# Volunteers Needed: "The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 14, 2007, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887 "2007-01-14T01:06:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/21 "2007-01-14T07:26:04Z")
I know. Its a joke. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/22 "2007-01-14T07:37:39Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] So you really think we should just leave? They can kill each other, and let God sort it out? [/QUOTE] Yes, we should just leave. They _are_ killing each other, and they will continue to kill each other whether we stay or go. If we leave, whatever authority that emerges after the present semi-puppet government is slaughtered ( and they will be slaughtered ) will at least have no taint of America undercutting it’s authority. As long as we are there no stable authority can exist, because it will be tainted as a collaborationist government simply because we are there. They will also have a chance to actually rebuild their country, by getting rid of our neocon written laws and by hiring people who will actually rebuild the country. They will also at least no long be slaughtered by Americans _on top of_ each other. [QUOTE=What Exit?] **Der Trihs** , I agree we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place, but would not Iraq fall into complete conflict if we pulled out at this point? [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, yes, but I regard that as inevitable at this point. The time when we could have stopped it, if it even existed, is long past. And even if it wasn’t, I can’t _imagine_ a military under Bush and friends doing anything constructive. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/23 "2007-01-14T09:24:04Z")
Michelle Malkin? Seriously? Tell me you aren’t really that fucking stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/24 "2007-01-14T09:26:19Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] So you really think we should just leave? They can kill each other, and let God sort it out? [/QUOTE] Who can just kill each other? Are you suggesting that we should be involved in all civil wars or internal conflicts? Honestly, as a hawkish, interventionist, “we should be the world’s policeman or at least should have until we proved that we’re on the take” Dem, I’d be all for that. But somehow, I doubt you really would. Just like the transitory concern for human rights, the idea that people on the right suddenly care deeply about what happens with civil wars is generally grade A bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/25 "2007-01-14T09:29:28Z")
I heard some yammerhead talkshow host screaming tonight that if only the Dems had been onboard with this Administration back when this war started, our troops would be home by now. If I hadn’t been listening to it on the stereo in a friend’s car, I probably would have smashed the radio when I heard that. Shrub’s pretty much had a rubber stamp Congress since 9/11, and the Republicans have been in the majority in Congress since before he took office, so I don’t see how any rational person can blame the Dems for what’s gone wrong. Then again, when have talkshow hosts ever been rational? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/26 "2007-01-14T09:51:33Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Michelle Malkin? Seriously? Tell me you aren’t really that fucking stupid. [/QUOTE] Oh, yes, I am that fucking stupid. I mentioned her name. I said she was in Iraq. She’s a conservative blogger. How fucking stupid can I get, mentioning her? Do I need a de-lousing? Or maybe an exorcism? But I’m glad that I apparently have an Apos-enraging talisman. Here, let me see if it works: MICHELLE MALKIN! Ooh, scary… Michelle Malkin! Did I catch you off-guard with that one? **Tomndebb:** I assume that taking your blogging to Iraq, outside the green zone, constitutes putting your money where your mouth is, and anyone willing to do so isn’t a ‘chickenhawk’. But if you want guys that are actually in the military, just do a search for ‘Milblogger’. You’ll find 1963 of them in the U.S. The majority are supportive of the war. But I don’t know why I even let myself be sucked into this turd of an ad-hominem argument. It’s just a way for people like RTFirefly to get their mean-spirited little digs in at the opposition while skating around the rule about not being a flaming asshole. It’s really rather pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/27 "2007-01-14T12:14:10Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] What is your alternative plan? [/QUOTE] My alternative plan is to realize that the Iraq war has, all along, been an ‘own goal’ in the war on terror, rather than something that advanced our cause, and certainly not part of a Battle to Save the West from the Terrorists. Losing Iraq will have consequences primarily for Iraqis, and just as the consequences of our occupation have been horrible for them, the aftermath of our occupation probably will be too. Since despite our best efforts, things have gotten worse in Iraq each year we’ve been there, exactly what’s the point of staying? As rescuers, we’re the guy who threw a drowning man an anchor. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/28 "2007-01-14T12:49:42Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] First of all, a whole bunch of right-wing bloggers are either already in the military, or have joined up, or are now embedded in Iraq. For example, [Bill Roggio](http://www.billroggio.com/), or [Bill Ardolino](http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002922.php), or [Michelle Malkin](http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006675.htm), or [Michael Yon](http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/walking-the-line-2007-2.htm). [/quote] Sorry, but as best I can tell, not one of these is currently fighting in Iraq to keep us from losing the War on Terror. > [@](#): > > And of course, some of them are [actual Iraqis](http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2007/01/did-operation-actually-begin.html) who have always lived there. I’m not asking anything of Iraqis. If I could figure out how to save them from the hell we’ve created for them, I would. (I think the last faint chance passed last summer, when the Bush Administration nixed [Maliki’s negotiations with the Sunni insurgents](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=377126) on account of amnesty and a few other things.) > [@](#): > > Would you like me to go on? How many do you need before we can declare your argument to be complete bullshit? I’m not sure what you’ve proved so far, so I think the answer is, you need something _different_ from what you’ve got. > [@](#): > > Second, this is a stupid argument. Really, really stupid. If you support humanitarian aid to Africa, how come you aren’t there? Are you chicken? Because not every cause is of the same importance. What the Bush Administration is claiming **is that we’ll lose the GWoT if we lose Iraq**. That raises the War in Iraq to overriding importance, doesn’t it? As in, drop whatever you’re doing, we need to win this one, or we’ll be fighting them over here. I don’t make that claim about Africa. They make this claim about Iraq. Anyone in America who believes them and is of enlistment age should kiss the wife and kids goodbye, head down to their Army recruitment office, and go save Western civilization. > [@](#): > > God knows there are reasonable debates to be had about Iraq and the War on Terror. The ‘chickenhawk’ argument isn’t one of them. It most certainly is, if this war is as important as they claim. You really can’t have it both ways: either the Iraq war is this crucial, in which case those who concur with that view should be flocking to the recruitment offices, or it’s not, in which case it’s time for Fearless Leader to can the absurd hyperbole. > [@](#): > > Neither is the argument that if you don’t have kids you don’t have a right to an opinion. Then take that up with the right-wing noise machine. They’re the ones who invented that argument out of whole cloth. > [@](#): > > BTW, my best friend is 41, working on a Ph.D, and he just signed up with the armed forces. One of the reasons your argument is so incredibly stupid is because its unfalsifiable. You don’t care how many supporters of the war ARE signing up, because if you’re debating one that didn’t, you still get to throw this weak-assed, nasty accusation in his face. Tellya what: if you care to come down to D.C. sometime, where we’ve got a host of universities, most of which have Young Republican organizations, we can visit their meetings and ask them the names of their members who have enlisted, and how many members, total, they have. Or we could just compare the active membership in Young Republican chapters across the country with the recruitment numbers of the U.S. Army and Marines (we have no shortage of sailors and flyboys) and see if we can draw any conclusions. > [@](#): > > Frankly, you’ve been losing my respect for a long time, and it’s mostly because you are moving away from the more intelligent arguments you used to offer, and engaging more and more in his kind of weak ad-hominem crap. You can do better - I’ve seen it. Just not for a long time. Are you claiming that what the White House is saying in its ‘fact sheet’, har har, **isn’t** a gross exaggeration? Or are you saying that if the cause **was** as critical as they claim it is, then the vast majority of Americans should just go about their daily lives, and do no more about it than support pro-war politicians and bloggers? Or are you claiming that the plural of your anecdotes are data, and that the enlistment offices aren’t having to beat the bushes for substandard and desperate recruits because the Young Republicans and the LGF commenters are signing up in healthy numbers? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/29 "2007-01-14T13:11:48Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] **RTFirefly** : If you check the polls, I think the military, especially the army leans very Republican these days. So apparently plenty of Republicans have decided to risk their lives for what they believed in. Your opening post might be considered a bit unfair. [/quote] Let me perhaps be more precise about the targets of the OP. 1. The Bush Administration, for engaging in absurd hyperbole in what is titled as a “Fact Sheet.” 