Comments on: Supporting the Troops

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Obviously, Section 1 is the deal-breaker in this resolution. I'd be willing to bet...erm...James's paycheck that 90% of the "No" votes were due to that section. They could never admit that the world has "been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq." But no one has ever accused that crowd of intellectual honesty.

By: Dodd

Dodd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Agreed, Boyd. For all that it obvious to us, it is equally "obvious" to the anti-warBush crowd that the war in Iraq has made the world less safe. It is, in fact, an article of faith for them. Remove §1 and that Resolution would probably have passed with no more than 5 Nay votes and a handful of "Presents."

By: Hal

Hal — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Uh, safer according to what metric? If someone puts a bandaid on your cut finger while ignoring the massive hemmoraging coming out of your chest, then by your logic, the person has made you safer.

However, any sane person would see the obvious.

This mental model of yours is baffling.

By: Captain Scarlet

Captain Scarlet — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

i love the strawman hal. you may own your opinion.. but you don't own the facts. there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. we have a newly democratic Iraq that is thankful to us and is helping us in the war on terror. democracy in the ME is helping destablize regimes that support terror.

now hal, go and see a doctor because you are suffering from cranial rectosis.

By: Hal

Hal — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Ah, I love it when an intellectual joins the conversation. The imaginative insults. The compelling arguments. The clear and thoughtful exploration of the facts.

Brings a tear to my eye.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

It's almost a given that REMOVING SADDAM made the world safer and better. It's debatable as to whether THE WAR made us safer. Maybe in the very short term it didn't, as it probably accelerated a fight that might not have happened for a while. OTOH, the fight is taking place somewhere there's a concentration of armed and ready American troops rather than the streets of the U.S.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

So why vote against?

Simple. Gerrymandering.

The House is now to a point where every seat is safe. So when you have people that represent whack jobs like our pal Hal, they will vote like whack jobs.

If the republicans proposed a measure saying Iraq was better off without Saddam, a decent hunk of the whack jobs would vote against it because their constituent base is just that nuts.

Hooray for gerrymandering.

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

"Even if one opposed the war, surely one must concede that the world is a safer place without Saddamâs regime in power."

Bless you, James: this innocent belief of yours in the ability of the hardcore antiwar movement to even briefly overcome their rectocranial inversion is a beacon of hope in these troubled (but getting better) times.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Maybe in the very short term it didn't, as it probably accelerated a fight that might not have happened for a while. OTOH, the fight is taking place somewhere there's a concentration of armed and ready American troops rather than the streets of the U.S. Exactly. Elementary battle strategy: if you can, bring the enemy to battle on your terms, not his.

By: Hal

Hal — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Yes, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But since he was in his cage and not a threat to anyone but his own people, how did this make us any safer? Were we threatened by him? Were the sanctions not working? Was he trafficking in non-existent WMD? Exactly what is the metric here, James? You can't simply say that we're safer and it's obvious to all. You have to provide some concrete measurements that show it. If you make us 1" safer on the "safe o' scale" and by doing so you make us 1 mile unsafe on the "safe o' scale", then by simple addition you are now one mile - 1" unsafe. Focusing on the 1" is terribly silly, although technically accurate. What is it the bible says? "pity the man who gains the world, yet loses his soul". The concept is pretty universally understood. Well, except by the right wing of American politics.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Okay, let me just consult my "Scales & Measures" catalog and see who makes an instrument to measure safetitude...

---