Tell me; do you react this way to anybody that challenges your worldview?

Nah.

After listening to you preach on for a couple of days about how I was not to judge you as being a traitor or evil or (insert charge here)... you go ahead and do precisely what you told me not to do.

Amusing. But in the end, rather typical.

Tell me; do you react this way to anybody that challenges your worldview?

IMHO.

Are we really going to say those advocating we cut and run from the field of battle, are not speaking the wishes of the enemy, and aiding him in that cause?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. By your reasoning, EVER leaving Iraq, even if we completely removed Al Qaeda and created a stable democracy, would be treason so long as it is still Al Qaeda's wish that we leave.

"Winning the war" just isn't in your vocabulary, is it? The consequence of having won the war would be the doubt and a peer say would no longer exist.

In looking at the remainder of your comments, you appear to have skipped right over one of the definitions that I posted along to you: to promote the progress or accomplishment of; facilitate.

I had actually written a paragraph specifically to that point, which after writing, I decided was a little too aggressive for the conversation, and removed it from yesterday's posting. I did that assuming you'd pick up on the point yourself, but apparently was incorrect about that. But here it is;

The arguments that the left has given us against our involvement in Iraq do precisely that. They promote the progress of our enemy the aid the accomplishments of our enemy, they facilitate their attaining those goals. I recognize that you don't like it, and that's understandable, but the fact of the matter is that's the definition. The actions you're arguing for fall directly under that definition. Your problem I fear, isn't with me, but with the dictionary.

Another such redefinition example would be "illegal immigrants" . There is no such animal; they're either illegals or their immigrants. If the they are immigrants, they came here legally. Otherwise they are illegals.

I think you should consult a dictionary then come back to that claim.

Seems a simple enough matter.. had you bothered to look, you'd have found:

# A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

Or, from another source:

a person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there

That's not the situation under discussion, on two levels; For one thing, permanent residency appears to be a requirement to fall under the term. Second; Logistically, to achieve that, one would have to go through the legal process.

If you have something to say to Jim, say it to him not me. Pretending to compliment me as a means to attack him is disrespectful

.

Why would I say such to him? You were the one who actually had the courage to have your point of view challenged. Thus, rightfully, you are where the comment was directed. And in any event, why would I engage in a conversation, which he has already publicly decreed would be one sided?

interestingly, some of the leftists I've argued over the years, have tried redefinitions of words, to the point of making any meaningful conversation impossible. Which, of course, I would view as another level of protection against having your views challenged. Seems to me, that the most flagrant use of that where conversation became impossible was the word "taxes" being twisted into "invest in America".

And Michael, let's get it straight, shall we? Respect is earned.

Are we really going to say those advocating we cut and run from the field of battle, are not speaking the wishes of the enemy, and aiding him in that cause?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. By your reasoning, EVER leaving Iraq, even if we completely removed Al Qaeda and created a stable democracy, would be treason so long as it is still Al Qaeda's wish that we leave. If Al Qaeda wished we wouldn't club baby seals, would it be treason to say we shouldn't club baby seals? Treason takes more than simply advocating an action that your enemy is also advocating.

hinder, frustrate...Which is certainly what those arguing against their own country in time of war are doing to their own country.

Welcome to democracy my friend. Like it or leave. The day it becomes wrong to question or criticize my government is the day I denounce my citizenship.

Advocating for the enemy, IS in fact providing aid to the enemy, however you slice it.

During the cold war, the Russians didn't want us to nuke them. Was it treason back then for someone to advocate not nuking them? No, back then we called it sanity. Nowadays you calling it treason.

Another such redefinition example would be "illegal immigrants" . There is no such animal; they're either illegals or their immigrants. If the they are immigrants, they came here legally. Otherwise they are illegals.

I think you should consult a dictionary then come back to that claim.

By the way, You're to be commended for actually responding.

If you have something to say to Jim, say it to him not me. Pretending to compliment me as a means to attack him is disrespectful.

1. to provide support for or relief to; help: to aid the homeless victims of the fire.
2. to promote the progress or accomplishment of; facilitate.
–verb (used without object)
3. to give help or assistance.
–noun
4. help or support; assistance.

