Are war critics helping the enemy?

ImaginalDisc said:
Emphasis added. So, you're suggesting that we should li to win this war?
Click to expand...

I'm asserting that criticism (clearly and obviously) can and does help opposition to the coalition. It's a direct rebuttal of your 'clincher', and the entire point of my post.
 
aerocontrols said:
I'm asserting that criticism (clearly and obviously) can and does help opposition to the coalition. It's a direct rebuttal of your 'clincher', and the entire point of my post.
Click to expand...
It is nether the less, the truth. Is winning a war waged on false pretenses worth telling lies to our soldiers, the American people, and the world? We can still fight this war truthfully.
 
aerocontrols said:
I'm asserting that criticism (clearly and obviously) can and does help opposition to the coalition. It's a direct rebuttal of your 'clincher', and the entire point of my post.
Click to expand...

That's the position the president has put the US in, a lose/lose situation. Powell was quite prepared to warn the president about that before the war, if he had wanted to listen.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
It is nether the less, the truth.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify this sentence? Are you asserting that all criticism is true?

ImaginalDisc said:
Is winning a war waged on false pretenses worth telling lies to our soldiers, the American people, and the world?
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't accept your premise. One of the primary reasonsfor the case for war that Bush laid out turned out to be wrong (you think he lied) but my reason for supporting Saddam's removal was independent of that argument, and luckily for me, the Bush Administration has decided to continue the war in pursuit of the goals I preferred originally.

The war is now being waged to support democracy in a free and stable Iraq. Suits me just fine.

ImaginalDisc said:
We can still fight this war truthfully.
Click to expand...

Good to know. What changes would you make to enable us to win this war truthfully?
 
a_unique_person said:
That's the position the president has put the US in, a lose/lose situation. Powell was quite prepared to warn the president about that before the war, if he had wanted to listen.
Click to expand...

No country could go to war with any other country and avoid being in that position. I'm sure both Powell and Bush are aware of it.

You seem to have missed my question, so I'll ask again: you've no idea at all why Bush may have chosen to lie to the world in order to send soldiers to Iraq?
 
aerocontrols said:
No country could go to war with any other country and avoid being in that position. I'm sure both Powell and Bush are aware of it.

You seem to have missed my question, so I'll ask again: you've no idea at all why Bush may have chosen to lie to the world in order to send soldiers to Iraq?
Click to expand...
I have no idea at all, you are asking for speculation.
 
a_unique_person said:
The war is already lost, no matter what happens. I can just imagine the next president, (for the current American generation), when he comes up with the idea of invading a country to free it from tyranny.
Click to expand...

I knew you thought that, which is why I didn't ask you. What you imagine has little interest to me.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You may be right Ziggurat. If that's the case, it makes it even more important for an honest debate to go on at home, since the soldiers aren't able to participate. If the citizens blithely obey the President, then no one's safe.
Click to expand...

But that's only true if you really, really believe that the President of the United States is more dangerous than the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that we are fighting. I do wonder ID; if you had been trapped at the top of the WTC on 9/11; if you would still hold such a bizarre opinion?

-z
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You're dismissing a unique person's agruments because you disagree with his conclusion. A classic logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

You've completely mischaracterized my argument, so I'll sum up.

You made a claim: We can still fight this war truthfully.

My response: (to you) Good to know. What changes would you make to enable us to win this war truthfully?

You can answer my question, or hide behind AUP's belief that you're wrong. Have you changed your mind in the past half hour?

He says the war cannot be won. You say it can still be fought truthfully. Why on earth would I ask him how it can still be won truthfully?
 
rikzilla said:
But that's only true if you really, really believe that the President of the United States is more dangerous than the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that we are fighting. I do wonder ID; if you had been trapped at the top of the WTC on 9/11; if you would still hold such a bizarre opinion?

-z
Click to expand...

rikzilla, the war in Iraq has nothing at all do with 9/11, except in Bush's rhetoric. We invaded Afhanistan, failed to capture Osama, and then we now have less than 10% as many forces in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq. 9/11 has been used as an exucse to invade Iraq.

W/Osama is not an either or, black/white issue. Osama is a despicable terrorist, Bush is a liar and miserable President. Saying that about Bush does not mean I support Osama.
 
aerocontrols said:
You've completely mischaracterized my argument, so I'll sum up.

You made a claim: We can still fight this war truthfully.

My response: (to you) Good to know. What changes would you make to enable us to win this war truthfully?

You can answer my question, or hide behind AUP's belief that you're wrong. Have you changed your mind in the past half hour?

He says the war cannot be won. You say it can still be fought truthfully. Why on earth would I ask him how it can still be won truthfully?
Click to expand...

I see nothing unclear about the word "truthfully". I want the President to step forward, and list the reason why he felt justified in such an outright deception. Then, I want him removed from office. A fresh President, whose only goals are a free Iraq, and a secure United States is a good idea. Neither of those goals are well served by Bush.
 
bob_kark said:
How so? Is it not important to question the President on such matters? Does he not have an obligation to the American people to answer questions regarding the validity of his statements as it was his claim that Iraq had WMDs that led the country to war? Should he not be held accountable if he did lie?
Click to expand...
If one feels that strongly about the issue of POTUS lying resulted in the war, your actual course is impeachment.

If impeachment is not a realistic issue, what purpose is served by criticizing past history other than to provide comfort to the enemy? Of course views of our future courses of action should be vigorous and ongoing.
 
hammegk said:
If one feels that strongly about the issue of POTUS lying resulted in the war, your actual course is impeachment.

If impeachment is not a realistic issue, what purpose is served by criticizing past history other than to provide comfort to the enemy? Of course views of our future courses of action should be vigorous and ongoing.
Click to expand...

Two reasons why elling truth in this situation is a good thing.

1) It will restore the trust we've lost from many of our allies.

2) It fosters democracy. Lady Liberty cannot be wooed on a bed of lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom