[luke warm]

jdonn, on Apr 12 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 12 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

in my post that you quoted i never said a person who was against the war was now in favor of it (show me where i did)...

Gladly.

luke warm, on Apr 12 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight... some were for it originally, found out there were lies told and then became opponents...

First note the combination of your carefully chosen word but taken in conjunction with the word were.

but1
–conjunction 1. on the contrary

'Some people WERE against the war, but CONTRARY to that now believe [insert other belief here].'

how would "some were against it originally; nevertheless they know we can't just pull out now" have sounded to you? or "some were against it originally; however they now know we can't just pull out" or "there are some who were against it originally yet know we can't just pull out now" or even "some who were against it originally still know we can't just pull out now" ... to you, do all of those imply that a person who *said* he was against something was really lying and was in fact *for* it all along?

those words are all synonyms for 'but' ... why should i take your simple definition 'contrary' and your impression of how i meant the word over how i know i meant the word?

in any case, you did say "As far as I can see, anyone who believes we shouldn't have been there but can't just pull out now is someone who believed we should go in at the beginning and then needed another (lame - IMO) excuse to justify their earlier belief."

arend said "I am very strongly against the Iraq war, but I also believe it would be adding another mistake to pull out over night immediately. The US does have some responsibility for the mess it created." ... your quote above implies he is lying, that he *did* agree with the war originally... the fact that he gave a reason why we shouldn't pull out now is irrelevant

Quote

But if the words aren't enough, we can also examine the context...

LW "I disagree with you, other poster [Trinidad ironically], in your implication that the military shouldn't avail a country whose population wants freedom."
JD "But how is our military availing us if most of us don't want them there?"
LW (this being the key point) "People don't want them there for different reasons though. Some WERE against the war BUT now are for it, others WERE for the war BUT are now against it."

I know, those weren't your exact words. But they were the point being made.

you're right, those aren't my words... they might be the point you thought was being made, they aren't the point i was making...

Quote

Frankly in that context I can't think of what other point would make sense.

would the use of however, nevertheless, still, or yet have made sense in the context of your imagined dialog?

[PassedOut]

matmat, on Apr 12 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Apr 12 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 12 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

We invaded for only one reason - ONE ONLY: We were told that it was imperative to invade to protect ourselves from imminent terrorists attack, sponsored by Iraq, which could include a nuclear device.

Yes, the war became one of "nation-building" after Bush's original mistakes became clear to everyone.

Imagine what the republicans would have said if Al Gore had been president and:

1. Blown through the budget surplus in 6 months.
2. Let bin Laden escape after 9/11.
3. Attacked Iraq to save us from imaginary WMD.
4. Changed the war to "nation-building" when the truth became clear.

Their shouting would be loud and continuous.

what's your point?

The point is that none of the statements from republicans endorsing the foolish actions of their man Bush represent honest professions of beliefs and principles. Rather, they represent propaganda efforts intended to maintain political power, pure and simple.

Of course the republicans don't hold a monopoly on such hypocrisy. But few administrations have had such colosal blunders to gloss over.

[jdonn]

Trinidad, on Apr 13 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage.

Sorry for the broken record, but your analogy makes no sense because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE! Frankly that doesn't even matter since we are supposedly acting in our own best interests, in which case your entire argument represents irrational thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

[matmat]

jdonn, on Apr 13 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

"Overly optimistic probability bias" section is a cute read.

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Apr 13 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Apr 13 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage.

Sorry for the broken record, but your analogy makes no sense because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE! Frankly that doesn't even matter since we are supposedly acting in our own best interests, in which case your entire argument represents irrational thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

The question about the physical presence of Americans is an entirely different question. Of course, I am all in favor of pulling the US troops out of Iraq, providing that the USA (since they are responsible for the mess) can basically that is done what should be done. Who will do that is not important. (I would even agree with you that it would be more efficient if it weren't Americans.)

