Hypocrites?

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 01:19

Are war protestors (American) who now "support the troops" instead of hoping for U.S. defeat hypocrites? If the war truly is immoral, shouldn't people opposed to it hope for its objective not to be accomplished? Thoughts?

titansfan216 · April 7, 2003, 01:21

No, they are not hypocrites. It is one thing to oppose war. It is a completely different thing to wish harm upon your own country's men and women who are only obeying orders given to them.

Skanky Burns · April 7, 2003, 01:38

Ted Striker · April 7, 2003, 01:41

LoneWolf · April 7, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by titansfan216
No, they are not hypocrites. It is one thing to oppose war. It is a completely different thing to wish harm upon your own country's men and women who are only obeying orders given to them.

No, in fact, it is quite the same.

Drake Tungsten · April 7, 2003, 01:49

Three DL's!!!

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 01:52

What is a DL?

orange · April 7, 2003, 01:54

I protested the war. I still think it's wrong. In all cases I hope for the lowest amount of civilian casualties, followed by the lowest amount of military casualties. I would support a US withdraw from Iraq. However, seeing as that is unrealistic, I support an American victory over an Iraqi one only because, if the war were to continue and we were to lose, it would all be in vain and nothing good would come from it. If we win, there is still a degree of hope.

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

However, seeing as that is unrealistic, I support an American victory over an Iraqi one only because, if the war were to continue and we were to lose, it would all be in vain and nothing good would come from it. If we win, there is still a degree of hope.

If you REALLY were against the war, the U.S. losing would have some good for you. The U.S. would not have accomplished what it sought out to do "immorally" and it would be much less likely to do it again.

I admire the Columbia University professor who hoped for the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers so that the war would not have a successful conclusion. However, I don't agree with him and would punch his face in if I was in NYC. But at least he isn't a hypocrite.

Jaguar · April 7, 2003, 02:12

But what if someone who was anti-war preferred these outcomes, in order?

1. Inspections but no regime change
2. Regime change
3. No regime change no inspections

A lost war would end up with saddam in power with no inspectors. Hence that is the worst outcome possible for them. Regime change is better, so hence now that the war is started, they root for it as it is second best.

I don't agree with this, but I'm sure a lot of people feel that way.

Jaguar · April 7, 2003, 02:13

and...

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 02:26

What about those opposed to war in general? Shouldn't they hope for the defeat of the "agressors"?

monkspider · April 7, 2003, 02:30

My first and foremost hope is for as few casualties as possible on both sides. But that said, I cannot hope that an aggressive power is successful in it's ambitions.

Victor Galis · April 7, 2003, 02:46

My first an foremost hope is that Bush look bad as a result (In domestic opinion polls), so that this sort of thing will not happen again.

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 02:46

More hypocrites: why aren't "true" environmentalists protesting Saddam's actions with regard to burning oil wells and trenches around Baghdad? It was estimated that the burning oil after the first war gave off the came CO2 emissions as 500 million SUVs in a year. Hypocrites?

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 02:48

Oh, well, my first and foremost hope is that neoconservatism works. My dad is a Kurd. He wants freedom for his people and revenge for their deaths. Saddam's death sounds like a good start. Then democracy can come.

Jaguar · April 7, 2003, 02:49

Quote:

Originally posted by itsagreenday
What about those opposed to war in general? Shouldn't they hope for the defeat of the "agressors"?

Yes, or else they obviously aren't opposed to war in general.

Victor Galis · April 7, 2003, 02:50

Because any environmentalist with any connection to reality knows that their protests mean nothing to Saddam, whereas at least in theory an "elected" leader like Bush would be at least marginally affected.

Jaguar · April 7, 2003, 02:52

To continue the trend:

My first and foremost hope is that Saddam gets nailed with as few casualties as possible. My secondary hope is that we set up a democracy and then get the **** out of there.

Berzerker · April 7, 2003, 03:03

Quote:

Oh, well, my first and foremost hope is that neoconservatism works.

Oh sh!t, what a hypocritical ideology.

Quote:

My dad is a Kurd. He wants freedom for his people and revenge for their deaths. Saddam's death sounds like a good start. Then democracy can come.

As much as I hate Democracy, I sure hope that's the result since the alternative is another brutal dictatorship, but I'm not holding my breath. The Saudis and Turks sure don't want any Democracy to happen, so we'll see...

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 03:12

Berzerker, how the **** is it hypocritical? If your answer is, why not Saudi Arabia, my answer is that I want to see them fall hard. But one regime at a time.

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 03:14

Victor, but they're also not holding Saddam responsible, they're not condemning him, the Sierra Club is silent on the matter. What that says to me is that leftist politics are really more important to them than environmentalism.

Victor Galis · April 7, 2003, 03:21

Well, you say one regime at a time is not hypocritical, yet for the Sierra Club to focus on US politics before complaining about a dictator of a country that they have no members in somehow is hypocritical.

Regime change is needed badly in Washington and achieving that has potetial to benefit the environmentalist cause far more than regime change in Iraq.

itsagreenday · April 7, 2003, 03:27

Regime change is not needed in Washington. And I'll be laughing in November 2004 at how badly the Democrappic candidate gets beaten.

But about the Sierra club, they don't even say it's wrong. They're tree-hugging hypocrites if they say their first purpose is the defense of the environment. The thing is, most of them don't know jack **** about the environment or current news on it. One I met in Berkeley talked about how much of an environmentalist she was, and yet didn't know the head of the EPA. They're left wingers looking for something to make them cohesive (abortion, environment, immigration, etc.), which the left in America is anything but.

monkspider · April 7, 2003, 04:26

This guy sounds suspiciously like a Fez DL.

BustaMike · April 7, 2003, 04:54

Tingkai · April 7, 2003, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by itsagreenday
Oh, well, my first and foremost hope is that neoconservatism works. My dad is a Kurd. He wants freedom for his people and revenge for their deaths. Saddam's death sounds like a good start. Then democracy can come.

Yeah, I'm sure the Turks and Iranians will give Kurds independence after Saddam is removed. And of course, the United States, the great defender of democracy, will be leading the crusade for Kurdish independence. Just look at how the Kurds are being allowed to regain their homeland, well except for those areas that other people want.

Dauphin · April 7, 2003, 05:28

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
This guy sounds suspiciously like a Fez DL.

If I were a betting man I would say its Bods.

TheStinger · April 7, 2003, 05:30

Bods doesn't need a DL to spout this rubbish

Dauphin · April 7, 2003, 05:33

He does when he is restricted. (although checking the members list shows he is not restricted).