PDA

View Full Version : Do You Support This?


Donger
06-09-2006, 02:50 PM
Do you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country?

Yes or no.

* Results of the poll are public.

banyon
06-09-2006, 03:23 PM
against what?

Donger
06-09-2006, 03:25 PM
against what?

American troops.

banyon
06-09-2006, 03:37 PM
American troops.

what are they doing?

Is this hypothetical or factually based?

Taco John
06-09-2006, 03:41 PM
I don't know about them. I do know about me. I'll defend my own homeland to the death against invaders who claim they're attacking in the name of Allah, and don't much care whether or not they think I have the high ground to do so.

Seems obvious that they'd feel the same way.

Do I like it? Nah. I'd just as soon they didn't shoot at our troops, who for the most part are there for altruistic reasons.

But, like Chris Rock says... I'm not saying that it's right. But I understand.

Perception is reality. Their perception is that we are occupiers taking away their right to determine their own destiny. So long as we're there, there are always going to be people willing to blow themselves up in order to attempt to remove us. Do they have "a right" to do that? I wouldn't think so. But I understand why they'd feel righteous about it. Just like I understand why we feel righteous about forcing our will on them.

I'm not sure how to vote, because I don't see it as simplistic as the options allow for... So I'll just say that if a muslim invader decides to bring their righteous cause for Allah to our soil with an invasion aimed at turning America into a nation that is pleasing to Allah and thus for our own good, I'm shooting every last bearded invader until one of them gets me first.

Donger
06-09-2006, 03:42 PM
what are they doing?

Is this hypothetical or factually based?

Fact-based.

American troops are in Iraq.

Iraqi insurgents are fighting them.

Do you support the right of the insurgents to fight American soldiers?

Taco John
06-09-2006, 03:48 PM
Donger, would you feel justified in defending America against religious invaders who thought they were helping us by making our nation pleasing to Allah?

Donger
06-09-2006, 03:51 PM
Donger, would you feel justified in defending America against religious invaders who thought they were helping us by making our nation pleasing to Allah?

I don't know. I'd rather deal with reality, like the present situation in Iraq.

Like I said in the Lounge thread, I do understand why they are doing it, but I draw a line between understanding it and supporting it, especially when they are killing our troops.

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 03:51 PM
The Iraqi insurgence are one of two things;

1. Muslim terrorist assholes
2. ex-saddam supporting assholes

The anaology of what 'we' would do as Americans does not apply. I don't care what their motives are they should not garner any amount of respect from Americans. These assholes aren't fighting American troops for the right to be free. They are fighting for a power struggle between good and evil.

jspchief
06-09-2006, 03:53 PM
I don't support it.

The reason being that if we up and left, like they appear to want us to, that country would be a bigger f*cked up mess than it was under Saddam Hussein.

They are apparently too stupid to realize that, and therefore I don't support what they are doing.

By the way, I think "support" is a poor choice of words. I'm not sure how any American could say they support it.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 03:59 PM
I don't know. I'd rather deal with reality, like the present situation in Iraq.

Like I said in the Lounge thread, I do understand why they are doing it, but I draw a line between understanding it and supporting it, especially when they are killing our troops.



I never support the killing of our troops. But I do understand why some might feel desperate enough to do it. I'm empathetic, because I would never accept an outside people trying to impose their will on my nation. I'd fight that to the death, taking out as many of them as possible.

So if the question is, do I support them killing us. Absolutely not. If the question is, do I understand why there are insurgents who refuse to give into our will. You bet I do.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:05 PM
I don't know. I'd rather deal with reality, like the present situation in Iraq.

Like I said in the Lounge thread, I do understand why they are doing it, but I draw a line between understanding it and supporting it, especially when they are killing our troops.it's one thing to support theoretical rights, which i do in this case, but quite another to support those rights over the rights of our troops to not be killed...

to the question: "Do you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country?", i answered yes because i do support the right of people to resist occupiers, regardless of who the people are, in general and theoretical terms...

but i sitll would, and do, support our troops rights to live more and do not support how the iraqis are exercising their right to resist occupation (under international law i think, but i'm no expert on that) against our troops)...

nobody, including deneese supports the killing of our troops...

even the looniest on the left don't say such stupid and patently wrong things (only fred phelps says stupid shit like that)...

i see a distinction between recognizing the a right to resist occupation and saying that that right should prevail over other considerations, like the fact that we are there supporting a legitimately elected government and aren't really an occupying force since we really want to get out of there as soon as we can,but without compromising the mission of establishing a stable government before we leave...

i can unequivocally say that i do NOT support the killing of americans or iraqis for that matter...

there's a difference and i'm surprised that poeple aren't recognizing that fact...

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:08 PM
i ... do not support how the iraqis are exercising their right to resist occupation

So, someone voted for you? You just don't support "how" they are exercising their right that you support?

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:10 PM
Under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny Donger? That might help clear up some of the responses.

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:13 PM
Under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny Donger? That might help clear up some of the responses.

That's for the respondents to decide.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:15 PM
That's for the respondents to decide.


I realize that. I'm asking for your own personal perspective.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:17 PM
I probably might as well be throwing a rubber ball in a concrete room. I get the feeling that the question is going to just bounce around and never get a straight answer.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:19 PM
So, someone voted for you? You just don't support "how" they are exercising their right that you support?i don't know what you're referring to when you say someone voted for you?

the question was "Do you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country?", not whether i support violence against our troops...

their right to resist is trumped by the fact they are resisting us (a bit jingoistic perhaps, but that's the way i see it)...

if the question is "Do you support the killing of our troops under any circumstances?", then my answer is a definite no and never would...

there's a difference...

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:20 PM
For the record, I support the right of a defensive back to do whatever is necessary to protect the middle of the field, even if that means an illegal hit now and again just to send a message to the other team to think twice before doing it again.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:21 PM
For the record, I support the right of a defensive back to do whatever is necessary to protect the middle of the field, even if that means an illegal hit now and again just to send a message to the other team to think twice before doing it again.you've lost your burst...

(couldn't resist)

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:24 PM
I realize that. I'm asking for your own personal perspective.

No, I don't support the rights of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country. They are killing my countrymen in the process.

In a hypothetical where we were resisting an occupier, absolutely I'd support and fight with any and all means.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:29 PM
No, I don't support the rights of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country. They are killing my countrymen in the process.



I gathered as much... Now, under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny?

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:31 PM
their right to resist is trumped by the fact they are resisting us (a bit jingoistic perhaps, but that's the way i see it)

Okay, I'm confused. By saying, "their right to resist is trumped by the fact they are resisting us," are you saying that you support their right to resist but that your support of that right is superceded because they are resisting us?

In other words, you do support their right to resist, as long as it's not against us?

banyon
06-09-2006, 04:31 PM
This is all contextual.

If the allegations at Hadditha are true, did those people have a right to defend themselves? sure.

Do the random suicide bombers who wander into a busy Market to kill as many innocents as possible? Certainly Not.

It's just not that cut and dry. Unless you are willing to clarify, I will abstain.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:33 PM
the insurgents rights are trumped by the rights of the legitimately elected government which has asked for our support and which we are giving support to...

and certainly the insurgent's rights are trumped by our rights in the whole matter...

none of that means that i shouldn't generally support the right to resist occupation, which i do...

i just happen to support the rights which supercede the right to resist...

it is possible to support rights that do exist while not supporting the effect of the exercise of those rights...

there is a difference...

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:34 PM
I gathered as much... Now, under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny?

