"Quagmire" morphs into "A Very Sucessful Effort"

[rikzilla]

No according to Rik, a critic of the war could also be a Communist or a Jihadi.

That's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. It's not much bit it's a start...

-z

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. It's not much bit it's a start...

-z

So to recap:

If you oppose the war you are either a Democrat (who supports the terrorists, BTW), a Communist or a Jihadi.

And insults to my intelligence from someone who takes a position like that are supposed to be meaningful?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. It's not much bit it's a start...

-z

So to recap:

If you oppose the war you are either a Democrat (who supports the terrorists, BTW), a Communist or a Jihadi.

And insults to my intelligence from someone who takes a position like that are supposed to be meaningful?

I'm sorry Nyarlathotep, but I think rikzilla meant to imply that being war critic makes one a Democrat, Communist and Jihadi.

 

[rikzilla]

Dissent is not treason, it is often the position of the lonely patriot.

Dissent is not treason this is true, nor is it always patriotism...but it is invariably treason's precursor.

Firstly, reasonable politcal debate is not a game of king-of-the-hill. Being the last man standing doesn't make you right.

Correct...being the only one debating from fact and substance usually is the hallmark of one who is right though.

Secondly, being a critic of the war, and the U.S. conduct in this war do not, in either case, mean that the critic is a Democrat. I think you'd be surprised how many Republicans aren't so sure about the offical party line.

Not really...Repubs may support the party line since this is expected of them and there is political pressure on them to get "on message"...but believe it? Naw I don't think any party is majority "true-believer".

Edit: Quoted from rikzilla's sig "CENSORSHIP IS ANTI-AMERICAN!". I agree.

Edited again, for spelling.

Thanks...it's a shame though that JREF mods seem to think it dandy.
(OKAY, okay Darat I know; not in this forum...I'm not starting again...I'll shut back up now....)

-z

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I general avoid being this direct and blunt, but here goes:

Dissent is not treason this is true, nor is it always patriotism...but it is invariably treason's precursor.

Invariably? Read Julius Ceasar, just so can entertain the idea that you might be wrong.

Correct...being the only one debating from fact and substance usually is the hallmark of one who is right though.

I agree. However, that person is not you.

Thanks...it's a shame though that JREF mods seem to think it dandy.
(OKAY, okay Darat I know; not in this forum...I'm not starting again...I'll shut back up now....)

-z

Maybe I was too obscure. rikzilla, you cannot on the one had denounce censorship, and on the other, shout down critics of the government.

[/regretable ad homimen]

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm sorry Nyarlathotep, but I think rikzilla meant to imply that being war critic makes one a Democrat, Communist and Jihadi.

What he means to imply is crystal clear.

But what do I know? I'm just a terrorist supporting Democrat Communist Jihadi. Of course I am neither a member of the Democratic party, nor well-disposed toward commuist nor even a muslim. But in Rik-world that doesn't matter, I oppose the war so I am eeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiiiilllllllll.

 

[rikzilla]

So to recap:

If you oppose the war you are either a Democrat (who supports the terrorists, BTW), a Communist or a Jihadi.

And insults to my intelligence from someone who takes a position like that are supposed to be meaningful?

There's also Anarchists, Libertarians, Socialists, and assorted fellow travellers...so what?

If you think I'm wrong then it should be easy for you to show me a Communist or Jihadi that supports the WOT then.

Look; the Democrats haven't all drunk the Kool-Aid yet...there's still Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. But one must ask why the Dems are letting the loonies direct the parade....and I am BTW a former longtime dem.

-z

 

[Nyarlathotep]

There's also Anarchists, Libertarians, Socialists, and assorted fellow travellers...so what?

If you think I'm wrong then it should be easy for you to show me a Communist or Jihadi that supports the WOT then.

Look; the Democrats haven't all drunk the Kool-Aid yet...there's still Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. But one must ask why the Dems are letting the loonies direct the parade....and I am BTW a former longtime dem.

-z

And that means what? Even if I accept your premise that all communists and jihadis oppose the war that does not mean all who oppose the war are Comunists or Jihadis. Remember junior high school math? If all A's belong to set B it does not necessarily follow that all of set B consists entirely of A's.

But again. I am just a terrorist supporting Democrat Communist Jihadi (obviously, since I oppose the war) so what do I know?

 

[Hutch]

I'm not certain if I have posted this before (I intended to post it immediately after the capture of Bagdad but I don't remember if I did) but I'm waiting for five years until I finally decide whether I count the Iraq war a success or not.

So, ask me in April 2008 what my opinion is.

I post LW's comments again since they were the most intelligible thing in this thread and I thought they bore repeating.

Indeed, Zilla and Nyar will both be at TAM4--A couple of newspapers could make for some interesting conversation at Lunch...

