red states rule
New member
and Edwards wants to "honor" them by holding anti war protests
Red States Rule: Please Enlist
- Thread starter Agnosticus_Caesar
- Start date
and Edwards wants to "honor" them by holding anti war protests
That is honoring them. The troops are not pro-war, they want to come home. They keep telling you that but you keep ignoring them. Why do you hate the troops?
Support the Troops, Bring Them Home, Today!
red states rule
New member
So wanting to surrender to the terrororists and lose the war is honoring the troops?
The troops can do without your support
maineman
Banned
I think it is instructive to consider how the some on the right - like RSR - frame this debate about the wisdom of our continued involvement in the affairs of the Iraqi people: "Republicans want to "FIGHT" and “WIN” in Iraq" versus "Democrats want to "surrender" and “accept defeat” in Iraq".
There is, however, a constantly shifting definition of "winning", and, therefore, an equally shifting definition of "being defeated". At its very essence is the idea that our enemies are making some stand in Iraq and we must "win" against them there or they will have "defeated" us. This view of this involvement in Iraq as some sort of time constrained contest is artificial and tends to skew our perspective away from reality. This is not some global sporting event and we are not in the third quarter of a fixed time game. The enemy seeks to outlast us - not on the battlefield in Iraq, but in the timeless worldwide war of ideas and influence. In that war, we "win" when America's social and economic interest is felt in the world and those interests prevail in the world. We certainly need to look at that war with a wider, longer view.... we want to WIN that war of influence and ideas over the next century.
Is it really sensible to choose Iraq as the hill upon which we will die this decade? Can't we admit that we made an error in elevating Iraq into some symbolic preeminence that it does not deserve? Our war is against Islamic extremism... and that war will not be won militarily, but socially, politically, and most importantly, economically. Our war is not against Iraqi insurgents who really want to fight one another in a turf battle for oil and a 1200 year old grudge match over Islamic interpretation and ascendancy. Let them settle their own intramural differences without our continued muddying influence.
Those of us with a military background know full well that, in the major wars that engulfed our planet in the last century, America lost its share of BATTLES...America retreated from individual battlefields when it became clear that continuing to fight on that spot was not helping us win the larger victory.... when it became clear that that was not the hill we should chose to die on.... but America prevailed in those large wars because we did NOT let ourselves become obsessed with winning any one battle at the expense of overall victory.
I am all for fighting and winning the war against Islamic extremism. I know full well that our military will play a role at times in that war, but that ideas and economics will play a greater role. From the very outset, I have been against the action in Iraq, not because I didn't want to fight and win the war against Islamic extremism, but because I did not believe that our planned action in Iraq advanced our cause in that larger war.
Saddam was an asshole.... but he was an unwitting ally of ours in our war against Islamic extremism. The vision of Islamic extremists has no place for secular nation states like Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia OR IRAQ. Saddam, therefore, had no vested interest in promoting or assisting an ideology that was bent on his own destruction.
Saddam was an asshole, but he did three things very well - three things that we would LOVE for someone to be doing better than we are doing them today:
1. he kept Islamic extremists from gaining bases of operation in Iraq (and don't start about Saddam's support for terrorists - his support was solely for NATIONALIST terror organizations and, as repugnant as they were and are, they are not the same as the Islamic extremists that threaten us).
2. He kept Sunnis and Shi'ites from slaughtering one another en masse in a country that was unique in its mixed population of Shiites and Sunnis at the edge of Arabia and Persia.... and
3. He acted as a foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
We need to admit that we will NEVER be able to do those three things as well as Saddam did them and that we fucked up by removing him from power and forcing ourselves to occupy a large portion of our military, our economy, and our diplomatic energy in trying to keep Iraq from boiling over when we could much more effectively use those assets to our benefit elsewhere in the world.
No one wants DEFEAT in the war on Islamic extremism, but I think we should consider leaving the battlefield we created in Iraq and focusing our efforts on winning the war that we should have been fighting in the first place.