Rather transparent, Taco.

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:35 PM
the insurgents rights are trumped by the rights of the legitimately elected government which has asked for our support and which we are giving support to...

and certainly the insurgent's rights are trumped by our rights in the whole matter...

none of that means that i shouldn't generally support the right to resist occupation, which i do...

i just happen to support the rights which supercede the right to resist...

it is possible to support rights that do exist while not supporting the effect of the exercise of those rights...

there is a difference...

Thank you. That makes sense.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:35 PM
Rather transparent, Taco.


I take that to mean that you refuse to answer the question.

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:36 PM
This is all contextual.

If the allegations at Hadditha are true, did those people have a right to defend themselves? sure.

Do the random suicide bombers who wander into a busy Market to kill as many innocents as possible? Certainly Not.

It's just not that cut and dry. Unless you are willing to clarify, I will abstain.

Fair enough. Let's say do you support the right of a random Iraq insurgent to set off an IED next to patrolling Hummer?

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:38 PM
Okay, I'm confused. By saying, "their right to resist is trumped by the fact they are resisting us," are you saying that you support their right to resist but that your support of that right is superceded because they are resisting us?

In other words, you do support their right to resist, as long as it's not against us?this subject is so nuanced that it's hard to respond to pithy questions that oversimplify the situation...

but yes, i believe that their rights are trumped because they are resisting a duly elected government and because they are resisting us, but then i'm an american and will always feel our national interests trump any other rights that may or may not exist...

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:40 PM
I take that to mean that you refuse to answer the question.

You can take it anyway you'd like, but it was a straightforward statement. You're boring and transparent. Perhaps you should find another conspiracy theory to play with instead?

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:41 PM
Fair enough. Let's say do you support the right of a random Iraq insurgent to set off an IED next to patrolling Hummer?



My gut reaction is, "of course not."

My analytical reaction is, "I'd do it if the roles were reversed and it was a patrolling camel in my homeland."

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:43 PM
Thank you. That makes sense.you're welcome...

i know you were serious about your poll question, so i tried to give you a serious response...

seriously... :D :D :D

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:43 PM
You can take it anyway you'd like, but it was a straightforward statement. You're boring and transparent. Perhaps you should find another conspiracy theory to play with instead?


It's a pretty straightforward question: Under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny?

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:44 PM
My gut reaction is, "of course not."

My analytical reaction is, "I'd do it if the roles were reversed and it was a patrolling camel in my homeland."

Is a camel currently patrolling your homeland?

Burros don't count.

banyon
06-09-2006, 04:45 PM
Fair enough. Let's say do you support the right of a random Iraq insurgent to set off an IED next to patrolling Hummer?

What are they doing in the Hummer? What have those troops done in connection with the insurgent?

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:47 PM
What are they doing in the Hummer? What have those troops done in connection with the insurgent?

Just out on patrol. Let's assume they just arrived in-country.

banyon
06-09-2006, 04:48 PM
Just out on patrol. Let's assume they just arrived in-country.

Then no.

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:49 PM
Then no.

Okay. It's full of SF guys that have engaged them repeatedly.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:50 PM
Is a camel currently patrolling your homeland?

Burros don't count.



No, but I'm told that there are Al Queda cells here that are. Their ultimate goal is to bring America to her knees and turn us into an Islamic nation that is pleasing to Allah, no?

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:51 PM
Okay. It's full of SF guys that have engaged them repeatedly. still no...

attacking our guys is never ok...

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:53 PM
No, but I'm told that there are Al Queda cells here that are. Their ultimate goal is to bring America to her knees and turn us into an Islamic nation that is pleasing to Allah, no?

Hell Taco, you've been told that the US government was behind 9/11, and you believe them.

Color me unimpressed with your veracity.

banyon
06-09-2006, 04:53 PM
Okay. It's full of SF guys that have engaged them repeatedly.

Engaged them how? Why did the SF guys engage them? Did the SF guys cause any collateral damage? How much?

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:54 PM
Engaged them how? Why did the SF guys engage them? Did the SF guys cause any collateral damage? How much?

Engaged them with small arms.
They were ordered to.
No.

banyon
06-09-2006, 04:57 PM
Engaged them with small arms.
They were ordered to.
No.


I would think no still, unless somehow they did this in a particularly bloodthirsty or indiscriminate manner, or their superior officers were targeting them for a bad reason.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 04:59 PM
Hell Taco, you've been told that the US government was behind 9/11, and you believe them.

Color me unimpressed with your veracity.unimpressed with his veracity or his perspicacity?

or both... hee hee...

Donger
06-09-2006, 05:02 PM
unimpressed with his veracity or his perspicacity?

or both... hee hee...

Great. He's sweaty, too?

Taco John
06-09-2006, 05:04 PM
Hell Taco, you've been told that the US government was behind 9/11, and you believe them.

Color me unimpressed with your veracity.


Actually, that's inaccurate.

I'm not sure what 9/11 has to do with the ethics and philisphical questions that are being proposed here. Other than you trying to discredit me for asking you some tough questions that you've thus refused to answer. I'm unconcerned with how you feel about my doubt about the conclusions drawn from 9/11.

For the record, I don't believe the "US government" was behind 9/11. That's an overgeneralization. I do believe that there is a powerful faction that actively participated. A faction that is part of an organization of powerful people who place their allegience to this internal organization higher than their allegiance to the United States of America. Hell, I even believe that the faction believes that they did it with the best interests of America in mind. I have no problem admitting it, as the evidence supporting that claim is fairly strong, regardless of how unpopular it is.

Nevertheless, none of that has anything to do with the ethical questions that are being discussed in this thread. I'm not sure why you'd try to steer the topic of conversation to 9/11, when there are plenty of threads to discuss that topic already in existence.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 05:07 PM
Great. He's sweaty, too?did i spell that wrong?

i thought perspicacity had to do with acuteness of discernment or perception, or in this case, lack thereof...

Donger
06-09-2006, 05:11 PM
did i spell that wrong?

i thought perspicacity had to do with acuteness of discernment or perception, or in this case, lack thereof...

No, you didn't. I was attempting to be humorous.

Donger
06-09-2006, 05:13 PM
Actually, that's inaccurate.

I'm not sure what 9/11 has to do with the ethics and philisphical questions that are being proposed here. Other than you trying to discredit me for asking you some tough questions that you've thus refused to answer. I'm unconcerned with how you feel about my doubt about the conclusions drawn from 9/11.

For the record, I don't believe the "US government" was behind 9/11. That's an overgeneralization. I do believe that there is a powerful faction that actively participated. A faction that is part of an organization of powerful people who place their allegience to this internal organization higher than their allegiance to the United States of America. Hell, I even believe that the faction believes that they did it with the best interests of America in mind. I have no problem admitting it, as the evidence supporting that claim is fairly strong, regardless of how unpopular it is.

Nevertheless, none of that has anything to do with the ethical questions that are being discussed in this thread. I'm not sure why you'd try to steer the topic of conversation to 9/11, when there are plenty of threads to discuss that topic already in existence.

Did somebody fart?

Taco John
06-09-2006, 05:16 PM
So back to my question... Under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny?

Donger
06-09-2006, 05:19 PM
So back to my question... Under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny?

ROFL

I don't know, Taco. Do you have a video for me to watch in order to formulate an answer?

BucEyedPea
06-09-2006, 05:29 PM
So back to my question... Under what circumstances do people have the right to defend their country, and control their own destiny?

