Who do you want to win the war?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Mar 27, 2003.

  1. I see a lot of people still arguing about the war, and whether or not we should be there.

    Kind of like arguing whether or not a man should have cancer once he has been diagnosed with it. If he has cancer, he should do everything he can do to defeat it.

    Fact is, we are at war. After the war we can debate what we "should" have done, but right now, today, the USA is at war with Iraq.

    Who do you really want to win that war?

    Does anyone really want to see Hussein win that war?

    If they do, then they are the enemy, and should be considered an enemy of the United States and be treated accordingly.
  2. "Does anyone really want to see Hussein win that war?

    If they do, then they are the enemy, and should be considered an enemy of the United States and be treated accordingly."

    My point exactly. And cheerleading on the internet for the enemy is sedition.
  3. I see some people voted for Iraq to win the war.

    Please take the time to explain why you want Iraq to win the war, and why you think that is in the best interest of the Iraqi citizens and the world at large.
  4. Optional. My guess is that the votes for Iraq are from non-USA residents.

    But your statement is troubling. While it is difficult for me to understand how an American citizen would want Iraq to win, what you have said amounts to a dictate to individual conscience. Do you really mean that merely harboring the sentiment that Iraq should win brands one an enemy of the state and thus subject to criminal action?
  5. read the god damn sedition act. Look up the word Sedition. Do whatever you have to do to figure this out because you don't get it. Cheering for the enemy during war is not just incredibly insulting and unethical, it is illegal. And don't pretend that all these fucks are from another country, that is just dodging the issue. There are a few people right here in the U.S. that are genuine traitors and some of them post on web sites. The problem is when the web site doesn't do anything about it.
  6. if they voice that sentiment, i think that should qualify...

    although, it would be pretty hard to prove they were serious from a post on a message board...
  7. I said having the sentiment, not cheerleading you fucking moron.
    Read the post.
  8. I start a thread challenging those who are taking joy in American deaths to post so outright, and Optional responds with the above quoted post.

    Now on this thread he's essentially doing the same thing he accused me of doing. Want to talk about flame wars? This thread is only going to fuel the rhetoric and emotions we've seen in chit chat this past week from both sides. I don't mind that this thread exists, but Optional creating it after accusing me of the above is rank hypocrisy.

    Blowhardus Immensus strikes again.
  9. Subject to criminal action for just thinking it? No. When I was married, at times of anger I wanted to kill my wife, but it was just a thought in the emotions of conflict, nothing that I would have acted on.

    Subject to criminal acts for convincing other people to take arms against our government? Yes.

    I can somewhat understand the line of thought that some Americans want the current administration and current foreign policy to fail, which would mean a loss of the war in Iraq, because they believe the actions are wrong. These people are not thinking about the situation deeply, they are just reacting emotionally.

    I can understand people gathering peacefully to denounce the war, but that is not the same as wishing or hoping that we lose the war.

    I don't understand however how Americans could root for Saddam to remain in power now that a war has begun.

    People seem to dismiss Saddam's actions in their attempt to denounce America and/or attack Bush. They routinely say "yes, Saddam is a bad man, but America is, George Bush is, wrong."

    Whenever someone uses the "___________ is bad, but _________ is worse" statement, they are in essence negating and minimizing the wrong doing of the first part of the sentence. In this case, they are trying to compare Saddam's regime to the our current administration, saying that Saddam is not as bad as George Bush.

    Saddam is evil. He supports terrorism. He murders his own people.

    How can someone, who has pledged their allegiance to America, possibly support Saddam and the current Iraq regime in winning the war?

    The bottom line question is this: Who's leadership would you really want to live under? Saddam's or Bush's?

    If you answer Saddam, why stay in America and maintain American citizenship?
  10. You are losing your personal war. Keep trying though, it just gives us all a chance to see you even more clearly through contrast.
    #10     Mar 27, 2003