There’s no point in debating with you guys at all - I posted statistics and facts explaining how the Iraq war was a poorly conceived idea, how it has made us less safe, and all you do is call me a defeatist and accuse me of surrendering...it’s not surrender if you think the war itself is a mistake.
LLP - 08:02pm on 02/25/2008
...it’s not surrender if you think the war itself is a mistake.
Of course it is; your rationalizations won’t ever win a war, neither will your agendized statistics. We need to defeat the terrorists, and running away from them isn’t the way to do it.
Study WWII some time, especially the early part. All the statistics would have “proved” the same thing as you are preaching, but we defeated Hitler and Tojo anyway, much to the world’s benefit. There’s no substitute for victory.
robert108 - 09:02pm on 02/25/2008
LLP, you came to the wrong blog if you expected anything other than a debate over the issues you raised. You should feel complimented, at least people thought you were interesting enough to take seriously. Hell if you came into this with a slightly open mind, you might even learn something in the process.
The issue about the strain on the military has been discussed here before. I don’ think we have total agreement on that one. I see it as more of a consequence of Rumsfeld’s “downsizing” the military, and see that in turn as ill conceived.
Robert108 is correct about the border security. You’re completely full of crap on that one.
Trying to pin everything negative that has happened in recent history on the decision to invade Iraq is certainly an overly strained theory in any case, and you should expect a tough road trying to prove that one to any reasoning audience.
Carrick - 11:02pm on 02/25/2008
You guys just repeat the same world war 2 metaphor over and over; Iraq is not Nazi Germany. Germany and Japan attacked us; Iraq itself never attacked us. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
Surrender means you gave up on something you once believed in. If you were always against the war, continuing to be against it doesn’t mean you are surrendering, it means you disagree with it. By your logic…
A) “I say we need to build a moon base! Moon base!”
B) “I think that’s a bad idea because...”
A) “Surrender! Surrender! You are a defeatist.”
But yeah, keep repeating yourselves and the talking points instead of addressing the substantive arguments.
LLP - 07:02am on 02/27/2008
But yeah, keep repeating yourselves and the talking points instead of addressing the substantive arguments.
LLP,
Perhaps if managed to make a substantive argument one of the grownups here would take the trouble to address it.
Bat One - 07:02am on 02/27/2008
keep repeating yourselves and the talking points instead of addressing the substantive arguments.
LLP’s autobiography in 13 words!
Proof - 07:02am on 02/27/2008
Surrender means you gave up on something you once believed in.
Wrong. Surrender means you run away from the fight, and leave the field to the enemy. Japan attacked us, Germany didn’t; but we went to war with Germany as well, because they were part of the threat against our way of life. Duh.
All radical Islamic terrorists share the same goal, and are all our enemies, no matter which country they reside in at the time.
robert108 - 09:02am on 02/27/2008
So we should invade every country where Islamic terrorists reside, as we did with Iraq? We don’t have enough troops… It makes no sense.
LLP - 06:02pm on 02/27/2008
So we should invade every country where Islamic terrorists reside, as we did with Iraq
Maybe we should rename the argument “reductio ad absurdum” to “reductio ad liberalum”?
There’s no point in debating with you guys at all - I posted statistics and facts explaining how the Iraq war was a poorly conceived idea, how it has made us less safe, and all you do is call me a defeatist and accuse me of surrendering...it’s not surrender if you think the war itself is a mistake.
Of course it is; your rationalizations won’t ever win a war, neither will your agendized statistics. We need to defeat the terrorists, and running away from them isn’t the way to do it.
Study WWII some time, especially the early part. All the statistics would have “proved” the same thing as you are preaching, but we defeated Hitler and Tojo anyway, much to the world’s benefit. There’s no substitute for victory.
LLP, you came to the wrong blog if you expected anything other than a debate over the issues you raised. You should feel complimented, at least people thought you were interesting enough to take seriously. Hell if you came into this with a slightly open mind, you might even learn something in the process.
The issue about the strain on the military has been discussed here before. I don’ think we have total agreement on that one. I see it as more of a consequence of Rumsfeld’s “downsizing” the military, and see that in turn as ill conceived.
Robert108 is correct about the border security. You’re completely full of crap on that one.
Trying to pin everything negative that has happened in recent history on the decision to invade Iraq is certainly an overly strained theory in any case, and you should expect a tough road trying to prove that one to any reasoning audience.
You guys just repeat the same world war 2 metaphor over and over; Iraq is not Nazi Germany. Germany and Japan attacked us; Iraq itself never attacked us. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
Surrender means you gave up on something you once believed in. If you were always against the war, continuing to be against it doesn’t mean you are surrendering, it means you disagree with it. By your logic…
A) “I say we need to build a moon base! Moon base!”
B) “I think that’s a bad idea because...”
A) “Surrender! Surrender! You are a defeatist.”
But yeah, keep repeating yourselves and the talking points instead of addressing the substantive arguments.
LLP,
Perhaps if managed to make a substantive argument one of the grownups here would take the trouble to address it.
LLP’s autobiography in 13 words!
Wrong. Surrender means you run away from the fight, and leave the field to the enemy. Japan attacked us, Germany didn’t; but we went to war with Germany as well, because they were part of the threat against our way of life. Duh.
All radical Islamic terrorists share the same goal, and are all our enemies, no matter which country they reside in at the time.
So we should invade every country where Islamic terrorists reside, as we did with Iraq? We don’t have enough troops… It makes no sense.
Maybe we should rename the argument “reductio ad absurdum” to “reductio ad liberalum”?