When they're invaded.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 05:32 PM
Like I said... I figured asking you a tough question would be like bouncing a rubber ball in a concrete room.

For the record, I think the circumstance that people have the right to defend their country and control their destiny sits with will of the people to do so. I don't think there's an absolutist answer to it. It was a minority of men who decided to take action against the crown in our own Revolution. But their action spoke louder than the inaction of the apathetic majority of people to stop them. The end result was that we were able to muster up enough of a resistance to fight the armies of the Crown and secure our right to control our own destiny.

Ultimately, I'm against insurgents killing our troops. That said, I don't believe that we're going to be able to do anything to stop it. I believe that it will have to be the Iraqis who step up and take their country and drive out the insurgency. I think that voting in elections is a huge first step, but elections mean nothing if the people aren't willing to follow-through and enforce their will themselves. This is because the majority of people will go with the flow, whatever that flow might be.

I think it behooves us to set a date and say, this is the date that you need to be able to step up and take control of your own destiny. If you need more time than this, you will have to officially request it through your parliment. I think this is the best way to legitimize our continued presence in Iraq.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 05:41 PM
In theory, in the abstract "yes."

However, I can't separate THESE insurgents using the tactics they are, against the people they are, for the reasons they are....from the abstract. So "no." :harumph:

:)

Mr. Laz
06-09-2006, 05:56 PM
Fact-based.

American troops are in Iraq.

Iraqi insurgents are fighting them.

Do you support the right of the insurgents to fight American soldiers?
i'm american, so i don't support them killing american soldiers


but think about it ....



if a country came to the U.S. and said your government sucks ... here's a better one ... how would you take it?

patteeu
06-09-2006, 06:11 PM
In general, I think they have the same right that everyone else has to be free from others doing them harm so long as they do no harm themselves.

In the specific case of the Iraqi insurgents, I think they have a right to submit to our will by swearing off violence and pursuing political means to achieve their political goals or suffer the consequences.

jAZ
06-09-2006, 06:27 PM
Like I said in the Lounge thread, I do understand why they are doing it, but I draw a line between understanding it and supporting it, especially when they are killing our troops.
Well that's not the same question you asked in this poll...

In the poll you ask about supporting 'the right' to do it. Which is entirely unrelated to supporting 'it'.

jAZ
06-09-2006, 06:28 PM
if a country came to the U.S. and said your government sucks ... here's a better one ... how would you take it?
He doesn't want to think about the issue in the larger scope. He want's to know who supports dead American soldiers....

Cochise
06-09-2006, 08:46 PM
So if it's their right, do we then not have the right to kill them if they are in the process of trying to do it?

banyon
06-09-2006, 08:48 PM
So if it's their right, do we then not have the right to kill them if they are in the process of trying to do it?

absolutely not, if we are attacking them for unjustified reasons.

Cochise
06-09-2006, 08:53 PM
absolutely not, if we are attacking them for unjustified reasons.

I mean, if one of them walks out into the street with an AK-47, and is exercising his right to shoot at American soldiers, do they not have the right to fire back?

banyon
06-09-2006, 08:57 PM
I mean, if one of them walks out into the street with an AK-47, and is exercising his right to shoot at American soldiers, do they not have the right to fire back?

have you not seen my previous posts? It is contextual. your example in the last post would obviously be justified. The way you stated it in the previous post might not be.

k_dubb30
06-09-2006, 09:05 PM
An insurgent is defined as:

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

That means they have no Country to defend.

Your poll question is as pointless as it is moot.

banyon
06-09-2006, 09:09 PM
An insurgent is defined as:

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

That means they have no Country to defend.

Your poll question is as pointless as it is moot.

This is what we call a non-sequitur. How does (1) or (2) logically result in the conclusion?

Hint: it doesn't.

k_dubb30
06-09-2006, 09:17 PM
Well banyon...

The original poll question is, "Do you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country?"

That is what I responded to. By definition, insurgents have no Country, and have nothing to "defend".

Hint: It's the English language, and words have meaning

banyon
06-09-2006, 09:18 PM
Well banyon...

The original poll question is, "Do you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country?"

That is what I responded to. By definition, insurgents have no Country, and have nothing to "defend".

Hint: It's the English language, and words have meaning


being without country didn't appear in any of the definitions you listed. It looks like you pulled yours straight from Dictionary.com.

k_dubb30
06-09-2006, 09:26 PM
Yes I did, but it may as well have been from any dictionary...

Dictionaries usually define what words are; not what they are not. I find it hard to believe insurgents could, Rise in revolt against established authority, especially a government; when "defending their country" would be supporting that government.

jAZ
06-09-2006, 09:32 PM
So if it's their right, do we then not have the right to kill them if they are in the process of trying to do it?
It's a civil war, in my mind. And one of the two sides have allied themselves with us.

Donger
06-09-2006, 09:37 PM
Well that's not the same question you asked in this poll...

In the poll you ask about supporting 'the right' to do it. Which is entirely unrelated to supporting 'it'.

You're right. I was getting tired of repeating myself verbatim and slipped up.

So, you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country but don't support the insurgency, is that right?

banyon
06-09-2006, 09:42 PM
Yes I did, but it may as well have been from any dictionary...

Dictionaries usually define what words are; not what they are not. I find it hard to believe insurgents could, Rise in revolt against established authority, especially a government; when "defending their country" would be supporting that government.

dude, here are your listed criteria:

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party

please point out why those qualities would not be true of Colonial troops in the American Revolutionary War.

k_dubb30
06-09-2006, 10:03 PM
Those qualities would be true of our Colonial troops in the American Revolution. Keep in mind the Colonial soldiers were not defending. They were participants in revolution.

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:10 PM
Those qualities would be true of our Colonial troops in the American Revolution. Keep in mind the Colonial soldiers were not defending. They were participants in revolution.

"Revolution" is more closely aligned with your definition than "people without a country"

k_dubb30
06-09-2006, 10:14 PM
Again, the original question was, "Do you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country?" How can one defend that which they are revolting against?

stevieray
06-09-2006, 10:28 PM
i'm american, so i don't support them killing american soldiers


but think about it ....



if a country came to the U.S. and said your government sucks ... here's a better one ... how would you take it?

If the current one was throwing people into woodchippers, and ignoring resolutions that prompted a War here, I'd welcome it.

Now pick a race here that wants the woodchipping to continue, so they oppose the majority of the country who has voted for a new government and that race starts killing citizens on the streets of the US.

you would support that?

banyon
06-09-2006, 10:29 PM
Again, the original question was, "Do you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country?" How can one defend that which they are revolting against?

because their concept of what constitutes their "country" is divergent from what their opponent believe.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 11:35 PM
because their concept of what constitutes their "country" is divergent from what their opponent believe.



They're clearly not checking with their dictionaries before picking up AK-47s and bomb belts... Dumbasses.

go bowe
06-10-2006, 12:25 AM
So if it's their right, do we then not have the right to kill them if they are in the process of trying to do it?yes we do, and our interests trump their rights in this instance...

i'm totally in favor of killing them before they kill anymore of us, but the best solution imo would be to have the iraqis sort it all out for themselves using the political process (instead of an insurgency)...

jAZ
06-10-2006, 12:29 AM
You're right. I was getting tired of repeating myself verbatim and slipped up.

So, you support 'the right' of Iraqi insurgents to defend their country but don't support the insurgency, is that right?
Basically, yes.

I see Iraq now as effectively a civil war between factions within Iraq battling for control of their resources. We created the conditions for this war and picked sides along the way.