Are we really going to say those advocating we cut and run from the field of battle, are not speaking the wishes of the enemy, and aiding him in that cause?

Or consider the Antonyms:

hinder, frustrate

...Which is certainly what those arguing against their own country in time of war are doing to their own country.

Advocating for the enemy, IS in fact providing aid to the enemy, however you slice it. The action you're defending is the literal definition of the word I'm using; treason. You may wish to discuss with Noah Webster the ramifications of that.

This is not to say that Republicans are not guilty of the redefinition of words, either. As James has noted in another thread, President Bush actually called the amnesty bill what it was today in a possible Freudian slip.He doesn't like it being called "amnesty" . But that's precisely what it is.

Another such redefinition example would be "illegal immigrants" . There is no such animal; they're either illegals or their immigrants. If the they are immigrants, they came here legally. Otherwise they are illegals.

In those cases, (And many more) I see no purpose but confusion of the issue, to be served by trying to redefine the content of the dictionary... Confusion that results in someone's personal or political gain. Unless perhaps it's to throw a sop at one's conscience. I am concerned of a number of the century definitions of, and our political discourse over the last several years. These are but a few.

Personally, I never figured I'd be on the defensive for using the English language properly... Lord knows I've abused it enough over the years.... but ...(Shrug)

By the way, You're to be commended for actually responding.

You tell me; what am I supposed to call it when I see somebody advocating positions which directly or indirectly provide aid and comfort to a sworn enemy?

Advocating a position that either directly or indirectly provides aid and comfort to a sworn enemy is not treason. _PROVIDING_ aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, taking an action for some other reason that may or may not directly or indirectly provide aid and comfort to the enemy is NOT, and I'll repeat this because it seems to be the point you're missing, is _NOT_ treason.

Giving money to Al Qaeda would be treason, not giving money to the USA to fight Al Qaeda is NOT, again _NOT_, included in the definition of treason. Supporting Al Qaeda's efforts in Iraq is treason, not supporting the USA's efforts in Iraq is _NOT_ treason. Working to end the USA's efforts in Iraq is _NOT_ treason. Saying the USA's action in Iraq are wrong is _NOT_ treason.

Get the difference?

Meantime, You tell me; what am I supposed to call it when I see somebody advocating positions which directly or indirectly provide aid and comfort to a sworn enemy? Is that supposed to be a position of pride?

Sorry, Welcome to "words mean things".

If, for example, you consider that "productive" means to reinforce the opinions you already hold, (As I presume by way of the remainder of your comments), your position is understandable. If, on the other hand, "productive" means a constructive conversation the purpose of which is arriving at or somewhere near the truth, your position seems a little shaky at best.

You have a great many qualities. Most of them good. Please don't force me to conclude that a closed mind is one of them.

AS I suggested earlier, in this thread, shifting to such a tactic is an admission that a military victory in the strictest sense, cannot be won.

What you're doing, tactically, is playing a "keep away" defense.

Keep it up long enough, and eventually you end up with a significant amount of sympathy on your side.

It worked in Vietnam, after all. Ironically, that aspect of the comparison between the two situations is the only one that makes the comments of such as John Murtha and John Kerry, valid. Not that they would see it that way.

And Jim; actually, the Taliban would like to be the state of (insert place here). Anywhere would do, as a springboard for the remainder of the region.

For that matter, I can't help but note that some Takfirist groups or other have already proclaimed an "Islamic State of Iraq."

Now, I don't think all of Robb's GGs want to be the government someplace, no. I think some Iraqi insurgents just want the US gone. I think others are essentially trying to coax a bigger piece of the action out of what passes for the existing political structure of Iraq. I think others want to rule or, in the case of the Baathists, rule again. But Robb tends to conflate present capacities for action with ultimate aims of action, IMHO wrongly. It's dangerously close to the popular "al-Qaeda is merely nihilist" fairy story American foreign policy elites told each other after 9/11.

we can charitably call "undemonstrated."

True enough. I strikes me as plausible, though. It's been my contention during the whole "Is it a civil war?" debate that this is the case, so it rung true to me.

Also, Don Snow made a similar argument in his 1995ish book UNCIVIL WARS, dealing with narco-terrorists and others who used terrorism simply to get the government off their back so they could engage in very profitable criminal activities.