an imminent threat?
What is the net result of victory/loss?
Can victory/loss even be obtained?
Will this war make a difference in the overall fight against terrorism?
The emotional cost this has on families who have relatives serving?
Etc…..

An individual is going to sign an emotional “weight” to each point. What’s really important to you might not carry as much weight with your neighbor. How we get to our opinion is just as important as the opinion itself.

It is very possible to be against the war in Iraq but still support the troops.
It is very possible to be against the war in Iraq but support the war on terrorism.


You continue to reason that if we don’t follow the presidents lead lock stock and barrel and we dare dissent than we’re clearly helping the enemy. While you are entitled to your simplistic opinion this basic premise for your entire argument is completely false and entirely ignores the very principles this country was founded on. It’s every person’s right and responsibility in this country to speak out against our government if they feel we’re making mistakes.

I have a hard time believing Cindy/Michael/Noam actually support our enemies, which is exactly what you’re stating. I have a hard time believing Cindy/Michael/Noam want to see our troops get killed, families devastated and the world ruled by extremists. If you could find me a quote proving otherwise than I’ll be the first to apologize. These critics aren’t for any of these things, they’re just against the way our president is handling the war on terrorism.

Using this reasoning you can quickly paint President Bush into the same “must be against us” corner. If you believe that we didn’t have enough troops from the beginning, an opinion shared by many, than he too is guilty to a degree of “doing nothing to help our efforts while the shooting is taking place”. Is not doing enough the same as not doing nothing? In this situation it’s a resounding yes because neither will accomplish the final goal.

You tell me which helps the enemy more:

Cindy/Michael/Noam sharing their opinions that this was a bad idea and not handled properly. (my guess is most insurgents have never heard of these folks or could give a rats hind end what they think)

Or

George/Donald not sending in enough troops from the beginning, starting the war with troops that were not equipped to perform their jobs (lack of proper body armor/armored humvees, etc..), and failing over the course of three years to enable the Iraqi’s to handle the insurgency themselves.

I just found out recently that US troops were not allowed to enter certain neighborhoods, some of which have been proven to be a safe haven for insurgents. Now, you going to blame Cindy/Michael/Noam for that as well?

Sure it does. It makes no comment on the morality, the wisdom, or the reasonableness of being on one side of a wartime participant or the other. It's not a debate on whether the "right to dissent" is good, bad, or ugly. It's simply a debate on the reality of war... that one has to pick a side and that everyone DOES pick a side whether they intend to or not.

My argument is during war, the model is one dimensional (not 2), and that neutrality is mathematically impossible to achieve.

The critics of my model seem to be stuck on a few emotional points related to this particular Iraq war. But I maintain that my model is valid for ALL wars throughout ALL of history. And nothing posted by anyone in this thread has proven me wrong. On the contrary, it's just reinforced my contention that I'm right.

With respect to the "weights" of the factors in the cumulative equation that places one on the continuum... that's a point that I'll expand upon here.

If "X" is a person's position on the "for or against" scale, then....

X = (position 1)*(weighting 1) + (position 2)*(weighting 2) + (position 3)*(weighting 3)+...

For example, if someone is an active participant in the war, that would be a factor that receives an extremely strong weighting. A pacifist priest, on the other hand, would have less of an impact on the overall war effort and thus a lesser weighting.

The "objections" to my "simplistic model" are arguments about the weighting factors and where the equilibrium point should be. But they do NOT disqualify my model. As I said, all of the arguments posed fit into my model. Multiple wars are also handled on this continuum (war on terror, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq), but the model still works because each gets factored in and weighted accordingly.

The bottom line point that I'm making is that there are only 2 sides when it comes to war. For or against. There is no "maybe" or "I'm out of this one". One may actually state those opinions and intents... but when one analyzes one's body of actions, inevitably, one falls on one side or the other in the conflict.