Our nation would pick one or the other depending on which benefited us more. There is nothing objectively more pure or right about one group over the another... other than one's willingness to work reliably and favorably with us (ie, choose to trade oil in dollars rather than euros).

As such, it makes no sense to suggest that one side doesn't have "the right" to fight against the other side simply because we have a preference in the matter.

Does that translate into "support" for the enemy? Some folks here would *love* to make that claim. But your's is a question of logic, not ethics or morality or loyalty or anything like that.

unlurking
06-10-2006, 07:11 AM
Without reading the thread, I voted yes. I also support their right to die by our hands.

Personally, I would like to see us leave Iraq, while they begin fighting each other or neighboring nations. I don't care if some dumbass wants to kill himself.

Edit:

Hmmmm. Looks like I've been snookered! From reading the first page only now, I can tell this was not about a nation being able to defend it sovereignty against a foreign occupier (quoting 'the righ' was a nice touch to the obviously intended misdirection). From the few Donger comments on page one, it appears a list of "America Haters" is being created.

Donger,

I hope you are not one of the ones constantly trash talking thread titles and their irrelevance to the topic. :(

patteeu
06-10-2006, 10:11 AM
Basically, yes.

I see Iraq now as effectively a civil war between factions within Iraq battling for control of their resources. We created the conditions for this war and picked sides along the way.

Our nation would pick one or the other depending on which benefited us more. There is nothing objectively more pure or right about one group over the another... other than one's willingness to work reliably and favorably with us (ie, choose to trade oil in dollars rather than euros).

As such, it makes no sense to suggest that one side doesn't have "the right" to fight against the other side simply because we have a preference in the matter.

Does that translate into "support" for the enemy? Some folks here would *love* to make that claim. But your's is a question of logic, not ethics or morality or loyalty or anything like that.

Houston, we have a problem.

Taco John
06-10-2006, 10:15 AM
I think everybody has the right to die at the end of our guns. The only right that exists is our right to KICK ASS!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

patteeu
06-10-2006, 10:24 AM
I think everybody has the right to die at the end of our guns. The only right that exists is our right to KICK ASS!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

I don't think there is much value in trying to find ways to justify the actions of those who we, as a country, have decided to go to war against.

BucEyedPea
06-10-2006, 11:17 AM
... other than one's willingness to work reliably and favorably with us (ie, choose to trade oil in dollars rather than euros).
Wow! I can't believe I agree with you on the euros point. I do think this is part of it.

Bowser
06-10-2006, 11:53 AM
"Support"? Not really.

"Agree with" might have been a better way to phrase the question.

And it's relevant to class who this quetion belongs to. The everyday Iraqi who is trying to eek out a life in one seriously bad situation, or the psycho who envisions himself as a martyr in waiting? Or all?


I think it might wll have been a terrible idea to invade a country that posed no threat to us (and that is a whole other arguement).

go bowe
06-10-2006, 11:57 AM
I don't think there is much value in trying to find ways to justify the actions of those who we, as a country, have decided to go to war against.well, some might say that we went to war against the country/government of iraq...

we won that war...

then we had problems with the occupation, stemming in great part from blunders in the planning for postwar iraq...

those problems are rather troublesome, having developed from a sunni insurgency to include widespread sectarian violence...

but did we decide to go to war against saddam or the insurgency?

i think the insurgency decided to go to war against us...

not that it matters, but i'm a little bored today, waiting to go out and weed the garden for awhile...

stalling actually, waiting for the temperature to go down...

go bowe
06-10-2006, 12:04 PM
"Support"? Not really.

"Agree with" might have been a better way to phrase the question. . .i think donger wanted to force feed his logic, that supporting the right to resist an occupier somehow necessarily means that you support the killing of our troops...

and produce a list of troop haters or something like that...

it's all great fun, though...

btw, it's not a bad thread, you might enjoy reading it when you have time...

Bowser
06-10-2006, 12:06 PM
i think donger wanted to force feed his logic, that supporting the right to resist an occupier somehow necessarily means that you support the killing of our troops...

and produce a list of troop haters or something like that...

it's all great fun, though...

btw, it's not a bad thread, you might enjoy reading it when you have time...

Never would have pegged an Englishman to be a republican.... :)

Loki
06-10-2006, 12:08 PM
donger,
this seems like a very baited question. i honestly don't know how to answer it (so i'm not going to vote), but i'll try to answer your question to the best of my abilities.

do i want anyone attacking American troops? hell no.
do i want American troops to be victorious? hell yes!
(would i like to see the US forces take off the kid gloves and REALLY get the job done? i think you know i do...)

ok. now to answer your poll question honestly and fairly, i would need to place myself in an insurgent's position. if some invader came to the USA and occupied my hometown, you bet your ass i would be f*cking their sh*t up red dawn style (and loving every minute of it). i could guarantee you i'd be scratching tally marks in the buttstock of my weapon on a daily basis. as a freedom loving patriot (and proud ex-military) i would feel it was my DUTY to do this. i would consider myself an embarrassment to my forefathers, my family and my nation if i DIDN'T do something.

would it be my right to do this? i don't know about that... but it would certainly be my CHOICE.

again...
do i support insurgents shooting at my fellow countrymen? F*ck no!!
do i understand why they might be? yes, i do.
does that mean i'm rooting for them to succeed? absolutely not.

my loyalties have always and will always remain with the United States forces.

patteeu
06-10-2006, 12:36 PM
well, some might say that we went to war against the country/government of iraq...

we won that war...

then we had problems with the occupation, stemming in great part from blunders in the planning for postwar iraq...

those problems are rather troublesome, having developed from a sunni insurgency to include widespread sectarian violence...

but did we decide to go to war against saddam or the insurgency?

i think the insurgency decided to go to war against us...

not that it matters, but i'm a little bored today, waiting to go out and weed the garden for awhile...

stalling actually, waiting for the temperature to go down...

Are you saying that it really was "Mission Accomplished?" ;)

Seriously though, I shouldn't have implied a distinction between a case where we have decided to go to war and a case where war has been thrust upon us whether we wanted it or not. Whether the insurgency is a part of the so-called "optional war" or whether we won that war and are now having war waged upon us by the insurgents, I don't see any value in finding justifications for them. It's important to understand them, but it's also important not to get confused about which side is the good guys. (Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you are doing this).

P.S. I was out there until just a few minutes ago until I found an excuse to come inside and "work."

Sully
06-10-2006, 12:57 PM
If I "support" them, does that mean I have to buy a magnet for my car?

patteeu
06-10-2006, 01:10 PM
If I "support" them, does that mean I have to buy a magnet for my car?

I wouldn't recommend it.

go bowe
06-10-2006, 01:58 PM
If I "support" them, does that mean I have to buy a magnet for my car?ROFL ROFL ROFL

DanT
06-10-2006, 02:03 PM
Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia.org entry on right:


A right is the power or liberty to which a person or a group is justly entitled or a thing to which they have a moral or legal claim. The specific enumeration of rights accorded to citizens has historically differed greatly from one century to the next, and from one regime to another, but nowadays is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people and groups, and, as such, they place constraints or positive obligations on individuals, groups, institutions, and governments.
...


Citizens of a country have a right to defend the sovereignty of their country, but that "moral or legal claim" can come into conflict with other people's rights to life, liberty and property. Just because someone is claiming that what they are doing is a "defense" of their country, that doesn't make it so. Also, even if what they are doing is a defense of their country, that doesn't necessarily mean that their right trumps other rights.