2. The legions of politically active conservatives who have used their First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, etc., to make their weight felt on the pro-war side of the Iraq issue, by blogging and other political activism. Most of the people in the Army were there before we invaded Iraq. They are doing their jobs. Whether or not they believe in the war, that is not, by and large, why they are there. Some of them may be there because they felt that their posting at RedState or at Little Green Footballs, and their participation in Young Republican activities wasn’t enough - that it was time to fight the War on Terror through something other than a keyboard. But the fact is that there’s not even a push among right-wing bloggers, or among the College Republicans, to encourage their readers or members to enlist. Finally, the [military isn’t all that supportive of the war](http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php). > [@](#): > > Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military. > > Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/30 "2007-01-14T13:28:50Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] What is your alternative plan? [/QUOTE] I generally need to be convinced of the underlying premise before I bother with making plans to account for it. One of the significant falsifications that got us into this mess in the first place was the allegation of links between terrorism relevant to the West and Saddam/Iraq. People with two brain cells to rub together (I’m not looking at you at this point, **Carol** ) figured out long ago this was complete bullshit fed to the masses to cynically manipulate them into a war to be fought for significantly less compelling reasons. If you actually believe the bullshit Whitehouse line quoted in the OP, and see it as anything other than more yet another cynical attempt to make the continuation of US involvement in the Iraq fiasco imperative by falsely linking it to something important, it’s a case of “fool you once, shame on Bushco, fool you twice and you are a complete and utter doofus.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/31 "2007-01-14T13:46:08Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Sorry, but as best I can tell, not one of these is currently fighting in Iraq to keep us from losing the War on Terror. [/quote] They are embedded in Iraq, as in “or are now embedded in Iraq”, which is what Sam said. Your response (and Tom’s) is a non sequitur. > [@](#): > > I’m not asking anything of Iraqis. Another irrelevant response. Sam never claimed you were asking anything of Iraqis. What you don’t realize you’re contradicting is Sam’s claim that there are Iraqis who support the American efforts in Iraq. Perhaps if you’d contradict things he has actually written, you wouldn’t look like such a weasel. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you’ve proved so far, so I think the answer is, you need something _different_ from what you’ve got. What he has proved is that you’re wrong. Your OP implied that if people really thought the conflicts in Iraq were a battle to save civilization, people would actually go there. Sam pointed out that people have indeed gone there. > [@](#): > > Because not every cause is of the same importance. If you want to introduce that hijack, I wish you’d flesh it out more. Why exactly do you think starvation and genocide in Africa is of any less importance than fighting terrorism? And if you think it’s equally important, then why aren’t you there helping out? Why aren’t you doing what you demand others do? > [@](#): > > What the Bush Administration is claiming **is that we’ll lose the GWoT if we lose Iraq**. That raises the War in Iraq to overriding importance, doesn’t it? As in, drop whatever you’re doing, we need to win this one, or we’ll be fighting them over here. All that means is that the Bush Administration is wrong, not that the “Young Republicans and right-wing bloggers” are hypocrites. They do not have to walk lockstep with Bush in order to believe that the war is very important, even important in fighting terrorism. They do not even have to interpret Bush’s policy the same way you do. > [@](#): > > I don’t make that claim about Africa. They make this claim about Iraq. Anyone in America who believes them and is of enlistment age should kiss the wife and kids goodbye, head down to their Army recruitment office, and go save Western civilization. But you _should_ be making that claim about Africa. The reason you don’t is that it would require, you know, courage — that thing you’re demanding of others. There are many reasons why people could agree with Bush and still not go to Iraq. Your “either you’re fer us or agin us” is eerily like Bush’s own mindset. > [@](#): > > It most certainly is, if this war is as important as they claim. You really can’t have it both ways: either the Iraq war is this crucial, in which case those who concur with that view should be flocking to the recruitment offices, or it’s not, in which case it’s time for Fearless Leader to can the absurd hyperbole. Utter bullshit. It is not either/or. What you don’t realize you’re talking about is called “doxasm”. A person can believe that the war in Iraq is a war to save the West while simultaneously believing that: (a) the war is already lost; or (b) the government is incompetent to protect their families while they’d be away, forcing them to choose between short term and long term needs; or (c) there are ways other than physical conflict to fight the war; or (d) a bazillion other reasons not included in your bizarre either/or dichotomy. > [@](#): > > Then take that up with the right-wing noise machine. They’re the ones who invented that argument out of whole cloth. And you’re the one who raised the topic of it. So he’s taking it up with you. Just because you feel the heat from the fire you started doesn’t mean you’re not the arsonist. > [@](#): > > Tellya what: if you care to come down to D.C. sometime, where we’ve got a host of universities, most of which have Young Republican organizations, we can visit their meetings and ask them the