Again, the purpose of this thread is not to debate the wisdom, morality, or righteousness of self proclaimed "Iraq war critics". It's to assert that this model is valid and indisputable.

Once that basis has been established, then we can start debating who is on which side and argue the morality of that position. But not yet. This debate is the prerequisite to that debate.

But to answer a specific question....



That one is easy. Cindy/Noam/Michael are CLEARLY on the side of our enemies. They have a consistent pattern of behavior that has undermine our efforts, our morale, and that has disseminated and helped to amplify our enemy's propaganda effort. They are all WAY Down the continuum to the point where they approach armed insurgents. That is without question. On the other hand, while mistakes may have been made by our war planners, and unforseen events may have changed the conflict, their loyalties have NEVER been questioned. They, along with the entire military, soldiers on the ground, etc, are 100% on our side, not the side of our enemies.

Your logic taken to another war would say that Hitler was actually on the Allies side because he made the decision to invade the USSR in the winter. Would anyone really buy that logic? Nope. Hitler was on the side of the Third Reich and the Axis, not the Allies. That debate isn't even close.

No, my logic was based on the question “what helps the enemy more”: poor military decisions or dissenting against the government? Your understanding of the poor decision to invade Russia in the winter clearly indicates you would agree with me: more soldiers die from bad military decisions than domestic dissention.


Unless you can provide a single quote where Cindy/Michael/Noam stated they support terrorist than your premise is nothing but hyperbole and assumption.

And lordhelmet you fall into the same category as your far left favorites and indeed you must be a terrorist sympathizer as well. You have repeatedly slammed Clinton for his terrorist policies (or lack there of). So according to your very own logic;

dissent against presidential terrorism policies = Al Queda sympathizer

.....you supported the terrorist for speaking out against the former president. And my friend i have a hard time believing that one.

In my first response to Quarkhead's post, I clearly indicated that my model was only valid during wartime and wasn't applicable to "domestic" polics (Q-H's Ted Kennedy $5K giveaway hypothetical).

A single quote from Sheehan, Moore, Chomsky? I picked them because their statements are so visible and the conclusion so self evident, that "proof" isn't required.

Again, your question of "who helps the enemy more" doesn't dispute my model, just the weighting. And, as when I corrected you earlier, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc, may have used less than successful tactics, but "who's side they were on" was NEVER in question. My analogy of Hitler and his Eastern Front campaign is analogous. Hitler may have been foolish, his tactics flawed, and he may have cost Germany dearly... but he was CLEARLY on Germany's side during the war.

As I said, my assertion is that one is ALWAYS on a side of a war.

Domestic politics are not the topic of this thread so please don't interject them and/or mis-characterize my positions.

And here is yet another perfect example of how you are extrapolating your personal ideology into what seems to you to be a logical, objective idea of this continuum.

It may seem just as obvious to me - and it does - that Bush's actions in the WOT are clearly so completely wrong that they are doing the terrorists' jobs for them. Using your logic, I would put Bush WAY down the continuum, where he may as well be a member of Al Qaeda. That his antiterror policies are self defeating is so self-evident, so clear, that "proof" is not required.

So you see, even if your continuum can be logically constructed, where we place people - and for what reasons - are as varied as our own opinions. It is just as valid for me to state that supporting a wrong-headed war puts you in the enemy's camp, as it is for you to say that those who speak out against a war are in the enemy's camp.

I could construct a similar continuum for anything, but what's the point, when who we choose to place on it, and in what position, is as arbitrary as our opinions? For example, I posit that there is no neutral "point" on the scale from beautiful to ugly. MrsPigpen may be high on the scale, I may be low on the scale... according to me. You might disagree, because we have differing ideas about what "beauty" is.