There is, however, a constantly shifting definition of "winning", and, therefore, an equally shifting definition of "being defeated". At its very essence is the idea that our enemies are making some stand in Iraq and we must "win" against them there or they will have "defeated" us. This view of this involvement in Iraq as some sort of time constrained contest is artificial and tends to skew our perspective away from reality. This is not some global sporting event and we are not in the third quarter of a fixed time game. The enemy seeks to outlast us - not on the battlefield in Iraq, but in the timeless worldwide war of ideas and influence. In that war, we "win" when America's social and economic interest is felt in the world and those interests prevail in the world. We certainly need to look at that war with a wider, longer view.... we want to WIN that war of influence and ideas over the next century.
Is it really sensible to choose Iraq as the hill upon which we will die this decade? Can't we admit that we made an error in elevating Iraq into some symbolic preeminence that it does not deserve? Our war is against Islamic extremism... and that war will not be won militarily, but socially, politically, and most importantly, economically. Our war is not against Iraqi insurgents who really want to fight one another in a turf battle for oil and a 1200 year old grudge match over Islamic interpretation and ascendancy. Let them settle their own intramural differences without our continued muddying influence.
Those of us with a military background know full well that, in the major wars that engulfed our planet in the last century, America lost its share of BATTLES...America retreated from individual battlefields when it became clear that continuing to fight on that spot was not helping us win the larger victory.... when it became clear that that was not the hill we should chose to die on.... but America prevailed in those large wars because we did NOT let ourselves become obsessed with winning any one battle at the expense of overall victory.
I am all for fighting and winning the war against Islamic extremism. I know full well that our military will play a role at times in that war, but that ideas and economics will play a greater role. From the very outset, I have been against the action in Iraq, not because I didn't want to fight and win the war against Islamic extremism, but because I did not believe that our planned action in Iraq advanced our cause in that larger war.
Saddam was an asshole.... but he was an unwitting ally of ours in our war against Islamic extremism. The vision of Islamic extremists has no place for secular nation states like Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia OR IRAQ. Saddam, therefore, had no vested interest in promoting or assisting an ideology that was bent on his own destruction.
Saddam was an asshole, but he did three things very well - three things that we would LOVE for someone to be doing better than we are doing them today:
1. he kept Islamic extremists from gaining bases of operation in Iraq (and don't start about Saddam's support for terrorists - his support was solely for NATIONALIST terror organizations and, as repugnant as they were and are, they are not the same as the Islamic extremists that threaten us).
2. He kept Sunnis and Shi'ites from slaughtering one another en masse in a country that was unique in its mixed population of Shiites and Sunnis at the edge of Arabia and Persia.... and
3. He acted as a foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
We need to admit that we will NEVER be able to do those three things as well as Saddam did them and that we fucked up by removing him from power and forcing ourselves to occupy a large portion of our military, our economy, and our diplomatic energy in trying to keep Iraq from boiling over when we could much more effectively use those assets to our benefit elsewhere in the world.
No one wants DEFEAT in the war on Islamic extremism, but I think we should consider leaving the battlefield we created in Iraq and focusing our efforts on winning the war that we should have been fighting in the first place.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
and Edwards wants to "honor" them by holding anti war protests
I reiterate my point. Soldiers fought and died so that people can express their opposition to war. Why do you dishonour those soldiers by refuting people's right to free speech? On what basis do you claim the right to decry that?
I reiterate my point. Soldiers fought and died so that people can express their opposition to war. Why do you dishonour those soldiers by refuting people's right to free speech? On what basis do you claim the right to decry that?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Very true. We need to fight clever, not just fight.
We would do more to undermine Islamic extremism, for example, by forcing a resolution to the Israel / Palestinian issue than by overthrowing a dozen petty tyrants.
I haven't seen him once say that they should be put in jail for protesting... In other words he hasn't "refuted" anybody's right to free speech. Bowing to the level of strawman? He's just exercising the same right expressing a view that he thinks they are wrong.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I haven't seen him once say that they should be put in jail for protesting...
Using a strawman yourself Damo. Never claimed AHZ said he wanted to jail them, I said he refutes and decries them protesting.
Using a strawman yourself Damo. Never claimed AHZ said he wanted to jail them, I said he refutes and decries them protesting.
You asserted that he was somehow suggesting that their rights to free speech be removed by "refuting" their right to say those things. RSR, not AHZ, has clearly stated how he thinks they are wrong, but not that they should be silenced. Then you suggested he was claiming a "right" that he did not have to speak against their opinion. Seriously, it was a hypocritical strawman, not your normal run-of-the-mill strawman.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
You asserted that he was somehow suggesting that their rights to free speech be removed by "refuting" their right to say those things.