The Iraq situation is screwed up from a Natural Law standpoint because the Coalition didn't have a moral or legal justification for invading, but on the other hand, a lot of the folks fighting against the Coalition don't have a legitimate claim to be defending anything but the legacy of a former regime that deprived many Iraqis of their rights, so they're in the wrong, also. To the extent that both sides are engaging in actions that have the easily forseeable consequence of killing nonfighting civilians, they're objectively wrong and are operating without a moral or legal authorization. It's a credit to the Coalition forces that they have a mechanism for investigating and punishing any troops that engage in certain types of actions that kill civilians. For certain other types, however, they hand out medals.

The folks who blow up cars in civilian areas and engage in homicide bombing around civilians and engage in all kinds of murder and mayhem have no moral or legal claim to be doing that evil stuff.

It's incredible that history has gotten to the point where tens of thousands of people who enjoy secure rights to life, liberty and property now find themselves "voluntarily" in a pissant third-world hellhole full of a bunch of murderous thugs who roam around outside of a so-called "Green Zone" with seeming impunity, planting IEDs in roads and doing all kinds of sh!t that would be harder to get away with if the civilians in that hellhole would complain to their "government."

I'm not really sure just what the Coalition is in Iraq for. I know it doesn't have anything to do with my own rights, except my right to property, which is being diminished by my being one of the taxpayers who have to pay for that nonsense. I pray for our troops and hope they get back from there with their hearts, minds and bodies intact. To the extent that these brave and valorous American and British troops have a credible belief that they are trying to extend the blessings of liberty to the people of Iraq, songs and praises should be shouted in their name, because there aren't many loves greater than to risk getting killed for other people.

Personally, if I were ever in charge of an army of free men and women and I sent them into some pissant third-world hellhole that didn't pose an imminent threat to my country, I'd have enough respect for the sacrifice of those troops to promise them that I would parade in an open-car through the streets of the major cities in the pissant third-world hellhole that I saw fit to invade. If you're not going in it to win it, then what the f*ck are you going in it to do, sneak in unannounced and dish out turkey dinners?

go bowe
06-10-2006, 02:07 PM
Are you saying that it really was "Mission Accomplished?" ...yes, absolutely...

we went to war to unseat saddam and his baathist regime...

we did that, rather well actually...

mission accomplished...

then our blunders contributed to a new mission, defending ourselves...

we've fought with shiite milia (sadr's crew) and sunni insurgents...

thank God the kurds like us...

go bowe
06-10-2006, 02:13 PM
Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia.org entry on right:



Citizens of a country have a right to defend the sovereignty of their country, but that "moral or legal claim" can come into conflict with other people's rights to life, liberty and property. Just because someone is claiming that what they are doing is a "defense" of their country, that doesn't make it so. Also, even if what they are doing is a defense of their country, that doesn't necessarily mean that their right trumps other rights.

The Iraq situation is screwed up from a Natural Law standpoint because the Coalition didn't have a moral or legal justification for invading, but on the other hand, a lot of the folks fighting against the Coalition don't have a legitimate claim to be defending anything but the legacy of a former regime that deprived many Iraqis of their rights, so they're in the wrong, also. To the extent that both sides are engaging in actions that have the easily forseeable consequence of killing nonfighting civilians, they're objectively wrong and are operating without a moral or legal authorization. It's a credit to the Coalition forces that they have a mechanism for investigating and punishing any troops that engage in certain types of actions that kill civilians. For certain other types, however, they hand out medals.

The folks who blow up cars in civilian areas and engage in homicide bombing around civilians and engage in all kinds of murder and mayhem have no moral or legal claim to be doing that evil stuff.

It's incredible that history has gotten to the point where tens of thousands of people who enjoy secure rights to life, liberty and property now find themselves "voluntarily" in a pissant third-world hellhole full of a bunch of murderous thugs who roam around outside of a so-called "Green Zone" with seeming impunity, planting IEDs in roads and doing all kinds of sh!t that would be harder to get away with if the civilians in that hellhole would complain to their "government."

I'm not really sure just what the Coalition is in Iraq for. I know it doesn't have anything to do with my own rights, except my right to property, which is being diminished by my being one of the taxpayers who have to pay for that nonsense. I pray for our troops and hope they get back from there with their hearts, minds and bodies intact. To the extent that these brave and valorous American and British troops have a credible belief that they are trying to extend the blessings of liberty to the people of Iraq, songs and praises should be shouted in their name, because there aren't many loves greater than to risk getting killed for other people.

Personally, if I were ever in charge of an army of free men and women and I sent them into some pissant third-world hellhole that didn't pose an imminent threat to my country, I'd have enough respect for the sacrifice of those troops to promise them that I would parade in an open-car through the streets of the major cities in the pissant third-world hellhole that I saw fit to invade. If you're not going in it to win it, then what the f*ck are you going in it to do, sneak in unannounced and dish out turkey dinners?i don't know why, but it took me a second to catch the reference to the president's visit to iraq...

lots of good points, well articulated... :thumb:

DanT
06-10-2006, 02:18 PM
I voted "No" because, on balance, I believe the rights of my countrymen in Iraq and of the peaceful people of Iraq outweigh the rights of that subset of Iraqi citizens who claim they are defending their country by blowing up my countrymen. Also, a lot of the folks in Iraq who are fighting against the Iraqi and the US governments don't even have legitimate claims to defend Iraq's sovereignty, as they are either foreigners or they are holdouts from the previous regime, which hated liberty.

Strictly speaking, though, there are some Iraqi "insurgents" who do have a right to defend their country, as do most of the citizens of most countries.

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 04:43 PM
I voted "No" because, on balance, I believe the rights of my countrymen in Iraq and of the peaceful people of Iraq outweigh the rights of that subset of Iraqi citizens who claim they are defending their country by blowing up my countrymen. Also, a lot of the folks in Iraq who are fighting against the Iraqi and the US governments don't even have legitimate claims to defend Iraq's sovereignty, as they are either foreigners or they are holdouts from the previous regime, which hated liberty.

Strictly speaking, though, there are some Iraqi "insurgents" who do have a right to defend their country, as do most of the citizens of most countries.

If you've been following the story closely you would know that it's been estimated that foreign fighters comprise less than 10% of the entire insurgency.

Basically, according to your first paragraph, you are denying an entire country and certainly 90% of the actual insurgents the right to defend their country based on the actions of a few, roughly 10%. :hmmm:

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 04:45 PM
The less biased and more honest poll would have been 'do you support a country's fundamental right to defend itself.'

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 05:00 PM
If I "support" them, does that mean I have to buy a magnet for my car?

ROFL

What color would that bow be??? :hmmm:

DanT
06-10-2006, 05:36 PM
If you've been following the story closely you would know that it's been estimated that foreign fighters comprise less than 10% of the entire insurgency.

Basically, according to your first paragraph, you are denying an entire country and certainly 90% of the actual insurgents the right to defend their country based on the actions of a few, roughly 10%. :hmmm:

You misread me. There are two classes of folks that I don't consider to possess the right of self-defense on behalf of Iraq:

(a) foreigners

and

(b) holdouts from the former regime.

Members of (a) never possessed the right; members of (b) forfeited that right by their support of a liberty-hating regime.

Logical
06-10-2006, 05:49 PM
You misread me. There are two classes of folks that I don't consider to possess the right of self-defense on behalf of Iraq:

(a) foreigners

and

(b) holdouts from the former regime.