I think where the issue might arise is with the distinction between actions and intentions. Take legal dissent. I have always stood up for the right of those who dissented with the war to have that opinion. However, I also think (and this may be LH's point?), that such dissent also inherently works for our enemy's interest. Take the situation in Iraq (which is surely what this is about). All of those fighting against us would like us to leave. Therefore, those taking action here in the U.S. leading to that end are also inherently working towards our enemies' interests--although I don't think they are doing so intentionally. I further don't rule out that they are doing so with the U.S.'s interest in mind, and fully believe such action would also be in the U.S.'s best interest. I don't think the model can really handle that dichotomy, which is were the argument probably lies.

So your entire opposition to my irrefutable model is that one cannot even define "side" let alone up and down? Is that what you're saying?

Everything is relative? So you join Fife and Drum in arguing about the "weighting" factors of my model, not the model itself.

But war is a clarifier. And it has been throughout history. Whether we like it or not.

If anyone has confused this debate by projecting one's own ideology, it's you Quarkhead. You claim Bush is on the side of Al Qaeda? That's rejectable on its face. Just as the claim that anti-American zealot Noam Chomsky is an "American Hero".

Why not just argue that the sky is green, the sea is purple, and that we all breath helium, not oxygen to survive? I mean if EVERYTHING is relative and if "truth" is centered around the Quarkhead universe.... then such absurdities are possible.

But, when it comes to "war", everyone is on a side. Period. Bush is clearly on the pro-US side and on the extreme side of that scale. Bin Laden is on the extreme side of the "other" side.

The rest of us are in the middle.

And you ARE on a side. Whether you like it or not.

If you can't refute my model using the Iraq war since you're so strongly personally invested in the (negative) outcome, then pick another war. Any war.

My model works for them too.

Another point is this, when you have say a general or generals in dissent, do you believe they want the enemy to win?

The idea again comes down to the fact that objective reality of say the war in Iraq does not exist, we don’t have that to work with, its not to say a level of gravity or 1+1=2.

So you have to take that into consideration also is all. So in light of just that simple point, again you would have to take a certain view of a particular action in time and staple is as the correct one for all time, to simply flip your argument what if people viewed supporters of the current war and strategy in Iraq as aiding the enemy? At what point can you claim objective truth in it all?

And yes individuals can claim neutrality, but from observation of either side or a group in a struggle this could be looked upon as favor to them or a different side, it does not change the reality that the original group wanted nothing to do with the war, so in essence neutrality is possible to them, but maybe not possible when viewed from a group in a struggle, a slight change of context can change a lot.

No human being has influence on every single aspect of human civilization, the impact they hold would be 0. So in essence if you would the impact they then hold could be called neutral, as it has none, to me that would be the basis of holding neutrality. To lump this up in regards to the Iraq war, what of the percent that is undecided, what impact do they make overall, as in they seem to go not in either direction on your scale without an observer fallacy and simply saying what bush said of with us or against us?

In essence though I can agree with what you are tying to say slightly. If you take any system and change a variable in it some reaction will occur, its pretty easy to see this overall. For instance if people woke up tomorrow and wanted to make space exploration a reality it would radically speed this process up, but on that note I don’t take it then as everyone not pushing for it is against it. As for more specifically within say the context of the natural world, though somewhat hard to put into words, the various chemical reactions taking place in an environment would then be impacted by changing the composition of such, leaving you with trees with shorter life spans but greater rates of CO2 absorption, not to say its real, just an example of the interconnectedness I think you are looking for, though I could be wrong.

My model covers that case and I used the example of John McCain. He has been critical of the Bush approach to the war for 3 years. But, he's supported our NATION while we are at war and has overtly worked in the direction of our victory, not our defeat. His "dissent" was in the conduct of the war, his "side" was not in question.

As I said, the factors are cumulative.

My model covers all of this if you read it.

I never discussed domestic policies, only domestic dissent, which you introduced through your very questions.


Did you not slam Clinton for his polices while we were in Iraq? So the new premise is you can slam former presidents for their policies during war time and not expect that to embolden terrorist or impact our troop moral.


Emphasis mine.

