You say you were against the war, so my question is, what did you propose Bush do instead of waging a war on terror and do you believe as I do, that had Bush not waged this war, we would have had more attacks on our homeland?

This kind of fatigue is not unknown to the history of war. The key is not to attempt to convince people by words that things can be won or not, but to demonstrate with action that previous concerns about limitations were false. People will not believe you simply because they in their minds, impose certain limitations and beliefs upon what you can or cannot do. If you prove them wrong, that will do more to convince people than any number of oratory rhetoric.

Which gets back to the beginning, when I said that J’s statements are proof that things are not inevitable simply because things become what they are based upon how many people you can convice to do or not do. Logically, if you can get people to give up, then you can get people to not give up as well. Since the human mind is mercurial, you can do this many times over the course of a war, even with the same person.

The reason why I made the original gambit, is because I’ve encountered similar demoralized remnants of the war effort before. I don’t put too much effort into finding out why they are giving up, that requires too much research and intelligence sources. However, when J said that he doesn’t want to send Americans to die for a futile cause, then logically he would approve of the US forces staying inside their bases, where they would not be victim to IEDs and ambushes. The gambit paid off, as the situation I highlighted is consistent with the goals J claims to be for.

The reason for the gambit is to see how correct I was in terms of analyzing J’s mental status concerning the war. Given that he had not in the past written much for me to draw conclusions from, a gambit seemed to be worth it.

By determining what J wants and believes, I can determine the solutions. Which is why I tend to reverse engineer arguments to that purpose. So in the end, instead of giving J what he wants, I can change what he wants, to the items already on the negotiations table.

Everyone is vulnerable to psychological warfare. Just as everyone is vulnerable to a nuclear warhead being armed and set off. The limits for nuclear warheads are not the same limits for psychological warfare. I don’t care if you a lawyer, a soldier, a Democrat, a Republican, a fake liberal, or a true liberal. Everyone is vulnerable to psychological warfare and its effects. By recognizing this simple facet of foundational reality, you can plan for how to deal with the consequences.

Often times people do not know why they feel a certain way in a certain situation. This creates gaps in the mental defense of people, as they do not consider the possible threats or mistake current threats as something else.

No, J. Again I doubt that you are American. You would know that American history unequivocally bears witness to the sacrifices of patriots.

All volunteer. Yep, volunteer. They CHOSE to put their lives on the line for you. You can’t comprehend someone willing to die for you, can you?

jg wrote the above. In personal terms, I’m not entirely all that interested in whether someone is an American or not or whether they consider this that or the other. What JG said is rather irrelevant to me, because it is far more efficient to get to the core of J’s beliefs and mental facets than it is to have countless probes and arguments going no where.

I remember another person, someone who spent some time in the Marine Corps, who believed the same as J. Not in terms of concrete futility, but the concern over the waste of American lives. That person wanted the Marines to stay in their barracks and never go out, because it would put them in threatening situations.

So in the end, I create facets in order to make a situation where there is nothing to argue about. We only have to go through the motions. I don’t have to argue about whether Iraq will inevitably become another vietnam. All I have to know is that this is what J believes, and the counter will set in automatically. I suppose I did this entire post in order to collect the strategy in a way that is logical, clear, and makes better sense in a written format for me to read.

It is not an adequate excuse to fail because you justify it as inevitable. The fake liberals have soothed their consciences for decades concerning the inevitability of Vietnam, I do not believe it wise for anyone to repeat that mistake for their own purposes. Simply because it is not in the long term interests of the United States, even if it does sooth the personal consciences of individuals facing a challenge.

You’ve got me on the weak analogy. While you were getting educated and learning to think critically, I was consuming mass quantities and trying to catch social diseaes. It seemed like a good idea back in the day.

If and when I put my thinking about the run up to the war, and where Bush lost me, to paper, I’ll let you know. Originally I was for the war. I still think the invasion was the right thing, in lieu of a “we’ll incinerate every last one of you people” policy. I think everybody thought Sadaam had WMD. Sadaam may have thought he had them. And who is to say he didn’t?

The three state solution you suggest is probably the last/best hope for any sort of stability there. Always has been, at least according to what I make of what I’ve read and seen on television. It’s still a very, very long shot. Maybe I have a strong sense of the obvious, but the people inhabiting that slice of hell have no problem killing and will almost certainly settle their differences that way.