Members of (a) never possessed the right; members of (b) forfeited that right by their support of a liberty-hating regime.

Dan, I find you and go bo to be the two most reasonable posters on the BB so please answer this question.

Do you believe the US should invade and free every nation that is led by a liberty hating regime?

If not what makes this one so special?

Logical
06-10-2006, 05:50 PM
The less biased and more honest poll would have been 'do you support a country's fundamental right to defend itself.'Yup

Logical
06-10-2006, 05:51 PM
yes, absolutely...

we went to war to unseat saddam and his baathist regime...

we did that, rather well actually...

mission accomplished...

then our blunders contributed to a new mission, defending ourselves...

we've fought with shiite milia (sadr's crew) and sunni insurgents...

thank God the kurds like us...:clap::clap::clap:

DanT
06-10-2006, 05:57 PM
Dan, I find you and go bo to be the two most reasonable posters on the BB so please answer this question.

Do you believe the US should invade and free every nation that is led by a liberty hating regime?

If not what makes this one so special?

I do not believe that the US should invade and free every nation that is led by a liberty-hating regime.

Also, I was not a supporter of the United States decision to invade Iraq, because I never saw a moral or a legal justification for it.

Logical
06-10-2006, 06:08 PM
I do not believe that the US should invade and free every nation that is led by a liberty-hating regime.

Also, I was not a supporter of the United States decision to invade Iraq, because I never saw a moral or a legal justification for it.

Thanks for the answer. Now another question.

If we do not hold the high ground of invoking liberty for all, do we honestly expect those that were ousted from power to not resist?

DanT
06-10-2006, 06:19 PM
Thanks for the answer. Now another question.

If we do not hold the high ground of invoking liberty for all, do we honestly expect those that were ousted from power to not resist?

I can't speak for "we". Personally, I expect that folks who are violently ousted from power might resist the folks who have assumed that power.

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 06:39 PM
You misread me. There are two classes of folks that I don't consider to possess the right of self-defense on behalf of Iraq:

(a) foreigners

and

(b) holdouts from the former regime.

Members of (a) never possessed the right; members of (b) forfeited that right by their support of a liberty-hating regime.

OK, so say 45% of the insurgency is comprised of such. Does the remaining 55% lose their right to defend their country because the insurgency is made up of those individuals you do not believe possess the right to defend the country?

DanT
06-10-2006, 06:49 PM
OK, so say 45% of the insurgency is comprised of such. Does the remaining 55% lose their right to defend their country because the insurgency is made up of those individuals you do not believe possess the right to defend the country?


As I said earlier, "Strictly speaking, though, there are some Iraqi "insurgents" who do have a right to defend their country, as do most of the citizens of most countries."

But, come to think of it, it wouldn't be all of the 55% in your hypothetical example. Some of that 55% is down with the 45%'s multifaceted and illegitimate agenda; hence, they don't have any right to self-defense, either.

Logical
06-10-2006, 08:07 PM
As I said earlier, "Strictly speaking, though, there are some Iraqi "insurgents" who do have a right to defend their country, as do most of the citizens of most countries."

But, come to think of it, it wouldn't be all of the 55% in your hypothetical example. Some of that 55% is down with the 45%'s multifaceted and illegitimate agenda; hence, they don't have any right to self-defense, either.

This the first time I have ever made Dan make an argument I thing has no rational basis. I am totally unclear as to how he came up with the 55% is down with the 45%'s multifaceted and illegitimate agenda statement.

DanT
06-10-2006, 08:18 PM
This the first time I have ever made Dan make an argument I thing has no rational basis. I am totally unclear as to how he came up with the 55% is down with the 45%'s multifaceted and illegitimate agenda statement.


I'm not saying that all of the 55% is. I'm saying that some of them are. I am supposing that some of the insurgents are merely pursuing the agendas of foreigners and/or Baathists, even though they are Iraqis and they were not holdouts of the previous regime. Such people do not have a credible moral or legal claim that their actions are in legitimate self-defense of their country, in my opinion. Their claims are as illegitimate as the foreigners and the Baathists.

Logical
06-10-2006, 08:28 PM
I'm not saying that all of the 55% is. I'm saying that some of them are. Some of the insurgents are merely pursuing the agendas of foreigners and/or Baathists, even though they are Iraqis and they were not holdouts of the previous regime. Such people do not have a credible moral or legal claim that their actions are in legitimate self-defense of their country, in my opinion.I know you added IMO, but what I don't understand is how you could draw the conclusion that the hangers on are in the 55 instead of the 45%? What I am more amazed is to find you in a discussion of a fictitious number debate with DEnise, that is just so unlike you. I find it kind of cool though to know you are not just a data gold mine but an opinionated guy just like the rest of us.

WoodDraw
06-10-2006, 08:40 PM
The general gist I'm feeling is that Iraqis have the right to defend themselves, just not in this case. It's humorous to see those who make such a passionate defense of force turn to peace when it fits their objective, but not all that surprising. Moral relativism is crap; it's either wrong or it's right. You can't write off what happened at Haditha and Guantanamo Bay, but then express outrage at an insurgent attack. Either take a stand against needless violence or go sit quietly in the corner.

DanT
06-10-2006, 08:50 PM
I know you added IMO, but what I don't understand is how you could draw the conclusion that the hangers on are in the 55 instead of the 45%? What I am more amazed is to find you in a discussion of a fictitious number debate with DEnise, that is just so unlike you. I find it kind of cool though to know you are not just a data gold mine but an opinionated guy just like the rest of us.


I'm taking her hypothetical numbers as given merely for the sake of argument. Her numbers are that 45% of the insurgents belong to the class F of people who possess at least one of the following traits:

(a) they are foreigners

(b) they are holdouts from the previous regime

That means that 55% of the insurgents are not in class F because they are neither (a) nor (b). I am asserting that at least some of that 55% have claims that are as illegitimate as the claims of the 45% who belong to class F.

Logical
06-10-2006, 09:28 PM
I'm taking her hypothetical numbers as given merely for the sake of argument. Her numbers are that 45% of the insurgents belong to the class F of people who possess at least one of the following traits:

(a) they are foreigners

(b) they are holdouts from the previous regime

That means that 55% of the insurgents are not in class F because they are neither (a) nor (b). I am asserting that at least some of that 55% have claims that are as illegitimate as the claims of the 45% who belong to class F.Reasonable. I swear you and Jettio must not be related. Let me guess in the real world you are the passionate one and he is the coldly rationale one.;)

DanT
06-10-2006, 10:37 PM
Reasonable. I swear you and Jettio must not be related. Let me guess in the real world you are the passionate one and he is the coldly rationale one.;)

We're both pretty passionate, but it's true that he has to put up with more high-volume political rants from me than the other way around. ;)

mlyonsd
06-11-2006, 10:50 AM
Without reading thru the entire thread...The question I would have to ask those that voted "yes" to this poll is, Do the Iraqi insurgents have a right to kill other innocent Iraqi's in the defense of their country?

By innocent I mean the brother and sister walking to the market to buy food for the family evening meal that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

memyselfI
06-11-2006, 11:01 AM
Without reading thru the entire thread...The question I would have to ask those that voted "yes" to this poll is, Do the Iraqi insurgents have a right to kill other innocent Iraqi's in the defense of their country?

Unwaring civilians should never be killed. There is no fundamental right to kill any civilian at any time by any warring faction.

If you are talking about citizens fighting citizens then that sounds to me like civil war. The question would be different. Do citizens have a 'right' to civil war? I don't think that 'right' is fundamental or absolute.

mlyonsd
06-11-2006, 11:59 AM
I'm not talking about civil war.