So it’s ok for McCain to dissent against the conduct of the war but remain on the side of the U.S. Why the get out of jail free card here? Because his last name isn’t Sheehan, Moore or Chomsky? So now we introduce different flavors of dissent and as long as the dissenter is a republican it’s OK and has no impact on troop morale and doesn’t embolden the terrorist. I’ll easily argue that when a member of congress and a member of the same party as the president shows any dissent it easily outweighs the dissent of any mom, film maker or writer.

So as long as it fits into lordhelmets equation for putting Bush on a pedestal while proving that far left wingers who oppose his policies are a hair away from firing RPG’s at U.S. troops than we’re good to go. Gotcha. Just trying to find the footing on this slippery slope you’ve created.

I don't really refute your model, I suppose... but my point stands that it is ideology which determines who we place and where. Which pretty much renders your 'model' ineffective.



Um, pot meet kettle? I haven't made the same claim to Objective Reality Defining that you have, LH. I love how your first sentence here is then followed by.... you guessed it - projections of your own ideology. My conclusions regarding people like Bush and Chomsky are just as valid as yours. One of us may be wrong, but they are still opinions, because they cannot really be demonstrated.

You're really stretching to dismiss my criticism in this way. Did I say that everything was relative? No, I didn't. One can determine the color of the sky objectively. One can say that an object is composed of certain types of atoms. But one cannot say with certainty that one person or their actions or statements are either good or bad for the country - except perhaps in certain instances, looking back at something, one might come to a particular conclusion - which will still be theory, not scientific reality.

You keep writing as though I were operating in a solipsistic fashion, but really, I am saying that the validity of your - and my - opinions cannot be determined and therefore placed into some sort of objective scale. If anything, you are the one behaving as though your opinions are the Truth Carved in Stone, and I would be far more justified in claiming that you are acting as though the universe revolves around you.



I can see where you're coming from, and first, we'd really have to come to some agreement about what our enemy's "interests" actually are. I'll try to explain what I mean. In anything that occurs, there may be short-term and long-term effects. Protesting against a war could, in a narrow sense, be said to "inherently work for our enemy's interest." However, if the protests lead to an end of the war, and following that, a better peace is established, wouldn't we also be able to say that the protesting was ultimately in the interest of our own country? Often, the people who support wars say that though the violence of warfare is objectionable, it is for a greater good later. I've seen in another thread here that people can find all sorts of ways to justify the killing of civilians - presumably with a farther-reaching goal in mind. To me it is objectional to go to war - though I understand that countries often do it with a longer-term goal in mind - they think the end result of going to war will benefit our country. To Lordhelmet, opposing a war is objectionable; and he seems unable to understand that those opposing a war may also have long-term goals. They think that ending the war will benefit the country more.

My model is "cumulative". Therefore, McCain's ENTIRE set of actions related to the war must be summed after they are weighted.

It's clear that McCain is clearly on the side of the USA. His "dissent" is intended to find a BETTER way to help our side, not undermine it and help our enemies.

On the other hand, the three stooges I mentioned have ZERO elements, of little or great weighting, that any rational person could put on the "side" of the USA in this war.

You got nothing and you'll like it. My model stands.

Why?

It is not unreasonable to say that in the last four years President Bush's actions have directly led to a strengthening of Al Qaeda. There was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion. The terrorist organisation across the world was crippled and disorganised due to fighting the weight of the United States strength and will, until the President diverted this strength away from the war on terror into Iraq. Now, as I understand it, it has grown stronger more numerous and better organised, stronger than it has ever been. Al Qaeda literally owes their regained strength and numbers to President Bush and his political decisions. President Bush went so far as to intentionally disband the CIA group code named Alec Station dedicated to hunting Bin Laden.

These facts are not in dispute. You may not personally agree, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that President Bush has done far more to aid the terrorist enemies of the United States than the various left wing speakers you deride. It is nothing but your personal political opinion that shapes your determination of who is for and who is against the United States. As such your criteria are valueless, since they are not actual independent criteria at all, but simply manifestations of your own personal political beliefs.