My case against the way things are going is this: Americans are never going to support a protracted military conflict, much less say a peace-keeping or police role. The neo-cons knew this going in, just like anybody else who thought about it knew it. I have no opinion on whether this is good or bad. I believe it to be a fact.

I think it’s inevitable that we’ll cut and run. Maybe in 2007. Maybe in 2020. Whenever, Iraq will disintegrate even further. The Iraqis who’ve helped us will be slaughtered. Kind of like in Vietnam. Since it is inevitable, or so I believe, what’s to be gained by postponing the inevitable?

Since I believe it to be inevitable, I believe sending more Americans to their death there to be not only unpatriotic, but criminal.

I also believe we’ll have a nuclear Iran, and probably on Bush’s watch. That’s criminal too. Maybe when they use them, we’ll settle the matter, once and for all.

Half measures will get us nowhere. Reduce them to civility. Or placate them. Provoking them will prove disastrous.

That’s what I believe.

Ymarsakar, I’m not sure your US Civil War comment is much smarter than my jihad suggestion, but I guess at least you got the kinds right.

The 3 way state would be suicide for Iraq, it would just take longer for it to shatter. You either work things out through Union, exile the losers like in the US Revolutionary War, or you get endless civil war where no one wins.

The US Could have gone the two state solution in the Civil War. It’s not a good idea.

Thanks for the comment, but you lost me again. You appear to equate Islamic approval of murder (of innocent civilians) with American approval of disparagement (of people with whom they disagree). The two are not at all comparable. The difference is a matter of kind, not of degree.

I agree with you on the Iraq war, at least to some extent. I opposed it from the beginning, as Bookworm can testify. However, what are our alternatives now that we are there? Instead of generalized criticism, how about some constructive descussion. What would you have us do in Iraq that you believe would be better for ourselves and better for the Iraqis than what we are doing now? I’m open to suggestion. For example, what do you think would happend to the Iraqis if America cut her losses and ran home, abandoning her allies in Iraq? I believe that Iraq would launch into full-scale civil war. I believe that Iran would be emboldened to not only develop a nuclear weapon, but use it. I believe that terrorists everywhere would be emboldened and attacks on American soil would quickly resume (especially since resources now being used to terrorize Iraq could be shifted to attacking Americans, both around the world and, as quickly as they could be infiltrated, in America itself). I believe that America would be viewed again by the entire world as a paper tiger, without the stomach or the courage to finish what it starts, one who cuts and runs away when the going gets tough. I don’t believe this is good for Iraq or for America. Much as I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq, I think it would be an even bigger mistake to leave now. Personally, I favor a three-state solution, even with the political consequences in Turkey and elsewhere. The Iraqis themselves should at least be allowed to vote on a three-state solution. But one way or another we should help them find a solution and not just run away and hide. I look forward to your comments, though I may not see them for a while since I’m continuing my vacation & probably won’t have access to a computer for a while.

If that was true, why aren’t people criticizing me instead of J? Or rather, in addition to J.

Americans send their young to their deaths in the name of God and country.

While Arabs brainwash their children into the self-destructive jihad, Americans join the service based upon honest virtues and a look at the hardcore reality.

No, J. Again I doubt that you are American. You would know that American history unequivocally bears witness to the sacrifices of patriots.

AS for those who protect the world in Iraq: A lot of our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan are certainly far from young. And most have families.

All volunteer. Yep, volunteer. They CHOSE to put their lives on the line for you. You can’t comprehend someone willing to die for you, can you?

You should.

For all the hundreds of thousands who have put their lives on the line so that you and most of the world live with a chance of freedom today.
YOU carry that burden of being WORTH what they gave with their lives.

You need to spend time in the veterans section of your local town cemetery, if you are American. Or check the fine memorials grateful citizens have erected to the determination of those who said America will stand free. You–American or not– should be one of those who is willing to fight for that, too.

Or are you going to let “young.. (and) their deaths in the name of God and country,” (the way you disparage American free fighting men and women)– do it for for you?

Americans send their young to their deaths in the name of God and country. Many Americans, apparently a hardcore 33%, will support a war no matter how poorly planned or executed it is. The death, the impossibility of any semblance of success, is irrelevant, although they deny it. It’s the idea, belief really, that inspite of all evidence to the contrary, the war is a good thing, that keeps the cycle going.

I’m for winning. I’m for not winning. I’m not for wasting and/or losing.