But it should be clear that it is the US' responsibility to return security and stability to Iraq and see to it that the country is rebuilt. If another country wants to (and is able to) do that physically in Iraq (while being paid by the USA), by all means, go ahead.

Who did you have in mind?

Rik

[mike777]

Thank goodness for elections. In the USA with 100% of the House up for election, 33% of the Senate and of course the Presidential office, the American public can take full responsibility for what happens in Iraq starting in 2009 and not just blame one man. There will be no innocent adult civilians in the USA now.

The rest is sunk costs.

As for Iran, Darfur, North Korea, Afghanistan we have only ourselves to blame if we mess that up, starting in 2009. Maybe for before 2009 also but that is an old discussion.

The good news is I read about some smart PHd's types inventing bacteria to leach the oil out of the shale and tar sands......so Canada here we come.

On a more serious note, If we pull out of Iraq, can we send all our ships and airforce home also? I hope we dont just end up sending them all back in or overhead or off the coast for 100 years to be shot at or killed.

On a even more serious note, it really is hurting "service families" to keep them going back for tour after tour. I admit since I am over draft age this is pretty easy for me to complain about it but if we keep voting to be the world policeman, we need to expand our military, alot. And those of us who stay home need to give more, lots more. Otherwise lets keep these fine, very young men and women at home. Nato(europe) needs to step up in Afghanistan or pull out if it is not in the Nato charter and of course the USA even more so....AGain my main point in this paragraph is too few families are shouldering the burden. end of rant.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on Apr 13 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage.

Yes, I would let you pay me some money and then I would decide for myself without your assistance how to spend those money, possibly to repair my car or to buy a new one, possibly something else. I certainly wouldn't let you repair my car, especially not if there was an indication that by doing so you would just do even more damage to the car.

Maybe it would be prudent for the US to pay Iraq a few hundred billion bugs in compensation for the damage. (Slight problem: it's not not quite clear who should receive the money on behalf of the Iraqi people). Then the Iraqi government could decide to spend the money on foreign (US or otherwise) security services. Or on something else.

[jdonn]

Trinidad, on Apr 13 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

But it should be clear that it is the US' responsibility to return security and stability to Iraq and see to it that the country is rebuilt.

Responsibility to whom exactly? The very people that so intensely don't want us there? Don't you see the amazing contradiction in what you are saying?

No, our government's responsibility is first and foremost to its own people. To the thousands it is sending off to die, the tens of thousands it is sending off to be permanently injured, the millions who are affected by those deaths and injuries, and the hundreds of millions whose (trillions!!! of) tax dollars are being spent to fund the whole thing.

Suppose you did hit the car, and in order to rectify the situation for the owner it would take 20 years, every year kill 1 random American that you don't know, and cost every American family 1 dollar a month. Would you keep plugging along because it's your responsibility?

[Winstonm]

The obvious (to me, anyway) problem in Iraq is that the U.S. is trying to circumvent the desires of the majority by supporting by force a minority position.

If the U.S. foreign policy was truly geared to democratic decision-making, the U.S. would follow the mandates of the Iraqi majority. If that means pull out, so be it.

Whatever becomes of Iraq is the business of Iraq - and the Iraqi people. The U.S. should not be involved unless a majority of Iraqis wanted us there. To do otherwise is not to promote democracy but simply a display of stubborn willfulness.

The time to help Iraq and repay them for the U.S. war crimes is after the Iraqi civil war has been settled - at that time the U.S. would have to deal with the prevailing parties, whomever that might be.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

The obvious (to me, anyway) problem in Iraq is that the U.S. is trying to circumvent the desires of the majority by supporting by force a minority position.

If the U.S. foreign policy was truly geared to democratic decision-making, the U.S. would follow the mandates of the Iraqi majority.  If that means pull out, so be it.

Whatever becomes of Iraq is the business of Iraq - and the Iraqi people.   The U.S. should not be involved unless a majority of Iraqis wanted us there.  To do otherwise is not to promote democracy but simply a display of stubborn willfulness.

