Arguments on War Support

People shouldnt die attempting the impossible.-r4d20

We already know that it is impossible for you, r4d2, to consider viewpoints that disagree with you. Yet your limitations do not limit us insomuch as they hinder you personally.

Go back to your playing hero on your PSP little boy.

I asked you before about what made you superior to the people you resented as having “almost NO nuance”. Your answer is that you are no way superior or rather that you are superior because you are more righteous.

Unlike you I take violence and matters of life and death seriously.

Being a “former” war supporter (I would be one again if I saw any hope) -r2d2

Allow me to spell it out for your compartamentalized mind to grasp. In clear and short sentences to avoid confusion. You will support the war in question based upon beliefs concerning whether there is hope of victory in that war, as witnessed and judged by you. Life and death must be one big game of odds with you. If things look good or hopeful, then you’ll support it. If things look bad… well, mistakes are made as you may imagine.

Did you know that this is why units break in combat? The soldiers lose confidence in their leaders and believe the battle to be lost and unable to be won. What would logically then be the point of fighting for a lost cause. When other soldiers see their buddies flee the scene, they start entertaining thoughts of defeat and uselessness as well. Thus panic spreads where a unified and disciplined unit might have held the position and fought effectively.

Bandwagon.

But we digress. Let us go back to your superiority over others.

the vast majority of responses to anything critical or negative about even just the HANDLING of the war were simply tirades about how I was obviously a war opponent who was trying to spread defeatism.

I surmise then that in some air sealed compartment in your mind, you believe you are better than the vast majority of responses that treated any negative handling over the war as simply tirades that the r4d2 unit spouts, due to the consideration that the r4d2 unit is obviously a war opponent and trying to spread defeatism.

How you can believe so when you respond to criticism by calling people little boys is simply a testament to your intelligence and excellence. For only the excellently intelligent may hold 2 and more contradictory beliefs in their minds at once.

honest appraisals from those who wanted to win but thought we were making mistakes.

Some people have honest appraisals designed to win but based upon the belief that mistakes had been made in war.

People shouldnt die attempting the impossible.-r2d4

So the question is, are you one of the honest ones? I assume you take life and death seriously because you will only allow people and the nation to take on challenges and wars that you believe can be won, but if there ever was a hope for victory against impossible odds, then you would immediately jump ship and become a supporter of that which you once stopped supporting. Speculation you might say. More on that later, perhaps.
I don’t devote as many resources to compartamentalized thinking, so you’ll have to forgive the lack of quality analysis on other people’s compartamentalized beliefs.

As an aside. I was wondering over my speculation

I think an attack on Iran will be stupid but I dont think its wise to let the debate be “Is Iran supplying weapons to Iraqi clients” because they probably are and we are going to lose that debate. Nations NORMALLY interfere in the civil wars of their neighbors because they tend to be affected by the results of those wars. If Iran is “interfering” in Iraq it would be engaging in perfectly normal behavior from a historical perspective. They may not be behind any given thing – like the touted EFPs – but they are almost certainly involved in acts that could be claimed as legitimate “casus belli” by those who would find it useful to do so.

Sooner or later some harder evidence is very likely going to surface and if you’ve staked our opposition to an attack on Iranian innocence we are going to have problems.

If, on the other hand, you focus on the “attacking Iran would cost us more than we gain” then even if evidence does surface it wont necessarily undermine the idea that attacking them wouldn’t be prudent.

“We are going to have problems”. An interesting turn of phrase, if it turns out to be you. Is a possible war or conflict with Iran an exception to the bandwagon requirements you operate under for this current war? Simple curiosity.

1. Comment by r4d20 on 4/28 @ 11:57 pm #Seriously, the world is NOT divided into stereotypes of Right and Left. Can we dispense with the strawmen and deal with the substance?

I spent most of my time around other war-supporters and right-blogs.-r4d2

Perhaps it is divided into such and perhaps it isn’t. As a matter of curiosity though, it seems it can be both divided and NOT divided.

Take life and death seriously? Maybe

LOL. This is exactly the kind of thing I would expect them to do if they were the ones who had him killed.-r4

Or maybe not as the case may be.

Explore posts in the same categories: Arguments