names of their members who have enlisted, and how many members, total, they have. What a numbskull demand. That’s something you should have done _before_ making your claim. Instead, you selected the easiest possible thing to pit, wrote a nearly empty OP with a ridiculous challenge, and then sat back to soak up the reinforcement that you thought you’d find in a long string of “me too” posts. You knew very well that you would encounter little if any opposition to an OP that takes a stand against Bush. And whatever opposition you found would be shouted down in short order by everything from Apos’s usual thread crashing rhetorical bellowing to Luc’s comic relief cellophane post wrappers. > [@](#): > > Or we could just compare the active membership in Young Republican chapters across the country with the recruitment numbers of the U.S. Army and Marines (we have no shortage of sailors and flyboys) and see if we can draw any conclusions. To conclude _what_ exactly? What drove you to the premise that the only way to respond supportively to Bush’s statement is to join the fucking army? When Clinton espoused his “Wider War” hypothesis for his intervention in Bosnia, did you assume that it meant takeover of the US is imminent, and that the only way you could support him was to get your ass on an aircraft carrier stat? > [@](#): > > Are you claiming that what the White House is saying in its ‘fact sheet’, har har, **isn’t** a gross exaggeration? Or are you saying that if the cause **was** as critical as they claim it is, then the vast majority of Americans should just go about their daily lives, and do no more about it than support pro-war politicians and bloggers? Or are you claiming that the plural of your anecdotes are data, and that the enlistment offices aren’t having to beat the bushes for substandard and desperate recruits because the Young Republicans and the LGF commenters are signing up in healthy numbers? God, how many strawmen can you concoct in one sitting? He stated his claim plainly. Respond to it or shut the hell up. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/32 "2007-01-14T15:28:46Z")
I’m going to have to agree with Sam: This is a stupid argument made by one who used to have my respect. Doesn’t require or deserve the effort of a considered response. He knows better, and that being the case I consider it a fundamentally dishonest stance. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/33 "2007-01-14T17:01:41Z")
The funny thing about this thread is that if 500,000 Young Republicans somehow read this post and had the scales fall from their eyes in the blinding clarity of RTF’s “logic”, marching en mass to the closest recruiter’s office demanding to be sent to Iraq, RTF would promptly start a thread condemning these young warmongers who think more troops would help, Bush sucks, etc, etc, etc, next verse same as the first. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/34 "2007-01-14T17:06:02Z")
Fuck me, a conservative pile on. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/35 "2007-01-14T17:15:28Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Leave. [/QUOTE] …but…but…if we _leave_, how can we pick a fight with _Iran and Syria_? ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/36 "2007-01-14T17:22:12Z")
[QUOTE=rayh] Fuck me [/quote] What, now? In public? > [@](#): > > a conservative pile on. Said the pot to the kettle, as far as the SDMB is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/37 "2007-01-14T17:23:17Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] They are embedded in Iraq, as in “or are now embedded in Iraq”, which is what Sam said. Your response (and Tom’s) is a non sequitur. [/QUOTE] I agree with Sam on all counts (wow!) except this one. He says, [QUOTE=Sam Stone] First of all, a whole bunch of right-wing bloggers are either already in the military, or have joined up, or are now embedded in Iraq. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, all the blogs he links to fall into group (3) on his list. I don’t doubt that there are plenty of such right-wingers in group (1), and even a few in group (2). The problem here is that he fails to provide any evidence for their existence, using group (3) to make it appear that he has. He’s probably right. But his argument loses some luster when he resorts to trickery to make it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/38 "2007-01-14T17:47:16Z")
**Of course** the war on terror can be won if we fail in Iraq. In fact, in the long run, it will probably help. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/39 "2007-01-14T17:51:43Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] They are embedded in Iraq, as in “or are now embedded in Iraq”, which is what Sam said. Your response (and Tom’s) is a non sequitur. [/quote] It’s only a non sequitur if you fail to notice that what Sam said missed my original point: are any of these people _fighting to make sure we don’t lose in Iraq_ to prevent the loss of the War on Terror? > [@](#): > > Another irrelevant response. Sam never claimed you were asking anything of Iraqis. What you don’t realize you’re contradicting is Sam’s claim that there are Iraqis who support the American efforts in Iraq. Perhaps if you’d contradict things he has actually written, you wouldn’t look like such a weasel. > > What he has proved is that you’re wrong. Your OP implied that if people really thought the conflicts in Iraq were a battle to save civilization, people would actually go there. Sam pointed out