You believe Cindy Sheehan has aided and abetted the enemy. To that I respond how many children have you sacrificed for the country? I believe the nature of what she has given for the fight against Americas enemies outweighs any subsequent grief stricken comments. I find attempts of far-right wing demagogues to vilify this poor woman who literally gave her sons for the country to be utterly abominable.

You believe Michael Moore is anti-American. I believe he is an average to poor filmmaker whose films contain occasional valuable insights and important truths, but these tend to be sadly drowned out by his distortions and conspiracy theorising. I do not like him very much, nor his works, but I will defend him tooth and nail against any who feel his exercise of free speech is treasonous while spending their evenings raptly listening to Ann Coulter.

You claim President Bush is clearly on the pro-US side and on the extreme side of that scale. That is your opinion, and nothing but your opinion. There are many who have a contrary opinion, and who believe the sitting President is the worst enemy the United States has faced, and draw this conclusion from a cost-benefit analysis of his actions. I do not agree with their extremist opinions any more than I agree with your extremist opinions, but neither extreme is anything more than an opinion, and neither opinion is valid for use as a supposedly independent criterion for your chart.


I see this as an attempt to codify the same biases which have led people to demonise and accuse of treason anyone they disagree with. It has sadly always been so much easier to label people whose opinions you dislike as opponents to morality, or country, or whatever you choose rather than deal with their statements through fact and analysis.

If you asked me for my criteria on your chart, I would say this: Those who try and stifle opposition, those who try and pillory any who dare disagree, those who label as traitors people who express contrary opinions, those who vilify the act of believing there might be a different way are traitors not just to the state as it exists today, but to everything this state was created for and founded upon. Every man, woman and child who has died in the history of this glorious country is spat upon by those who take such actions.

I believe that you have chosen to frame this debate in war not because the circumstances are different from those in peacetime, but that by placing the debate in war-only context you disarm the obvious rebuttal that according to your chart, we Republicans were guilty of utter treason during the last Administration.



It is my opinion, and perhaps I could put it in chart format to make it seem more impartial, that the terrorists threaten our buildings, our institutions, our infrastructure and our lives. But those who try and place peaceful and even reasonable dissent in the same camp as treason and terrorism threaten our very souls as Americans.

Where does that fit on this chart?

No for the same reason it was wrong when you explained it in the chat room last night. Let's take...oh, I don't know, Iraq for example. If someone doesn't believe that going into Iraq was in our best interest, victory in Iraq would be impossible and/or meaningless. Therefore those people do not support the war, but in their view, they support what is best for the country in their opinion. It's all subjective. In order for you model to approach the realm of "working" we would all need to agree on a definition of the word "win", but that'll never happen for the reason I just explained. The people that wants us to leave Iraq immediately don't see us staying their and installing a pro-America gov't as a victory, therefore they don't see us leaving as a defeat, therefore they aren't "against" this country, because in their view, leaving is in the country's best interest...As I said, you're oversimplifying a subjective reality.

Not applicable I reckon.

CP

Is my model correct or not? If not, why?

It is incorrect because you cannot apply absolutes to the human condition. Because Senator McCain has been able to be critical of the war without casting aspersions on the President, you declare him to be "for" the war, but it is by your own admission because

Weighted by you. What makes your continuum and your judgements any better than Quarkhead's, Fife And Drum's, or mine? Because you tend to agree with a man elected twice to the Presidency--a man who has had to backtrack on every reason for invading Iraq save two, those being that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and the Iraqis were suffering under his rule?

I'm thinking of the Star-Spangled Banner where one of the lines reads:

In this case, "our cause" was not that the Iraqis were under any harsher rule than they were when Saddam Hussein was our buddy and he was fighting the Iranian Islamic fundamentalists. No, it was the implication that somehow this dictator was in bed with terrorists, the charges that he had WMD's all over the place (never mind that they were never found), and was making nukes.

