Is This Hussein's Counterattack?

[Bry]

Well said, SL. I couldn't agree more, though I cringed a bit too at the use of the word "suckers".

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Bry
Well said, SL. I couldn't agree more, though I cringed a bit too at the use of the word "suckers".

Perhaps I should qualify my remark about "fighting for freedom". I think there are troops (not just ours) in Iraq who are believe they are fighting for freedom and are not suckers. The Iraqi press has opened up a lot, though is still at the mercy of the US if they decide to print something unsavory about the occupation. Ordinary citizens enjoy the freedom to do things they couldn't under Saddam, though residents of some areas no longer have the freedom they once did to live relatively free of crime, and basic things like women going out without getting robbed or assaulted. But fighting for our freedom and so that we can live free of terrorism? Is it tolerable to say that if they believe that they're sadly deluded?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
But fighting for our freedom and so that we can live free of terrorism? Is it tolerable to say that if they believe that they're sadly deluded?

That's exactly what they are fighting for. You have to look at their mindset after the rash of terrorism in the past 2 years. They are there to put an end to state run terrorism. To say they are suckers or "deluded" in their goals is still a slap in the face.

 

[Bry]

Well, perhaps we can agree that to say they're deluded is more acceptable than to suggest they are suckers?

I think SLs point is a valid one, even if you strongly disagree: that the motivation for this war from the decision makers seems to be very different from the motivations of the soldiers themselves? If soldiers believe (and justify to themselves) their actions according to lofty ideals, while the Politicians that make the decisions have something very different in mind, could it not be said that delusion is taking place?

side note: Delusion: deception, something that is falsely disseminated or believed. To say that the soldiers are deluded, though it has a negative connotation, is a critique of the source of the deception, in this case the US Government, not of the person deluded. (Perhaps to say that they are being deceived would be most accurate, as "delusion" also has the connotation of referring especially to mental illness.)

 

[jimnyc]

That's if you can prove that the politicans have different motivations, which you cannot.

Until factual representation is made to the contrary of the stated goals, the soldiers are not deluded in any way. Calling them names or citing their lack of coherent intelligence to see the facts, based on personal views, is just plain wrong.

Debate those that make the decisions, not those that help our country enforce them.

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That's if you can prove that the politicans have different motivations, which you cannot.

Until factual representation is made to the contrary of the stated goals, the soldiers are not deluded in any way. Calling them names or citing their lack of coherent intelligence to see the facts, based on personal views, is just plain wrong.

Debate those that make the decisions, not those that help our country enforce them.

Of course, we can't "prove" the politicians have different motivations, any more than you can prove that their motivations are as they have stated. We can only look at the evidence and wiegh its merit, which is what we have done and continue to do on both sides. To say otherwise is to ignore all of the debate that has occured in this forum.

As for the soldiers, I tend to agree that it is best not to single them out for evaluation of their motivations until a more conclusive evaluation of the motiviation of the politicians can be arrived at. but this much has already been agreed on: we the american public have been and continue to be manipulated by institutions whose motivations are obscure. By "institutions", I am referring to the Democrats as well as the Republicans, and the media in general. You yourself have argued repeatedly that the media is manipulating us with their ulterior motives. The only thing we haven't agreed on is in which direction. To a certain extent then, it may be said that we agree that we are all to a certain extent deluded, and that we only disagree as to the character and perhaps the source(s) of the delusion.

"Debate those that make the decisions, not those that help our country enforce them." Even if it didn't come across that way, that is precisely what I was recommending.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That's exactly what they are fighting for. You have to look at their mindset after the rash of terrorism in the past 2 years. They are there to put an end to state run terrorism. To say they are suckers or "deluded" in their goals is still a slap in the face.

If they think that 9/11, the anthrax attacks, or Bali bombing was "sate-run terrorism", or that Iraq was the world's biggest problem because of state-run terrorism they are sadly deluded, as are many of their fellow citizens here at home. It was anti-state terrorism, and their leaders have just created a whole lot more of it for them in Iraq.