Hypocrites?

[Skanky Burns]

It could be Asher if he felt like trolling. Unlikely, but an outside possibility.

[Az]

As much as I hate Democracy,

LMAOROTF I love you libertarians!

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by itsagreenday
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?

Supporting the war and supporting the troops are 2 entirely different things.
No matter what, one should keep a good thought for the troops.

War protestors, in the current scenario, are misguided.

[GePap]

Originally posted by itsagreenday
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.

One would hope that the shallow nature of this reasoning would be obvious, though it is not.

Here is a simplified example: you are in a bus, and the driver comes upon a fork. You say, hey, go right cause if we go left, the chances fo a fatal crash are huge!. The driver says:"I don;t believe that, the right is the dangerous path, I will go left" and goes left. The thing is, you are in the bus. Maybe it would peak some schadenfreude to see the driver get his comeuppins, but for tha to happen, you and a lot of innocents would get screwed too.

Once a decisiosn has been made, even one you disgaree with, and a new path set, it is for rational people to seek the best possible outcome from it. imply to ask for destruction and vengeance is wrong.

[Tolls]

What GePap said, though when I read "...comes upon a fork" I got very confused, and wondered how dangerous a piece of cutlery this was...

As for "itsagreenday", the greenday bit made me think it was Bods straight away...but I suppose it could be coincidence...

...and in any case...

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by GePap

One would hope that the shallow nature of this reasoning would be obvious, though it is not.

Here is a simplified example: you are in a bus, and the driver comes upon a fork. You say, hey, go right cause if we go left, the chances fo a fatal crash are huge!. The driver says:"I don;t believe that, the right is the dangerous path, I will go left" and goes left. The thing is, you are in the bus. Maybe it would peak some schadenfreude to see the driver get his comeuppins, but for tha to happen, you and a lot of innocents would get screwed too.

Once a decisiosn has been made, even one you disgaree with, and a new path set, it is for rational people to seek the best possible outcome from it. imply to ask for destruction and vengeance is wrong.

-But the soldiers are not innocents, and I personally am not in Iraq. Regardless of the outcome, I am in no way screwed as well. In any case, no one I know is over there, and I'm not American, my stake in this war is much lower than you would like to think.

[GePap]

-But the soldiers are not innocents, and I personally am not in Iraq. Regardless of the outcome, I am in no way screwed as well. In any case, no one I know is over there, and I'm not American, my stake in this war is much lower than you would like to think.

A defeat of the US and UK would be incredably destabalizing to the world. There are things that can still be salvaged form this operation, and if the aftermath is generally controlled not by the peanuts gang in the WH but by reponsibe adults, then a small bit of good can be spun out. If the US and UK lose, then this will just be a wasted event, plus for the US to lose, things have to really get ugly, which means far, far, far more dead people than what we are getting right now.

As they say, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

[Berzerker]

greenday -

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.

It's because neo-conservatives love freedom when it's their own freedom under attack, but they sure don't give a damn about other people's freedom except when they can see their freedom will be next on the chopping block. But your comment about Saudi Arabia just shows how dangerous you people are. If y'all had your way (or should I say Sharon's), we'd be invading much of the ME in the name of security...

Azazel -

LMAOROTF I love you libertarians!

You see Democracy as a pre-requisite for libertarianism? I sure don't, and I do know you wouldn't be singing the praises of Democracy if the majority/mob was coming for you... Just like the neo-conservatives, Democracy is only good when y'all are in the majority, but when you aren't, freedom becomes more important...

[gsmoove23]

I only hope that Bush bombs kurds by the busload so he ends up looking bad. Everyone else should live. Its not hypocritical, I'm just ant-war, anti-kurd.

[Agathon]

No more a hypocrite than anyone who wants to avoid a bad outcome, but then has to choose between the lesser of two evils because of other choices made by someone else.

It's fallacious to infer that a rational person must support the defeat of the US because they didn't support the idea of going to war. The proposition "If A is against the war then A must be for a US defeat if war breaks out" is false, since it can be otherwise.

Such a person can still agree that the war is a bad thing, but that a US victory would be the lesser evil than Saddam winning, even though no war at all would still have been the optimal situation for that person. The very fact that war has started changes the options available.

Case closed I think. [edit] I see GePap posted much the same argument. I agree with him.