I'm talking about any Iraqi that is killed as collateral damage to insurgents attacking American troops, which is what I am assuming the poll was intended for. For example, the Iraqi soldier or policeman that is killed when riding with an American convoy when an IED goes off.

I'm trying to understand why someone that voted yes in the poll considers it a right for insurgents to defend their country. The only way I could vote yes is if the question was qualified with a choice stating their only right to "defend" their country now lies in participating in the political process.

Since a wide majority of Iraqi's voted for delegates to write a constitution and that constitution was ratified I see no right for any Iraqi to take the law into their own hands by attacking Americans who's support is being asked for by those elected officials.

banyon
06-11-2006, 12:08 PM
I'm trying to understand why someone that voted yes in the poll considers it a right for insurgents to defend their country. The only way I could vote yes is if the question was qualified with a choice stating their only right to "defend" their country now lies in participating in the political process.

I gave some examples earlier where I think that it would be justified. But I abstained as the poll is a little too black and white for my taste.

chiefs4me
06-11-2006, 08:54 PM
understand-yes
support-no

listopencil
06-11-2006, 09:01 PM
Does the previous government that they are defending have any provisions in its version of the Constitution that allows them to do so? Did the previous regime even have a Constitution? Would the previous regime have killed Iraqis if they tried to do this when it was in power? The analogy is faulty.

Logical
06-11-2006, 10:31 PM
understand-yes
support-noAbsolutely, no one is suggesting you should support American troops being killed, only that a person understand why it is happening.

Dave Lane
06-12-2006, 05:54 AM
I never support the killing of our troops. But I do understand why some might feel desperate enough to do it. I'm empathetic, because I would never accept an outside people trying to impose their will on my nation. I'd fight that to the death, taking out as many of them as possible.

So if the question is, do I support them killing us. Absolutely not. If the question is, do I understand why there are insurgents who refuse to give into our will. You bet I do.

Yep

Dave

patteeu
06-12-2006, 06:45 AM
Absolutely, no one is suggesting you should support American troops being killed, only that a person understand why it is happening.

Spare me. There isn't a single person in this country who doesn't understand why it's happening (at least at the level discussed in these ridiculous threads). This is all about painting a little bit of white on the hats of the insurgents. You're either doing it intentionally or you're doing it unwittingly.

Ask yourself what you'd think of someone making the same arguments for Tim McVeigh that you make on behalf of the Iraqi insurgents.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2006, 07:17 AM
This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen. It seems to be more about painting certain people as "un-American" than it does about anything else. The question is purposely underdeveloped, and as a result, the interpretations can be melded to the desired affect for whatever user that wants to twist the words of his/her opponent. It seems more like a 'gotcha' thread than anything else.

Just remember one thing Donger and patteau, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Somehow I doubt that you opposed the efforts of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, and that has largely to do with their opponent. Their tactics were little different than what is currently going on, but because their adversaries had a Sickle and Hammer on their uniform instead of Stars and Stripes, it's a hell of a lot more convenient to support it.

So maybe you should ask yourselves, "do you support the right of the United States to support terrorist entities in order to fulfill its political and economic means?"

patteeu
06-12-2006, 07:30 AM
This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen. It seems to be more about painting certain people as "un-American" than it does about anything else. The question is purposely underdeveloped, and as a result, the interpretations can be melded to the desired affect for whatever user that wants to twist the words of his/her opponent. It seems more like a 'gotcha' thread than anything else.

Just remember one thing Donger and patteau, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Somehow I doubt that you opposed the efforts of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, and that has largely to do with their opponent. Their tactics were little different than what is currently going on, but because their adversaries had a Sickle and Hammer on their uniform instead of Stars and Stripes, it's a hell of a lot more convenient to support it.

So maybe you should ask yourselves, "do you support the right of the United States to support terrorist entities in order to fulfill its political and economic means?"

I get it. You're telling me that the Iraqi insurgents are just good old freedom fighters, right?

Donger, please add 'Hamas' Jenkins to our list. ;)

P.S. I support the US supporting any entity it needs to support in order to advance it's interests (including terrorists, communists, mobsters, and members of labor unions among others).

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2006, 07:33 AM
I get it. You're telling me that the Iraqi insurgents are just good old freedom fighters, right?

Donger, please add 'Hamas' Jenkins to our list. ;)

I'm saying that you lack the inability to call a spade a spade. It's easy to support Islamist militants when they are blowing up Soviets. Your moral outrage only seems to spring forth when the targets of their violence are American invaders. That's a logical inconsistency, and you know it.

chagrin
06-12-2006, 07:36 AM
This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen. It seems to be more about painting certain people as "un-American" than it does about anything else. The question is purposely underdeveloped, and as a result, the interpretations can be melded to the desired affect for whatever user that wants to twist the words of his/her opponent. It seems more like a 'gotcha' thread than anything else.


Pot, meet Kettle - you know something, you really are a walking contradiction ofyourself. You and your buddies do this every single day on here. Of course - you're so in love with yourself that you'd never admit it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2006, 07:49 AM
Pot, meet Kettle - you know something, you really are a walking contradiction ofyourself. You and your buddies do this every single day on here. Of course - you're so in love with yourself that you'd never admit it.

And for the baseless presumption hall of fame, we have this empty entry.

Donger
06-12-2006, 08:09 AM
It seems more like a 'gotcha' thread than anything else.

Of course it was. I thought that was obvious.

The point of this thread was for me to gather an idea of a correlation between political leaning and the answer.

Mission Accomplished.

And, of course I supported the actions and the rights of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. You know, since they weren't killing Americans and all.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2006, 08:15 AM
Of course it was. I thought that was obvious.

The point of this thread was for me to gather an idea of a correlation between political leaning and the answer.

Mission Accomplished.

And, of course I supported the actions and the rights of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. You know, since they weren't killing Americans and all.

Thanks for the lesson in xenophobia.

Donger
06-12-2006, 08:20 AM
Thanks for the lesson in xenophobia.

You're welcome. Rather enlightening, I thought.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 10:04 AM
I'm saying that you lack the inability to call a spade a spade. It's easy to support Islamist militants when they are blowing up Soviets. Your moral outrage only seems to spring forth when the targets of their violence are American invaders. That's a logical inconsistency, and you know it.

Where do you get that I'm expressing "moral outrage?"

go bowe
06-12-2006, 11:41 AM
Where do you get that I'm expressing "moral outrage?"maybe it was your body language...

go bowe
06-12-2006, 11:47 AM
Of course it was. I thought that was obvious.

The point of this thread was for me to gather an idea of a correlation between political leaning and the answer.

Mission Accomplished.

And, of course I supported the actions and the rights of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. You know, since they weren't killing Americans and all.so, does this make me a bush-hater?

Donger
06-12-2006, 12:35 PM
so, does this make me a bush-hater?

No.

go bowe
06-12-2006, 01:16 PM
thank goodness...

i always worry about being one of those 4 -5 posters that everybody complains about...

meme, taco, and probably jaz are locks for the first three spots...

vlad is well-despised nowadays, so he's the fourth...

but the fifth spot is still open and i don't want to be "that guy"... :D :D :D

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 02:13 PM
thank goodness...

i always worry about being one of those 4 -5 posters that everybody complains about...

meme, taco, and probably jaz are locks for the first three spots...

vlad is well-despised nowadays, so he's the fourth...

but the fifth spot is still open and i don't want to be "that guy"... :D :D :D
If vlad is logical I don't see the problem. :shrug:

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 05:09 PM
Fact-based.

