Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow - how quickly the thread descends into farce once C&M comes on the scene.

[no name 1]

He was and is a brilliant first man.

[GaryC 7]

Disecting a poll to the point of subject change, is so classic. Then out come the fangs of love for my country! Watching people struggling to have it both ways is so dam funny

Like the tommy roe song:

Dizzy

Im so dizzy, my head is spinnin

Like a whirlpool, it never ends

And its you, girl, makin it spin

Youre makin me dizzy

Call it what you like - the whole 'affected outrage' thing you love to do is unconvincing and disingenuous.

Cop out! cop out! NON-answer alert!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure you want to go to red alert Marc? It will mean changing the bulb....

I love Red Dwarf!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Disecting a poll to the point of subject change, is so classic. Then out come the fangs of love for my country! Watching people struggling to have it both ways is so dam funny

Like the tommy roe song:

Dizzy

Im so dizzy, my head is spinnin

Like a whirlpool, it never ends

And its you, girl, makin it spin

Youre makin me dizzy

Call it what you like - the whole 'affected outrage' thing you love to do is unconvincing and disingenuous.

Cop out! cop out! NON-answer alert!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure you want to go to red alert Marc? It will mean changing the bulb....

I love Red Dwarf!!!

I hoped someone would get the reference

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Wow - how quickly the thread descends into farce once C&M comes on the scene.

I see, I am the sole contributor? Sheeesh! Your comment is a cry for help!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He was and is a brilliant first man.

pssst...Yes, that too.

[GaryC 7]

Disecting a poll to the point of subject change, is so classic. Then out come the fangs of love for my country! Watching people struggling to have it both ways is so dam funny

Like the tommy roe song:

Dizzy

Im so dizzy, my head is spinnin

Like a whirlpool, it never ends

And its you, girl, makin it spin

Youre makin me dizzy

Call it what you like - the whole 'affected outrage' thing you love to do is unconvincing and disingenuous.

Cop out! cop out! NON-answer alert!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure you want to go to red alert Marc? It will mean changing the bulb....

I love Red Dwarf!!!

I hoped someone would get the reference

One of the greatest things the brits have given us, your country has a great sense of humor. Monty Python, Benny Hill and Red Dwarf is the bomb!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow - how quickly the thread descends into farce once C&M comes on the scene.

I see, I am the sole contributor? Sheeesh! Your comment is a cry for help!

Sure. "Contributor" is the loosest, most superficial sense

Disecting a poll to the point of subject change, is so classic. Then out come the fangs of love for my country! Watching people struggling to have it both ways is so dam funny

Like the tommy roe song:

Dizzy

Im so dizzy, my head is spinnin

Like a whirlpool, it never ends

And its you, girl, makin it spin

Youre makin me dizzy

Call it what you like - the whole 'affected outrage' thing you love to do is unconvincing and disingenuous.

Cop out! cop out! NON-answer alert!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure you want to go to red alert Marc? It will mean changing the bulb....

I love Red Dwarf!!!

I hoped someone would get the reference

One of the greatest things the brits have given us, your country has a great sense of humor. Monty Python, Benny Hill and Red Dwarf is the bomb!!

You should check out Peep Show if you get a chance. Its easily one of the best British sitcoms of the last 10 years.

[Jenn! 918]

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

I disagree. That sounds like false dilemma to me. You can't present a situation as if there are only two options (when there could be an infinite number of other options as well) and then say option B is clearly bad, so option A must be correct.

[GaryC 7]

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

I disagree. That sounds like false dilemma to me. You can't present a situation as if there are only two options (when there could be an infinite number of other options as well) and then say option B is clearly bad, so option A must be correct.

Can you conceive of an outcome that is favorable to the USA is we lose? I will give my definition of losing before you ask. Leaving Iraq without a stable government in place that can assure it's own security.

[Jenn! 918]

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

I disagree. That sounds like false dilemma to me. You can't present a situation as if there are only two options (when there could be an infinite number of other options as well) and then say option B is clearly bad, so option A must be correct.

Can you conceive of an outcome that is favorable to the USA is we lose? I will give my definition of losing before you ask. Leaving Iraq without a stable government in place that can assure it's own security.

Well, I was addressing your example that if someone thinks the police should be disbanded that "logically" means that they want the criminals to take over. But anyway, the question was will the world be better off if the U.S. loses the war, not whether the U.S. will be better off if the U.S. loses the war. Discussing favorable outcomes for the U.S. is really irrelevant.

[no name 1]

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

I disagree. That sounds like false dilemma to me. You can't present a situation as if there are only two options (when there could be an infinite number of other options as well) and then say option B is clearly bad, so option A must be correct.

Can you conceive of an outcome that is favorable to the USA is we lose? I will give my definition of losing before you ask. Leaving Iraq without a stable government in place that can assure it's own security.

There's nothing *to* lose, except more lives, on both sides.

[GaryC 7]

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

I disagree. That sounds like false dilemma to me. You can't present a situation as if there are only two options (when there could be an infinite number of other options as well) and then say option B is clearly bad, so option A must be correct.

Can you conceive of an outcome that is favorable to the USA is we lose? I will give my definition of losing before you ask. Leaving Iraq without a stable government in place that can assure it's own security.

There's nothing *to* lose, except more lives, on both sides.

Just as I thought, your in favor of the Iraq people either suffering through a full blown civil war or giving a safe haven to the terrorists. Because if you think everything will be kittens and rainbows if we leave your not being honest.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

I disagree. That sounds like false dilemma to me. You can't present a situation as if there are only two options (when there could be an infinite number of other options as well) and then say option B is clearly bad, so option A must be correct.

Can you conceive of an outcome that is favorable to the USA is we lose? I will give my definition of losing before you ask. Leaving Iraq without a stable government in place that can assure it's own security.

There's nothing *to* lose, except more lives, on both sides.

Just as I thought, your in favor of the Iraq people either suffering through a full blown civil war or giving a safe haven to the terrorists. Because if you think everything will be kittens and rainbows if we leave your not being honest.

Not to put words in Devilette's mouth here - but again I think you're reaching with this. What if they (for one example) simply favor the welfare of our guys getting shot at and blown up to that of the civilian population?

I'm guessing that the 'outcome' in that country is less important for some people than the welfare of our troops fighting for (from one perspective) no apparent purpose, or feasible goal.

[Peikko 1,575]

Personally, I don't think the world would be better off if we leave Iraq without a stable government. However, I am not certain the best way of achieving that stable government either. It's a big problem when no one seems to be able to reconcile the different factions within Iraq.

It's at best a very tricky situation and at worst an insoluble one. My understanding is, that the US and UK armies aim is to try to stabilize the area and train/hand over policing the state to the Iraqi's. However, this doesn't appear to be an easy thing to achieve.

One very difficult side effect of the US/UK presence in Iraq is that they are often perceived by the local populations as being there to impose a certain type of regime on the area that suits their own interests as apposed to the interests of Iraqis. This is a difficult perception to overcome, particularly when the war was started because of some very faulty intelligence, whether or not you believe the intelligence was 'doctored' or not.