that people have indeed gone there. The Westerners he mentions didn’t go there to fight. The Iraqis he mentions didn’t go there, period; that’s where they _live_. Besides, AFAIAC, this is about (a) the Bush White House, and (b) Americans who make a lot of noise supporting the war, who claim to buy what Bush is selling, but don’t follow through on the implications. > [@](#): > > If you want to introduce that hijack, I wish you’d flesh it out more. Why exactly do you think starvation and genocide in Africa is of any less importance than fighting terrorism? And if you think it’s equally important, then why aren’t you there helping out? Why aren’t you doing what you demand others do? I fleshed it out further down in the post. And since you’re obviously more passionate about starvation and genocide in Africa than I am, the question redounds on you: why aren’t you there, helping out? > [@](#): > > All that means is that the Bush Administration is wrong, not that the “Young Republicans and right-wing bloggers” are hypocrites. They do not have to walk lockstep with Bush in order to believe that the war is very important, even important in fighting terrorism. They do not even have to interpret Bush’s policy the same way you do. “Interpret”? “Important”? The White House says it’s a fact that \*\*Iraq Could Not Be Graver – The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. \*\* Bolding in original. Little left to ‘interpretation’, is there? > [@](#): > > But you _should_ be making that claim about Africa. The reason you don’t is that it would require, you know, courage — that thing you’re demanding of others. There are many reasons why people could agree with Bush and still not go to Iraq. Your “either you’re fer us or agin us” is eerily like Bush’s own mindset. If _you_ believe I _should_ be making that claim about Africa, then obviously _you yourself must already believe it_. So get thee to Africa. Or stay here and be a chickenshit wimp. > [@](#): > > Utter bullshit. It is not either/or. What you don’t realize you’re talking about is called “doxasm”. A person can believe that the war in Iraq is a war to save the West while simultaneously believing that: (a) the war is already lost; or (b) the government is incompetent to protect their families while they’d be away, forcing them to choose between short term and long term needs; or (c) there are ways other than physical conflict to fight the war; or (d) a bazillion other reasons not included in your bizarre either/or dichotomy. If they believe (a), (b), or (c), then they’re _definitely_ not buying what Bush is selling, and so my gripe is not with them. Just because you know funny names for stuff doesn’t mean you actually have an argument. Especially if you don’t argue against my actual position. > [@](#): > > And you’re the one who raised the topic of it. So he’s taking it up with you. Just because you feel the heat from the fire you started doesn’t mean you’re not the arsonist. The ‘topic’ you’re now talking about was “if you don’t have kids you don’t have a right to an opinion.” If you think I raised that, I can only request that you learn to read. > [@](#): > > What a numbskull demand. That’s something you should have done _before_ making your claim. It’s not a demand; it’s an offer. And assorted other lefty bloggers have confronted College Republicans, wingnut bloggers, and others about who in their membership, on their blogroll, etc., has volunteered for Iraq, and gotten excuses and the runaround. This is old news, dating back to 2004’s Operation Yellow Elephant. > [@](#): > > Instead, you selected the easiest possible thing to pit, wrote a nearly empty OP with a ridiculous challenge, and then sat back to soak up the reinforcement that you thought you’d find in a long string of “me too” posts. You knew very well that you would encounter little if any opposition to an OP that takes a stand against Bush. And whatever opposition you found would be shouted down in short order by everything from Apos’s usual thread crashing rhetorical bellowing to Luc’s comic relief cellophane post wrappers. When I post, it’s not because I _expect_ anything; I just say that which I feel like saying that I’m willing to stick around to argue for if challenged. Maybe that’s _your_ posting style you’re discussing. Not everyone is like you. > [@](#): > > To conclude _what_ exactly? What drove you to the premise that the only way to respond supportively to Bush’s statement is to join the fucking army? I dunno - maybe the claim that losing in Iraq means losing the War on Terror? I mean, that’s pretty damned big. > [@](#): > > When Clinton espoused his “Wider War” hypothesis for his intervention in Bosnia, did you assume that it meant takeover of the US is imminent, and that the only way you could support him was to get your ass on an aircraft carrier stat? Maybe you’d better actually quote Clinton on the implications of the war in Bosnia, rather than just say some bullshit that nobody knows what it means, probably including you. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2007, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887/40 "2007-01-14T17:53:23Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] This is a stupid argument made by one who used to have my respect. [/QUOTE] This is a drive-by post by someone who used to have a lot of people’s respect, and managed to lose it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/volunteers-needed-the-war-on-terror-cannot-be-won-if-we-fail-in-iraq/387887.md?page=3)