Can you allow that it is possible to love one's country, to work for the welfare of one's country, and to express frequent and vocal dissent to policies that are dishonest, unfair, and continue to jeopardize the well-being of one's fellow citizens?

And tell me, what is so patriotic about continuing to send troops and spend a billion dollars plus per week on a war that by all signs we appear to be losing?

Isn't it possible to love one's country but to be ashamed of the deception and mess the current leaders have made?

Where do you fit on the chart? Well, given your pronouncements, your allies, and this post, you're clearly on the side against the USA when it comes to the Iraq war.

Not out there with the armed combatants, but over the line none the less.

Bush is on the side of Al Qaeda? Well, the earth is green. It is because I said so. Up is down, left is right. The universe revolves around Quarkhead.

As I said before, your assertion is analogous to claiming that Hitler was really on the side of the allies during WWII because he ordered the invasion of the USSR and thus depleted his troops at a critical time. You confuse tactics with allegiance (among other things). My thread is about "who's side are you on", not "is your leadership wise".

My model is valid for all wars and for all presidents, independent of which party they come from. War, as I stated, is inherently a different situation than the normal domestic political squabbles. When the gloves come off, when the weapons are drawn, and when the shells start firing, it's a different situation than the normal arguments about abortion, minimum wage, and other trivia.

Can you not distinguish this?

During WWII, it was clear for the people since the vast majority were directly impacted. But, in this war, less than 1% of the people are directly involved or have direct family members involved. Therefore, it's just another intellectual parlor game to some... they put themselves "above" it all like it has no direct impact on themselves. And that's why they can allow themselves to get into twisted intellectual positions such as "I support the troops but work to stop the war", and ignore that their work to "stop the war" on the terms of the enemy actually puts our troops (and our citizens) in greater, not lesser danger.

But, that's not the point of my thread in the first place. The point is to assert, and prove a model that transcends this war or any other.

But, you are completely infatuated with the "nobility of the dissenter" and that's been guiding your responses to my assertion.

Dissent is a right in our society. I'm not arguing that point. But that doesn't change the fact that in some circumstances, if it's not done wisely, or in the context of improving our chances of winning the war (ala John McCain), this dissent aids and abets our enemies during wartime. And thus, the dissenter is on the other side of the war. All dissent is not created equal. Some intends to make our side stronger and help us prevail during war. Other intends to undermine our position, hurt our efforts, and eventually lead to our defeat.

The question is where is the tipping point that puts a citizen on the side of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the rest of the pre-enlightenment Islamist thugs. But that's for another thread in which we can "demonize" the traitors.... as they should be. This thread is just to establish the model in the first place that you're either "for" us or "against" us when you cut through the crap and distill the issue down to it's essential elements.



My thread is independent to the Iraq war. It's about a model that is valid (or invalid) for all wars during all time. But, since you insist, I'll state it again.

We have a system of checks and balances. We have a representative republic, not a direct democracy. People like yourself, Paladin, had your CHANCE to stop the war in Iraq before it was started via our process. Bush went to the congress for authorization. He is not a dictator. And that authorization was received as a result of "yes" votes by people like Senator Kerry, Edwards, Reid, Clinton, Lieberman, and many others. Recognize those names? They are the opposition party to our president. They went ALONG with it and so did over 70% of the people at that time.

My point is that once the shooting starts, the time for argument is OVER. It's time to WIN the war, not lose it. Yet, you (and the others) treat the most serious of human conditions, war, as if it's as trivial as the debate about the minimum wage, abortion, or tax rates for different income groups. War is not an "AD Radio Show". War is ENTIRELY a different matter and that's why my 1 dimension model is ONLY valid during wartime.

