Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread.

[Kevy Baby]

I want to mojo Alex, but I know it would be a waste of time

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It is fine to say that you don't want any soldier to die, but by opposing the war you are saying, in my opinion, that our soldier's death is preferable to their victory (which is a reasonable point of view, just not one I share in this case).

I think you can always hope for non-violent solutions to a conflict - not everything need be reduced to a dicotomy of win-lose or Life- Death. It's that kind of thinking that causes violence to persist.

[Alex]

Yes, you can hope for a non-violent solution, but if in the absence of one you would prefer that we win, then how opposed to the war are you? Pretty much everybody would prefer that wars end without death.

By preferring that our soldiers successfully kill instead of being killed you are essentially saying "I'd prefer that there be no war at all, but if there is one then I support its success."

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...but if in the absence of one...

Right THERE! That's where we split. You have accepted a position that war was unavoidable. It is not possible for me to disagree more strongly with you than I do on that one point.

It's also what makes it possible for me to reject your argument that to oppose this war is to wish for the death of our troops.

[€uroMeinke]

The mistake is positing solutions in which killing is viewed as the only measure of success. For that reason, we will never bring peace to Iraq. In the current paradigm, there is no reason to stop killing, for to do so is to admit failure - for any of the players.

[sleepyjeff]

I don't think "killing" is the measure of success on the US's part: Their goal is basically to stop the killing; every time someone is killed, be it an American, or an Iraqi, our cause is hurt---not true with the other side.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I don't think "killing" is the measure of success on the US's part: Their goal is basically to stop the killing; every time someone is killed, be it an American, or an Iraqi, our cause is hurt---not true with the other side.

The link that Kevy posted shows otherwise.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

The link that Kevy posted shows otherwise.

I do not enjoy disciplining my children. My goal is to not have to discipline them because they make they will make the right (as a parent, I determine right) choices. If I have to discipline them, have I failed in my goal? No. not in the least. I am hopefully moving toward the goal of not having to dicsipline them by disciplining them.

Our goal during the cold war was not to nuke to USSR. Yet we built a tremendous arsenal to ensure we would not have to use them (mutually assured destruction).

It is most certainly possible to have a goal of the elimination of conflict while engaging in conflict itself.

[lizziebith]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So, do you know longer support them when they reenlist? (The military is having trouble with recruitment but continues to have stronger than predicted reenlistment from soldiers who have actually been to Iraq.)

While I support the war (though not for the reasons that the Administration has flailed about trying to win the PR battle with) I do not think it is possible to be opposed to the war and support our troops. Opposition to the war means thinking we are wrong to be engaged in it. The appropriate result for a nation wrongfully engaged in war is defeat. The method of defeat in most wars is to have an awful lot of your soldiers killed.

It is fine to say that you don't want any soldier to die, but by opposing the war you are saying, in my opinion, that our soldier's death is preferable to their victory (which is a reasonable point of view, just not one I share in this case).

When I said "except for the willingly" part, to which you are responding above, I was referring to the reasons for the initial enlistment of the soldier -- that is that many are in the service due to a lack of other career options. Well, maybe you did get that and are just extrapolating to the re-enlistment issue, which I still feel would be governed by the same conditions, plus familiarity. Can I hold that against the soldiers? Of course not.

I disagree that the appropriate result of opposition to the war is defeat (how about simple withdrawal?) and I don't at all get the leap from opposing the war to wanting the soldiers to die rather than be victorious. Those aren't the only options here. Withdrawal would prevent those deaths, wouldn't they? Are you equating withdrawal with defeat? And how is pursuing "victory" going to prevent more soldiers from dying?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by lizziebith

Are you equating withdrawal with defeat?

While I realize you are directing this question at Alex, I most certainly would regard withdrawal as defeat.

Osama bin Laden cited our lack of ability to stomach the ugliness of casualities in Somalia as part of his strategy in his campaign of terrorism. Taking our troops out now would only continue to let terrorists know that we do not have the resolve to finish what has been started.

Debate why it was started all you want, though I would also say continuing to back down to Saddam and his violations of the cease fire agreements prior to the war gave the same message. Leaving now would most certainly be defeat because of the strengthed resolve it would give to those who want to inflict damage on the US.