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

[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.

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.

Thank you #6.

Really, Gary? I favor civil war or safe havens for terrorists by saying there is nothing *to* lose? Reaching does not begin to cover that vomit you wrote.

DO NOT put words in my mouth. I know you like to jump to (wrong) conclusions, but I never said pulling out of Iraq was good, bad, or all kittens & rainbows. I simply said there was nothing to lose. What war? It's not a war, it's a big fat mess.

Edited October 8, 2007 by devilette

[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.

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.

Thank you #6.

Really, Gary? I favor civil war or safe havens for terrorists by saying there is nothing *to* lose? Reaching does not begin to cover that vomit you wrote.

DO NOT put words in my mouth. I know you like to jump to (wrong) conclusions, but I never said pulling out of Iraq was good, bad, or all kittens & rainbows. I simply said there was nothing to lose. What war? It's not a war, it's a big fat mess.

Ok, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Please tell me how leaving now will make things better or how nothing will change.

[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.

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.

Thank you #6.

Really, Gary? I favor civil war or safe havens for terrorists by saying there is nothing *to* lose? Reaching does not begin to cover that vomit you wrote.

DO NOT put words in my mouth. I know you like to jump to (wrong) conclusions, but I never said pulling out of Iraq was good, bad, or all kittens & rainbows. I simply said there was nothing to lose. What war? It's not a war, it's a big fat mess.

Ok, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Please tell me how leaving now will make things better or how nothing will change.

I also never said we should pull out. Or that we should stay.

[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.

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.

Thank you #6.

Really, Gary? I favor civil war or safe havens for terrorists by saying there is nothing *to* lose? Reaching does not begin to cover that vomit you wrote.

DO NOT put words in my mouth. I know you like to jump to (wrong) conclusions, but I never said pulling out of Iraq was good, bad, or all kittens & rainbows. I simply said there was nothing to lose. What war? It's not a war, it's a big fat mess.

Ok, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Please tell me how leaving now will make things better or how nothing will change.

I also never said we should pull out. Or that we should stay.

Then what was your point when you said "There's nothing *to* lose, except more lives, on both sides."?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As PH stated earlier - a person might believe that we trying to do something that simply can't be done. In such a situation - you cut your losses. Not too hard to understand.

[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.

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.

Thank you #6.

Really, Gary? I favor civil war or safe havens for terrorists by saying there is nothing *to* lose? Reaching does not begin to cover that vomit you wrote.

DO NOT put words in my mouth. I know you like to jump to (wrong) conclusions, but I never said pulling out of Iraq was good, bad, or all kittens & rainbows. I simply said there was nothing to lose. What war? It's not a war, it's a big fat mess.

Ok, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Please tell me how leaving now will make things better or how nothing will change.

I also never said we should pull out. Or that we should stay.

Then what was your point when you said "There's nothing *to* lose, except more lives, on both sides."?

Go back & re-read post 145.

[smoke20 0]

As PH stated earlier - a person might believe that we trying to do something that simply can't be done. In such a situation - you cut your losses. Not too hard to understand.

with whats going on now. sunni/shite power struggle its not too far to reach seeing an all out war in the middle east if we leave. granted we went in before having an exit stategy & we're in a no win sitsuation now. w/o international help cleaning up the mess we are in, IMO: we leave now we all lose.

Edited October 8, 2007 by smoke20

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As PH stated earlier - a person might believe that we trying to do something that simply can't be done. In such a situation - you cut your losses. Not too hard to understand.

with whats going on now. sunni/shite power struggle its not too far to reach seeing an all out war in the middle east if we leave. granted we went in before having an exit stategy & we're in a no win sitsuation now. w/o international help cleaning up the mess we are in, IMO: we leave now we all lose.

I agree actually. Just pointing out another perspective.

[Peikko 1,575]

Did I suggest that was a good idea? Woah neddy! However, back to the poll...I don't think anyone can paint the Democratic party or any part thereof as undemocratic on the back of it.

Before you start, I don't support the Democrats, I have no axe to grind. I would be equallly appalled if someone used that poll to suggest that Republicans never want the war to end. We are just back where we started though, this poll produced no useful data for consideration.

Now, who wants to suggest a workable exit strategy?

[GaryC 7]

Go back & re-read post 145.

I said "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. "

To which you replied, "There's nothing *to* lose, except more lives, on both sides.".

So are you saying that if we leave nothing will change? Or are you saying that no matter what we do nothing will change? Forgive my confusion but I just don't get what your point is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did I suggest that was a good idea? Woah neddy! However, back to the poll...I don't think anyone can paint the Democratic party or any part thereof as undemocratic on the back of it.

Before you start, I don't support the Democrats, I have no axe to grind. I would be equallly appalled if someone used that poll to suggest that Republicans never want the war to end. We are just back where we started though, this poll produced no useful data for consideration.

Now, who wants to suggest a workable exit strategy?

I was suggesting that there are other perspectives depending on how you interpret the relative terminology in that poll question. But this really places more weight on that one question, seeing as the poll itself has been presented here without any real context. It looks like a hack-job to me, and smells of 'purpose'.

[Peikko 1,575]

I know, but I was being quoted and someone would have been bound to have put two and two together and make 5!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Did I suggest that was a good idea? Woah neddy! However, back to the poll...I don't think anyone can paint the Democratic party or any part thereof as undemocratic on the back of it.

Before you start, I don't support the Democrats, I have no axe to grind. I would be equallly appalled if someone used that poll to suggest that Republicans never want the war to end. We are just back where we started though, this poll produced no useful data for consideration.

Now, who wants to suggest a workable exit strategy?

The strategy is to finish what we started! Therefore no need to exit until the job is done.

[no name 1]

Did I suggest that was a good idea? Woah neddy! However, back to the poll...I don't think anyone can paint the Democratic party or any part thereof as undemocratic on the back of it.

Before you start, I don't support the Democrats, I have no axe to grind. I would be equallly appalled if someone used that poll to suggest that Republicans never want the war to end. We are just back where we started though, this poll produced no useful data for consideration.

Now, who wants to suggest a workable exit strategy?

The strategy is to finish what we started! Therefore no need to exit until the job is done.

And, what is the job exactly?

[smoke20 0]

I know, but I was being quoted and someone would have been bound to have put two and two together and make 5!

this isn't your first day is it?