The inference you are making here (that I said he is demanding that the rights be removed) is no greater than the inference I used that he believes the protests themselves to be wrong. The protests aren't wrong, no matter how much he dislikes their content, they are an exercise in free speech, any more than it would be wrong for him to decry the content of the protests.
I am not refuting his right to express himself about the content, but that the protests themselves are wrong.
At best you have got me on using a little inference, which, lets face it, is used everywhere on discussion boards.
The inference you are making here (that I said he is demanding that the rights be removed) is no greater than the inference I used that he believes the protests themselves to be wrong. The protests aren't wrong, no matter how much he dislikes their content, they are an exercise in free speech, any more than it would be wrong for him to decry the content of the protests.
I am not refuting his right to express himself about the content, but that the protests themselves are wrong.
At best you have got me on using a little inference, which, lets face it, is used everywhere on discussion boards.
Yeah Damo, I am certain that if they started mass arrests of anti-war protesters, RSR would be on here demanding their release.
Tell me that deep down, you don't know that this kind would find a way to support us being put in detention camps.
If there should be another terrorist attack here in the US, you'll see.
He asserts that the opinion is wrong, not that we should round up and stop people from protesting. That is where the crux is. To say that he is wrong for so asserting an opinion is exactly what you accuse him of doing.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
He asserts that the opinion is wrong, not that we should round up and stop people from protesting.
I never claimed he wanted that.
He asserts that it is wrong to protest against a war on veterans day....
I never claimed he wanted that.
He asserts that it is wrong to protest against a war on veterans day....
LOL. Like nobody protesting the "free speech zones" used for Clinton but constantly being complained about for Bush?
I'll tell you what, if people start rounding you up for protesting, I'll be decrying the action and asserting that you have a right to protest regardless of whether he will.
He is not, however, and has not asserted that you be denied your right, so far all I have seen is that he thinks you are wrong in your opinion and that he thinks such displays to be tasteless.
And others assert it is "wrong" to protest Gays at a funeral. What is your point here? Saying something is tasteless does not mean the same thing as a removal of a right. You suggest that he has no right to make such an assertion though, directly and succinctly. The only person, so far, in this thread that has suggested that somebody else doesn't have a right to express their opinion has been yourself.
Thanks Damo, that's a great comfort to me.
You're dreaming if you think these guys wouldn't support it though. They would.
I know it is fun to all pile on the RSR, I'm just fascinated by the "You think it is "wrong" to protest at a Memorial Day Ceremony... That is bad, and you have no right to assert such an opinion!" stance taken by somebody else.
I like free speech, I wouldn't be on such a board if I didn't. I think both of the sides have such a right to express their opinion.
I like free speech, I wouldn't be on such a board if I didn't. I think both of the sides have such a right to express their opinion.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
The only person, so far, in this thread that has suggested that somebody else doesn't have a right to express their opinion has been yourself.
No I haven't. I have said it is wrong for him to declare the protests wrong, not that he cannot express his opinion about the content of the protest.
If people protest a gay funeral, they have that right. The Harm Principle doesn't apply, so why not?
No I haven't. I have said it is wrong for him to declare the protests wrong, not that he cannot express his opinion about the content of the protest.
If people protest a gay funeral, they have that right. The Harm Principle doesn't apply, so why not?
You said, "By what basis do you claim this right...." This suggests that the right for his speech doesn't exist while the other one's does. Or do you not think his opinion is protected by the 1st Amendment as the group he thinks is tastelessly protesting Memorial Services?
Him saying that they are "wrong", but not suggesting they be stopped, is most definitely his right. Shoot, it would even be within his rights to suggest they be stopped, his opinion would be faulty, but it would be within his rights.
By what basis does he claim such a right? By the same basis they claim they have a right to protest those memorial services.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
"By what basis do you claim this right...."
To declare them exercising their speech is wrong....
It is your inference that inverts this to mean that he cannot exercise his freedom of speech.
To declare them exercising their speech is wrong....
It is your inference that inverts this to mean that he cannot exercise his freedom of speech.