The time to help Iraq and repay them for the U.S. war crimes is after the Iraqi civil war has been settled - at that time the U.S. would have to deal with the prevailing parties, whomever that might be.

You raise alot of interesting points to discuss here. Hopefully we can explore them without vulgar insults but.....

1) I disagree that the Iraqi's should have the final vote(say) here when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded. IN any case it seems the "polls" I see change from month to month on what the iraq's want us to do but .....
2) Likewise with our American leaders, this is a 200+ year debate, should American leaders be leaders or just take a poll and do what the popular poll says.
3) I was taught 66% of Americans were neutral or against the Revolutionary War..... It was a small group of liberals, many would say left wing radicals, for that war.
4) Of course right or left wing, liberal or conservative, most of the time it seems these terms are interchangeable

[Winstonm]

Quote

You raise alot of interesting points to discuss here. Hopefully we can explore them without vulgar insults but.....

1) I disagree that the Iraqi's should have the final vote(say) here when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded. IN any case it seems the "polls" I see change from month to month on what the iraq's want us to do but .....
2) Likewise with our American leaders, this is a 200+ year debate, should American leaders be leaders or just take a poll and do what the popular poll says.

I agree with your assertion in #1 that it should not be the Iraqis who decide when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded; however, the occupation of Iraq, once no legitimate grounds for invasion were ever discovered, is not about sending Americans to die - it is about prolonging an error - and in that the Iraqis should have a say.

#2 doesn't make much sense to me as an argument. Iraq has nothing to do with polls - it has everything to do with an invasion of a sovereign country for reasons that turned out to be invalid. The simplistic thought (mine) is that we have no right to be there so should get out unless an Iraqi majority wanted us there.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

Quote

You raise alot of interesting points to discuss here. Hopefully we can explore them without vulgar insults but.....

1) I disagree that the Iraqi's should have the final vote(say) here when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded. IN any case it seems the "polls" I see change from month to month on what the iraq's want us to do but .....
2) Likewise with our American leaders, this is a 200+ year debate, should American leaders be leaders or just take a poll and do what the popular poll says.

I agree with your assertion in #1 that it should not be the Iraqis who decide when it comes to sending Americans to die or get wounded; however, the occupation of Iraq, once no legitimate grounds for invasion were ever discovered, is not about sending Americans to die - it is about prolonging an error - and in that the Iraqis should have a say.

#2 doesn't make much sense to me as an argument. Iraq has nothing to do with polls - it has everything to do with an invasion of a sovereign country for reasons that turned out to be invalid. The simplistic thought (mine) is that we have no right to be there so should get out unless an Iraqi majority wanted us there.

I think we all agree 100% we should never do wrong! We should never do something invalid.

Let me use a crazy silly example:

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.
What is not wrong or invalid the USA and Nato(europe) should not do? I agree we should do no wrong or invalid but what does that mean we should do?

I repeat I am all for peace, love and understanding...I agree with that! I agree we should never do wrong or something invalid!

I have even gone on the forum record we all should be allowed nukes.....all of us! Yes, that means you!

If you think we should do nothing ok, but even nothing can be wrong or invalid!

[Winstonm]

Quote

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.
What is not wrong or invalid the USA and Nato(europe) should not do? I agree we should do no wrong or invalid but what does that mean we should do?

Israel, India, and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons - perhaps the U.S. and NATO should sign a treaty with Iran to protect Iran from aggression from nuclear armed countries?

Or perhaps the U.S. should simply follow the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which both the U.S. and Iran signed, and which Iran is following by allowing the IAEA inspectors to follow the treaty's mandates.

Or maybe we should just, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as Senator John McClain and presidential hopeful so righteously sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.

Just a few thoughts....so what are your ideas?

Quote

I have even gone on the forum record we all should be allowed nukes.....all of us! Yes, that means you!