Press on

 

[fishbob]

Dissent is not treason this is true, nor is it always patriotism...but it is invariably treason's precursor.
-z

Hmmm. No fact or substance here - just more assertion.
The 'slippery slope' argument is next.

Greed is treason's more common precursor.

 

[monoman]

Failure is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easier than making a meaningful effort, or offering better ideas for victory. The fact remains that the democratic party has hitched it's political fortunes to failure and death for our soldiers in Iraq. They've backed the wrong horse...the terrorists...they should be deeply ashamed.
-z

First off, a round of applause for the elections in Iraq (fingers crossed).

I think this quote is very unfair rik. Maybe, just maybe, a lot of democrats took that view because they sincerely thought is was the wrong thing to do.
And talking about backing the wrong horses (you brought it up!), what about the current administration and Iraq? Shouldn't they be concentrating on catching terrorists. Remember this was about 9/11. And, further, in backing the wrong horse, they backed the wrong horse for the reason - WMDs, and it was only recently Bush admitted defeat on that one.
Finally, It would be interesting to hear private conversations between Bush, Cheney etc a year ago and their thoughts on the election.

Still, great news about the election.

 

[jj]

And others suggest we're reasonably on-track, and it would be better if you pretend you are citizen of the US -- with troops at war -- rather than continuing words and actions that support the enemy rather than your own sorry @ss.

I see, this is in fact a legitimate argument?

You call people names, and laugh when somebody else gets called on it.

Gosh, my surprise.

 

[jj]

Maybe I was too obscure. rikzilla, you cannot on the one had denounce censorship, and on the other, shout down critics of the government.

You mean "should not". He certainly can, and does all the time. He believes in censorship by brute force. It's part of the "might makes right" policy he so obviously believes in.

 

[jj]

There's also Anarchists, Libertarians, Socialists, and assorted fellow travellers...so what?

(Off-color song about red-baiting removed)

Well, let me 'splain science to you, Ricky. I'm registered Republican. I have dropped my support of the national party completely, and have argued against it, but I am in fact still officially a republican.

Ergo, I am a counterexample to your claim. I'm a Republican myself. Kapish?

Your red-baiting is, therefore, refuted absolutely and in its entirety, from stem to stern, from port to starboard, and from crows-nest to keel.

Ooops. Don Pardo, tell him about the fondue forks!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You mean "should not". He certainly can, and does all the time. He believes in censorship by brute force. It's part of the "might makes right" policy he so obviously believes in.

I mean "cannot", in the sense that it is logically impossible to do so, or at best, that it is extremely inconsistent. I can say that colorless green idea sleep furiously, but that doesn't mean colorless green ideas can do that, it's not logically possible.

 

[jj]

I mean "cannot", in the sense that it is logically impossible to do so, or at best, that it is extremely inconsistent. I can say that colorless green idea sleep furiously, but that doesn't mean colorless green ideas can do that, it's not logically possible.

Why do you imagine that logic is involved?

 

[Melendwyr]

I mean "cannot", in the sense that it is logically impossible to do so, or at best, that it is extremely inconsistent. I can say that colorless green idea sleep furiously, but that doesn't mean colorless green ideas can do that, it's not logically possible.

Well, it is technically possible. It's just extremely inconsistent. He claims to be against censorship because 'censorship' is a thing reasonable people are supposed to be against. He doesn't actually have a problem with it, though, and will eagerly accept any and all forms of censorship - just as long as that word isn't used, or society begins connecting that word with what's going on.

Don't confuse the initial apperance of reason with the thing itself. We're dealing with a form of mimicry, subtle but superficial.

 

[Skeptic]

Is it defeatism for a doctor to correctly diagnose a disease?

The question is whether the diagnosis is correct. I think we don't know yet if the patient will live, but with some democrats, the "you'll be stone dead in a minute!" diagnosis (a la the "bring out your dead" scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail") started with the war.

 

[jj]

The question is whether the diagnosis is correct. I think we don't know yet if the patient will live, but with some democrats, the "you'll be stone dead in a minute!" diagnosis (a la the "bring out your dead" scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail") started with the war.

And if three, yes, three people, walk in, hum a bar, and walk back out ...

 

[Melendwyr]

The question is whether the diagnosis is correct. I think we don't know yet if the patient will live, but with some democrats, the "you'll be stone dead in a minute!" diagnosis (a la the "bring out your dead" scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail") started with the war.

And we've had smooth sailing in the three years since the War began, right?

We had an invasion without any solid pretext, ridiculous ideas that the Iraqi people would welcome us and instantly restructure their political system, a complete lack of plans for holding Iraq (which lead to the disapperance of countless records of weapons production, which would have been vital if there were actually WMDs), and ever-increasing terrorist attacks.

Clearly, one side in this debate is seeking arguments to support the conclusions they're already decided are correct. Based on my rational analysis of the situation, I don't think it's the anti-war people.