If our American civilization believes that once we get into a war, we have the luxury of losing it, then our American civilization will be short-lived by historical standards. This is a matter of national survival in my view. We face a committed enemy with a long-term vision and a group of people who do not share the values of you, me, and the vast majority of Americans and free people everywhere. Yet, you and the rest of the left take positions that put YOU on their side. And why? Because you are "embarrassed" by our leadership? Because our leadership doesn't share your liberal theology? Can't you see that his is BIGGER than petty party politics? If we lose in this Iraq war (or any other), what do you think the ramifications will be? Have you and the other Bush haters REALLY thought this through? I maintain that you have not.

As I said, when the shooting starts, the time for debate is over. It's too late. There is no "way back" machine or a big "do over" button. Then it's time to win. It's a shame that your side didn't have more influence over your democrat leadership back when it counted. The entire mess could have been prevented. But, they followed the lead of Bubba Clinton and were "poll driven" back then, not values or principle driven.

You can chastise them via email and letters all you want for that.

We lost in Vietnam, lordhelmet, so I would suggest, "luxury" or not, that it is altogether possible to be living in the most powerful nation on earth and still lose. And really, show me any preceding world power that has not lost wars. Great Britain? What makes us so special then?

Our nation will continue to survive, even as it did when the last troops were evacuated from Saigon.

And think of this: Even if I were on the side of George Walker Bush at this time and on the sidelines shouting "rah, rah, rah" at his latest attempt to buttress the troops with an infusion of 20,000+, would my "support" make much difference, either?

The fact is that Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Cindy Sheehan (or the "three stooges" as you referred to them) have NOT lost the war for this country. The war in Iraq was ill-timed and deceptively implicated with a "global war on terror" that in the beginning was a search for the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. If we want to blame anybody for losing this war, we need only look in the directions of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

What will have lost us the war will be George W. Bush's refusal to do what he said he had been doing: listening to the generals on the ground when they called for more troops during the occupation, when the orders were to leave caches of weapons and ammo unattended, when they did not allow some kind of official Iraqi presence to keep the cleared areas from descending into chaos. No, this is George W. Bush's and the neocons' attempt at nation building, which he had said he wasn't going to do.

Make no mistake: Even though it is not apparent that the majority of the population is paying for the war, it is and will be paying for it by way of draconian cuts in domestic programs such as education and health services and by way of higher taxes except for the most affluent segment of the population for many, many, many years to come. And in the meantime the Peoples' Republic of China and Japan are buying our national debt. Imagine--being indebted to a Communist country in order to spread our idea of "democracy" abroad, by conquest if not by example!

In addition, George W. Bush's "either you're with us or you're against us" policy was and is deceptive and simplistic. All you have to do is look at the countries we're NOT fighting such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan where the hijackers came from. Now why was it "ok" to allow international police investigations there but necessary to attack Iraq? Seems even Mr. Bush has been a little selective when it comes to "either you're for us or you're against us".

But since the rhetoric for many years since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait had been for his ouster, here was the opportunity to do it, whether or not it had any relevance to what happened on 9/11. The trick was to imply that it was related to 9/11 in the absence of any real evidence. And that is what is most insidious of all about this war.

If you think that I or many on this board equate this Iraq war with other aspects of our liberal "theology," then you are mistaken. Because it is more than principle that is involved here. It is realistically our country wasting the lifeblood of its patriots and the legacies of our children because we have a leader too stubborn to admit he was wrong and free us from an unrealistic obligation that cannot be resolved his way.

Michael Moore is obnoxious, I'll grant you. Cindy Sheehan has made some interesting friends while protesting, and Noam Chomsky is not a friend to the corporatist bent of our society, but I would not call them traitors or on the side of religious zealots who kill innocent Iraqis and American troops to bring the world under the control of their religious laws. Not by any means.

Is my model correct or not? If not, why?