If you think we should do nothing ok, but even nothing can be wrong or invalid!

Does this mean you've stopped taking your medicine, again?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 07:54 PM, said:

Quote

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.
What is not wrong or invalid the USA and Nato(europe) should not do? I agree we should do no wrong or invalid but what does that mean we should do?

Israel, India, and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons - perhaps the U.S. and NATO should sign a treaty with Iran to protect Iran from aggression from nuclear armed countries?

Or perhaps the U.S. should simply follow the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which both the U.S. and Iran signed, and which Iran is following by allowing the IAEA inspectors to follow the treaty's mandates.

Or maybe we should just, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as Senator John McClain and presidential hopeful so righteously sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.

Just a few thoughts....so what are your ideas?

Quote

I have even gone on the forum record we all should be allowed nukes.....all of us! Yes, that means you!

If you think we should do nothing ok, but even nothing can be wrong or invalid!

Does this mean you've stopped taking your medicine, again?

ok so you want to bomb Iran or do nothing or follow the treaty ..ok that is clear... I think no one is against
1) doing wrong
2) following a treaty
3) do something invalid


so far everyone agrees with you
I think we all agree a country is in its right to follow a treaty and a country is in its right to aborgate a treaty...both are right and valid....

[luke warm]

mike777, on Apr 13 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Thank goodness for elections. In the USA with 100% of the House up for election, 33% of the Senate and of course the Presidential office, the American public can take full responsibility for what happens in Iraq starting in 2009 and not just blame one man. There will be no innocent adult civilians in the USA now.

The rest is sunk costs.

As for Iran, Darfur, North Korea, Afghanistan we have only ourselves to blame if we mess that up, starting in 2009. Maybe for before 2009 also but that is an old discussion.

The good news is I read about some smart PHd's types inventing bacteria to leach the oil out of the shale and tar sands......so Canada here we come.

On a more serious note, If we pull out of Iraq, can we send all our ships and airforce home also? I hope we dont just end up sending them all back in or overhead or off the coast for 100 years to be shot at or killed.

On a even more serious note, it really is hurting "service families" to keep them going back for tour after tour. I admit since I am over draft age this is pretty easy for me to complain about it but if we keep voting to be the world policeman, we need to expand our military, alot. And those of us who stay home need to give more, lots more. Otherwise lets keep these fine, very young men and women at home. Nato(europe) needs to step up in Afghanistan or pull out if it is not in the Nato charter and of course the USA even more so....AGain my main point in this paragraph is too few families are shouldering the burden. end of rant.

uncle

[vuroth]

mike777, on Apr 13 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Nato(europe) needs to step up in Afghanistan or pull out if it...

The US contributes less than 50% of the ISAF headcount. Ergo, what exactly would a "step up" contain?

[vuroth]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 13 2008, 07:08 AM, said:

Before the next generation of "Death to America" comes of age in the middle east, just withdraw and send money on a monthly basis (I figure at a billion per, you will save a bundle!)

Let the Iraqis have their country back to do with as they see fit.

I think that's how the paragon of virtue and stability we call Saudi Arabia was created. You know, the birthplace of Wahhabi Islam.

[keylime]

That is a quality fruit salad on that man's chest there.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Let me use a crazy silly example:

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.

The IAEA says that Iran is compliant and is not engaging in weapons building.
Our own N.S.E. said that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

How about I use a crazy silly example of my own:

How about everyone stop the innuendo about Iran seeking bombs until someone can turn up actual proof?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 14 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

Quote

Let me use a crazy silly example:

Iran maybe trying to get a nuclear bomb the next 4 years.

The IAEA says that Iran is compliant and is not engaging in weapons building.
Our own N.S.E. said that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

How about I use a crazy silly example of my own:

How about everyone stop the innuendo about Iran seeking bombs until someone can turn up actual proof?

good idea... what do you think should happen if such proof is turned up?