American troops are in Iraq.

Iraqi insurgents are fighting them.

Do you support the right of the insurgents to fight American soldiers?
Yes, absolutely. I support the right of any nation attacked by another to fight back and defend itself as long as it has the means and gumption to do so. That doesn't mean I necessarily want them to do so, but I do believe in their right to do so. I also support our right to try to put an end to their means and stifle their gumption to do so. That's just the way war works. I find the attitude among many of the right-wingers these days to be laughable. It is like they think that when we set our sights on attacking an enemy, that enemy should not resist. Those people obviously have no clue how war works.

banyon
06-12-2006, 05:25 PM
If vlad is logical I don't see the problem. :shrug:

Maybe you should vie for 5th then. :)

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:27 PM
Maybe you should vie for 5th then. :)

No I think you should vie for 5th! :) You've been here longer. :mad:

banyon
06-12-2006, 05:40 PM
No I think you should vie for 5th! :) You've been here longer. :mad:

Now, now...there's enough hate for everyone. Plenty to go 'round!

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:50 PM
Now, now...there's enough hate for everyone. Plenty to go 'round!
Well I don't hate anyone here. Never for a divergent point of view either.
Exasperated perhaps or not liking someone's style but never hate.

Logical
06-12-2006, 05:58 PM
Spare me. There isn't a single person in this country who doesn't understand why it's happening (at least at the level discussed in these ridiculous threads). This is all about painting a little bit of white on the hats of the insurgents. You're either doing it intentionally or you're doing it unwittingly.

Ask yourself what you'd think of someone making the same arguments for Tim McVeigh that you make on behalf of the Iraqi insurgents.

Tim McVeigh was fighting a foreign government that had invaded the US? Talk about a specious analogy.:rolleyes:

memyselfI
06-12-2006, 06:00 PM
This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen. It seems to be more about painting certain people as "un-American" than it does about anything else. The question is purposely underdeveloped, and as a result, the interpretations can be melded to the desired affect for whatever user that wants to twist the words of his/her opponent. It seems more like a 'gotcha' thread than anything else.

Just remember one thing Donger and patteau, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Somehow I doubt that you opposed the efforts of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, and that has largely to do with their opponent. Their tactics were little different than what is currently going on, but because their adversaries had a Sickle and Hammer on their uniform instead of Stars and Stripes, it's a hell of a lot more convenient to support it.

So maybe you should ask yourselves, "do you support the right of the United States to support terrorist entities in order to fulfill its political and economic means?"

Careful there, Hamas, I used that same saying and it got twisted and contorted into my supposedly saying that 'terrorists are freedom fighters.' Perhaps you will not have the same dishonesty applied to your using the saying but with a name like Hamas...

well, good luck with that. :hmmm:

patteeu
06-12-2006, 08:21 PM
Tim McVeigh was fighting a foreign government that had invaded the US? Talk about a specious analogy.:rolleyes:

So, IYO, the right to defend one's country depends on the nationality of those from whom you would defend it? There is no right to defend your country from domestic threats? The right you seem to be constructing for the insurgents is a pretty convoluted animal if you ask me.

Logical
06-12-2006, 08:30 PM
So, IYO, the right to defend one's country depends on the nationality of those from whom you would defend it? There is no right to defend your country from domestic threats? The right you seem to be constructing for the insurgents is a pretty convoluted animal if you ask me.Did I miss it when someone internal overthrew the US government and McVeigh rescued the US from them?

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 08:45 PM
Did I miss it when someone internal overthrew the US government and McVeigh rescued the US from them?

Don't you remember the Clinton Occupation? It was all over talk radio in the 1990's?

:p

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:19 AM
Did I miss it when someone internal overthrew the US government and McVeigh rescued the US from them?

Apparently you did. Some people think that Abraham Lincoln led a revolution against our constitutional form of government. Some think FDR did. And it's post-McVeigh of course, but there are whackjobs out there who think that Dick Cheney and the NeoCons blew up the WTC as a part of their coup. I don't know what McVeigh's specific theory was, but he believed he was a patriot and that he was targeting the Federal Government in defense of what he believed to be the true America.

Logical
06-13-2006, 06:21 PM
Apparently you did. Some people think that Abraham Lincoln led a revolution against our constitutional form of government. Some think FDR did. And it's post-McVeigh of course, but there are whackjobs out there who think that Dick Cheney and the NeoCons blew up the WTC as a part of their coup. I don't know what McVeigh's specific theory was, but he believed he was a patriot and that he was targeting the Federal Government in defense of what he believed to be the true America.

I suppose then he did what was right for him and he is paying the price much like the Iraqi's are doing what they think is right and are paying the price. I don't support McVeigh or the Iraqi's but I understand the motivation.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2006, 06:39 PM
Some people think that Abraham Lincoln led a revolution against our constitutional form of government. Some think FDR did.

Yep! That would be me. How about suspension of habeas corpus, jailing and shooting war protestors some of them members of congress, passing an income tax which was later declared unconstitutional. Then we have FDR packing the Supreme Court!

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:46 PM
I suppose then he did what was right for him and he is paying the price much like the Iraqi's are doing what they think is right and are paying the price. I don't support McVeigh or the Iraqi's but I understand the motivation.

If these threads had phrased the question in term of whether or not we could "understand" the motivations of the various insurgencies instead of whether or not they have a "right" to do what they are doing (or "would be doing" in the case of your Red Chinese hypothetical), I could have easily agreed that I do.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:47 PM
Yep! That would be me. How about suspension of habeas corpus, jailing and shooting war protestors some of them members of congress, passing an income tax which was later declared unconstitutional. Then we have FDR packing the Supreme Court!

Me too, although (as I'm sure is the case with you as well), I'm not ready to go "Tim McVeigh" on anyone over it at this point. I'm content with pushing back a little bit at a time by supporting libertarian conservatives and encouraging the nomination of more conservative SCOTUS justices. I recognize that Bush isn't a libertarian conservative, but his foreign policy vision earns him a place near my heart and his SCOTUS/judicial appointments have been about as good as I could have hoped for even if he had been a libertarian conservative. I realize that we differ on the foreign policy thing at least in terms of the Iraq-facet and probably in terms of the broader GWoT where I'm an interventionist.

Logical
06-13-2006, 07:59 PM
If these threads had phrased the question in term of whether or not we could "understand" the motivations of the various insurgencies instead of whether or not they have a "right" to do what they are doing (or "would be doing" in the case of your Red Chinese hypothetical), I could have easily agreed that I do.
They do have a right, we also have a right to punish McVeigh and fight back against the insurgents. One's rights don't over-ride the others. Whoever ends up with the final control is just the one who triumphed.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2006, 08:03 PM
Where do you get that I'm expressing "moral outrage?"

The McVeigh analogy.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 08:03 PM
They do have a right, we also have a right to punish McVeigh and fight back against the insurgents. One's rights don't over-ride the others. Whoever ends up with the final control is just the one who triumphed.

Well, as I said early in one of these threads, I think everyone has the same right to act freely so long as they don't infringe on others rights to act freely. At the point in which those rights come in conflict it gets more sticky. So I guess I agree with what you are saying if I understand you right.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 08:08 PM
The McVeigh analogy.

Well if "moral outrage" means I don't agree with them (the Iraqi insurgents and Timothy McVeigh) then I guess you're right, I'm outraged. :)