So, I was watching Meet the Press yesterday with Tom DeLay - Page 3

Linzyhop · 03-19-2007, 04:06 PM

"History repeats itself" is not an unjustifiable theory.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-19-2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

"History repeats itself" is not an unjustifiable theory.

welcome to the board

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

"History repeats itself" is not an unjustifiable theory.

That's something to debate then when we're about to enter into our next war. In the meantime, let's win the ones we're in?

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

welcome to the board

That's so last week.

IminWonderland · 03-19-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Which kinda renders it moot, does it not?

Admitting that something you thought to be true and just is really wrong is timeless. Even if it took us 6 years to get to this point of dissatisfaction doesn't make it less sincere.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Admitting that something you thought to be true and just is really wrong is timeless. Even if it took us 6 years to get to this point of dissatisfaction doesn't make it less sincere.

And that admission, whether true or not, has little to do with how to win this war right now.

Linzyhop · 03-19-2007, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's something to debate then when we're about to enter into our next war. In the meantime, let's win the ones we're in?

why? so we can just make the same mistakes all over again? it's important to know why we did something even if we can't change where we are now. Even if we want to go forward towards "victory". we can't go forward without understanding and acknowledging past events or history repeats itself. victories or failures.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

why? so we can just make the same mistakes all over again?

That's the purpose of the debate when it comes up, isn't it? To figure out what we did wrong, what did right, and how to avoid making the same mistakes over again?

Surely we don't have to hash that out right now? We should focus our attention on more important things...our next war is not the most important issue at the moment. Winning the current one is.

Linzyhop · 03-19-2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

welcome to the board

thanks. glad to be here.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 04:41 PM

You have to define what a "win" looks like.

It can easily be determined that there is no traditional "win" and "lose" with Iraq.

Linzyhop · 03-19-2007, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's the purpose of the debate when it comes up, isn't it? To figure out what we did wrong, what did right, and how to avoid making the same mistakes over again?

Surely we don't have to hash that out right now? We should focus our attention on more important things...our next war is not the most important issue at the moment. Winning the current one is.

but some people aren't interested in winning the current war at the proven cost. So debate goes on between continuing the war or withdrawing and cutting our losses. Understanding the reasons for going into the war in the first place is key towards understanding what it was that the president and government really wanted to accomplish. self-reflection is never something that should be frowned upon.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

but some people aren't interested in winning the current war at the proven cost.

And I think this is where the problem lies. We are in the war, and we should want to win it no matter what, even if we think it's for the wrong reasons.

What is the alternative? That people don't want us to win? They want us to lose? They want our men to have died for nothing? At least with a win we can say SOME good came out of it!

motivez · 03-19-2007, 04:51 PM

So lets take your logic to the extreme so it's easier to see why what you're saying makes no sense and isn't defensible.

Lets say we decide to invade a country for the wrong reasons and are now participating in a genocide of a certain ethnic or religious group for whatever reasons.

Using your logic, because we're in it, the time for debate is over and we should stop questioning whether or not what we're doing is right or justifiable or even desirable, and just go along with whatever is happening.

The ends (winning at all costs) justify the means by which they're attained.

I'm sure someone will throw a

but the reality is that logic has been used in the past to justify some horrible things, it was a bad idea then and lead to tragedy for millions, and it's just as bad now.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What is the alternative? That people don't want us to win? They want us to lose? They want our men to have died for nothing? At least with a win we can say SOME good came out of it!

Again, define a 'win'.

Most serious experts on the situation over there recognize a military victory is not going to happen.. we beat the insurgency every time we engage them, so it's not even a question about whether or not we win every battle against them.

It's a question of whether or not what we're doing is accomplishing anything useful to progress the eventual political solution that's needed.

Linzyhop · 03-19-2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And I think this is where the problem lies. We are in the war, and we should want to win it no matter what, even if we think it's for the wrong reasons.

What is the alternative? That people don't want us to win? They want us to lose? They want our men to have died for nothing? At least with a win we can say SOME good came out of it!

that is not what I'm saying at all. I would NEVER say the men and women who died fought for nothing. They fight for a country they believe in. The are a lot more courageous than I am. I applaud their efforts even if I believe they are wrongly there. I am proud that our country is not taking the debate of the war, right or wrong, out on the troops. If we had a repeat of Vietnam and how people treated returning troops............

However, I wouldn't continue fighting in something for the wrong reasons. Say my imaginary son committed a horrible crime. Now I love him very much and would support him, but he is guilty of this horrible crime, he deserves to face the punishment for it. I wouldn't want him to get away with it, because that would teach him he could do all sorts of horrible things without facing the consequences. Why should our government be any different?

CrackSeed · 03-19-2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Let's look at a different example. Let's assume you meet a girl, date her for a few weeks, and she suddenly gets pregnant. She has the baby. What do you do? Do you sit around debating whether or not it was right to sleep with her? Do you debate what you should have done instead? No, you work with what you have, you deal with it, and you move on. YOu look forward, not backwards. The only thing you have control over is what you do now, not what you already did.

The only thing that can be gained from discussing about the reasons of the war is that we don't do it again (that is, of course, if everyone agrees it was wrong, but that's not the case). The only thing that can be done NOW is what we are doing...that's fighting a war, and we should want to win this war. EVERYONE should want to win this war.

I'm sure we can all come up with an analogy.

Let's say you're on Safari, driving a Jeep or whatever. You come to a fork in the road, and your guide tells you to take the road to the right. It's a rough road, but hey, the guide should know best, right? Anyway, a while down the road, you can see that the bridge ahead is out.

This is no time to worry about why the guide told you to take this road or if he knew the bridge was out. The most important thing at this point is that you keep following this road.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by CrackSeed

This is no time to worry about why the guide told you to take this road or if he knew the bridge was out. The most important thing at this point is that you keep following this road.

And in the meantime, you fix the bridge, build a new one, or find another way across. But you stay on this road, because it's most certainly too late to turn back. You have no choice but to go forward.

Perfect analogy!

The debate about whether or not he gave sound advice can come the next time he tells you which road to take at the next fork. In the meantime, you have other worries to take care of.

motivez · 03-19-2007, 05:12 PM

Uh, you most certainly have the option of turning around if there is no way forward because the bridge is out.

These analogies are stupid. The logic of what you're saying is indefensible when analyzed, we don't need analogies to situations that will never fully articulate the complexity of this situation to do it.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh, you most certainly have the option of turning around if there is no way forward because the bridge is out.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Unfortunately for our troops, America has lost its will.

CrackSeed · 03-19-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And in the meantime, you fix the bridge, build a new one, or find another way across. But you stay on this road, because it's most certainly too late to turn back. You have no choice but to go forward.

Perfect analogy!

The debate about whether or not he gave sound advice can come the next time he tells you which road to take at the next fork. In the meantime, you have other worries to take care of.

why?