Your model is not correct because even the major proponents of our "War on Terror" can't seem to identify any enemy, and we have been losing allies due to the President's lack of leadership. This war has had such shifting foundations of why we are there, that I doubt if the President himself really is "with us" in the effort to fight terrorism. Despite his rhetoric, I believe he sent troops to war with Iraq simply because Saddam Hussein tried to kill his daddy. If we were to persuade the world's leaders that a dictatorial leader willing to build and use nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction needed to be eliminated, George W. Bush would be at the top of their hit list.

Your premise presumes that we can avoid supporting our enemies.

Gasoline, I heard recently was less than $1.50 per gallon when George W. Bush was elected. We are still purchasing most of our crude oil from countries in the Middle East. If I fill up my car, I have no way to stipulate that I want gasoline from American oil wells.

Forty years ago, I could walk into a men's store and purchase a shirt and a pair of pants that were American made. I could purchase American made cars. Japanese electronics companies, as per a Business Week article I was reading while waiting to apply for a job in late 1965, were building televisions in America to take advantage of cheap American labor.

Today, I have to purchase new clothes from the grocery store. The men's clothing stores have all gone out of business. The tags are most likely to read "Made in China" or "Made in Vietnam."

I recall the first time that I purchased a Volkswagen, part of the sales pitch was that VW was importing more dollar value in steel, rubber, auto parts, etc. from the United States than it was exporting to the U.S. in the dollar value of the cars that it sold here. It was building auto factories in the United States at a time when the Big Three were starting to build plants in Canada and Mexico.

Big business has made us business partners with every other nation, and American made is becoming a term for the history lessons.

During WWII, if my parents opened a can of food, both ends of the can were removed. The label was removed. The metal was washed and flattened. Both the metal and the paper were recycled. Everything was rationed. The nation knew we were at war, and we knew who the enemy was.

According to the news, about 1 American in 4 still believes that we are right to be in Iraq. If this is truly a Republic or a Democracy, our leaders should need to find a way to bring our troops home. We don't need to fall one hundred percent behind the rhetoric of a fool simply because he says he knows what he is talking about.

"(13) Have neither commercial nor vested interest in a country within whose boundaries physical or mental coercion is known to be a common practice against persons acting in the interest of the Uaited States. This requirement applies to the soldier's spouse as well."

This is a requirement that the army holds for certain positions, because it might cause a conflict of interest with the person performing his or her job, I always found it funny we do not apply this standard to politicians as it would definitely play on some line of whom you support or not.

1. You can't identity our enemies in the "war on terror"? Are you kidding? They are Islamists who have declared Jihad on the USA and the states (and individuals) that support those people. And with respect to my model of war, and whether you're for one side or the other, if you don't want to use "the war on terror" or "Iraq", then pick another war for purposes of our discussion. It doesn't even have to be an "American" war. I maintain that my model is valid for all of human history, not just today.

2. Despite YOUR rhetoric, what does your charge against Bush (related to Saddam's attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush) have to do with my asserted model? And do you really believe George W. Bush is a "dictator"? Did you miss a couple of presidential elections and the congressional authorization to use force in Iraq (and other places)??? Do you not believe that America has the system that it does??

3. Finally, my topic does not "presume that we avoid supporting our enemies". My assertion is that you either support one side of a conflict or another. My assertion is that there is no "middle". If you accept that, then the entire debate changes to "who's side are you on". And I've presented a mathematically model to determine just that.



Well, thanks for the lesson in irrelevant nostalgia. This section of your post has NOTHING to do with the debate at hand. But, since you insist, and if since you apparently yearn to go back to the "good old days" of "40 years ago" (that would be 1967 per my calculator), then certainly you'd accept the rest of our nation's social, political, technological, and foreign policy conditions of that day also?

You're assertion is that there is no middle and that assertion is grounded on the foundation of YOUR definition of "winning" the war in Iraq...I'll say it again because you must have missed my first post [which is easy to do, I really should get a more conspicuous avatar ]. If someone believes that we should not be in Iraq, then your definition of a "win" doesn't apply to them. To those people, a "win" is impossible to achieve because we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. As I said in my first post, it's all subjective.