It Seems All Is Not Lost, Despite What Some Say

[Patroklos]

You are absoluelty correct, I should be flogged for neglecting such an important thing.

To be fixed shortly

[Wezil]

What about those on the "right" that oppose the war? How do you smear them?

[Patroklos]

What about them. Since nobody has smeared the left, what are you on about? Unless you consider discussing their policy points a smear.

[Wezil]

You keep throwing out "the left" as if only Democrats or those on the left are opposed to the war/president/policy/whatever.

You have brought it up in 50% of your posts in this thread thus far:

From your 1st post:

The left has been trying to downplay the credentials of these guys…

From your 3rd post

It is funny watching the leftist crowd cannabilize each other here. Defeat is your only option

The implication being the anti-war people are only taking such a position for political reasons (they are Dems and they hate Bush).

So, I ask again. How do you smear those on the right that disagree with the war?


Edit - The rhetoric made my eyes glaze over. I missed one.

From your 4th post -

...the left is grasping for any handhold

[Arrian]

It's rather pathetic to watch "the Right" still trying to paint a rosy picture of all of this.

The common allegation that those who are critical WANT defeat is really disgusting. Paranoid delusion, perhaps?

Meanwhile, the parallel psychoanalysis would of course lead to the conclusion that those on the "Right" are so "married" to victory in Iraq that they are simply incapable of accepting defeat, even if it's staring them in the face. We're always about to "turn the corner" or somesuch, right guys?

I continue to hold faint hope for something better than defeat. No way it's going to look like the original architects of this war thought it would back in 2003, but perhaps something palatable is still attainable.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Is stating the fact that the left is trying to discredit these guys somehow a smear?

Is stating the fact that decidedly leftist posters here (Poly) did the same a smear?

[Patroklos]

continue to hold faint hope for something better than defeat. No way it's going to look like the original architects of this war thought it would back in 2003, but perhaps something palatable is still attainable.

Incidently, "the Right" has not said anything but this in referance to this article.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Is stating the fact that the left is trying to discredit these guys somehow a smear?

Is stating the fact that decidedly leftist posters here (Poly) did the same a smear?

Oh please. Do you read your own posts?

Incidently, though I haven't read up on this yet, it would seem that "the Left" has a point about the authors of your article.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Is stating the fact that the left is trying to discredit these guys somehow a smear?

Is stating the fact that decidedly leftist posters here (Poly) did the same a smear?

Alright, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

That said, How do you explain/discount those on the "right" that disagree with the war?

I really would love an answer to this question thrice asked.

[Patroklos]

That said, How do you explain/discount those on the "right" that disagree with the war?

The same way you deal with the others, though you would be hard pressed to find many prominent righties who have married their political futures to defeat in the same way.

There is criticizing, which is totally fine and I do a fair share of myself (though it is normally drowned out when trying to counter the hysterics of others), but Pelosi/Reid/Feinstein(sp) are not criticizing but rather prophesizing. And being the leaders of the "left" they will drag any rational critics with them for better or worse.

Not unheard of, Bush will probably accomplish the same with the right.

[Wezil]

I'm not sure I understand your point but that is okay.

The issue bothers me b/c I don't see matters of war and peace in such stark political terms. Dem or Rep should not matter when the "best interests" of the nation and it's military personal are at stake.

That doesn't mean one should be prohibited from being critical (sometimes the "best interest" would be to leave it alone) nor should it mean blind acceptance (what Arrian was on about).

You (perhaps your nation?) have deginerated this debate into a left vs right issue which IMHO it should not be.

We have the same issue surfacing in this country wrt Afghanistan. The right wing government is trying to paint all those that disagree with the mission as political opponents (hence their opposition) when it simply is not true. I voted for our government but do not support the mission. It has nothing to do with left vs right but rather good policy vs bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

That said, How do you explain/discount those on the "right" that disagree with the war?

I really would love an answer to this question thrice asked.

Like me?

It's simple. The US is already committed, them finishing the job as quickly as possible is a good thing. Why on earth would anyone who really cares about human life want to see everything collapse in Iraq after a premature withdrawal?

[Wezil]

Ben - That would be the argument to convince one to stay in support of the mission.

I'm asking about those on the right that don't support the mission. How can this be explained since their opposition is clearly not politically motivated.

[East Street Trader]

Some things about Iraq seem to me clear.

1. Sadaam Husein held power by keeping his thumb on all potential opposition employing whatever level of brutality was required.

2. The country lacks the cohesion needed for hereditary monarchy (still less any form of democracy) so upon Sadaam's removal a fight for power was bound to ensue.

3. The US can prevent such a scrap by keeping a large enough force permanently in Iraq or by annexing the territory.

4. If the US keeps a large force in Iraq for a while but eventually withdraws the delayed scrap for power will take place then.

5. The victor in the scrap for power will be someone with a comparable level of brutality to Sadaam.

Hard to know, if you were living in Iraq, whether you might prefer the scrap for power to be got over with a bit quicker or prefer a measure of temporary peace provided by the US occupation force.

Things are going to be horrid while the scrap goes on so I suspect I would opt for whatever temporary lull I could get.

But then living with the knowledge that this is just delaying the inevitable would be little fun either.

I wonder how many Iraqis have managed to leave so far?

[Patroklos]

I'm not sure I understand your point but that is okay.

I think I am misunderstanding you. Are you asking me about people on the right that already consider Iraq a defeat no matter what, or people on the right who disagree with the premise of the war?

You (perhaps your nation?) have deginerated this debate into a left vs right issue which IMHO it should not be.

The left right divide was only brought up in regards to US politics, and specifically the fact that important politicians on the left have publicly declared Iraq a loss no matter what.

The realities of a withdrawal/surge/defeat/victory were not married to those statements.