The Lefty Boom

Interesting exchange. Here's my take - which I'll phrase as questions to Perception, cause its his views that puzzle me, the others' I get.

(And considering how insistent Perception is, on this page, about how we should answer his questions, I'm sure he'll also be eager to answer the questions that were posted to him earlier already, and that he hadnt come round to answering yet. In return, I'll promise giving his questions a shot, too).

Perception, you wrote:

Quote:

I don't really know how many participants of this thread are not citizens of this country I would suggest that unless your various countries are perfect then it is rather foolish for you to tell how to run our country. Anyone who enjoys listening to criticism from citizens of other countries is masochistic [..] listening to biased and politically motivated criticism from outside our country is analagous to eating bovine excretment.

I.e.: citizens of other countries, even those here on A2K, are "suggested" to refrain from criticizing the US, and Americans would humiliate themselves if they would listen to their criticisms. I mean, thats what it says here - and though people have called you on it, you haven't taken any of it back, so I have to assume its really what you think.

One first, naive question already: Why would "listening to biased and politically motivated criticism from outside our country" be worse than listening to biased and politically motivated criticism from inside your country?

Now picking up on your logic, Craven asked you a question: "Does that apply to our criticism of other countries?". I.e., should Americans be "suggested" to refrain from any criticism of other countries, as long as their own country isnt perfect, too?

You answered: "We have a right to protect ourselves and you know what they say about the best defense-----its with the best offense [..]".

Now this doesnt quite answer the question, but what I understand it to say is ... if countries threaten the US enough for it to have to go into "offensive protection" mode, the gloves are off, and any attack against them is warranted - from criticism to invasion, since that was the range Craven asked about.

So what about countries that do not threaten the US like that? What about American criticism of them? Is it warranted, or would it be "rather foolish" for the US to tell them "how to run their country", as long as its own affairs aren't perfect yet, and would it be "masochistic" for them to listen if Americans criticized them, anyway? Craven asked you about that, but you haven't answered yet, I think. I'm curious, too.

Craven also queried you about "how you criticise other nations but don't want to hear what they have to say". You replied that, "If they have progressed to the point where they are a threat this country then they have lost the right to be listened to."

But here you are just clearly moving the goalposts. Suddenly you're talking about countries that "threaten" the US - they should not be listened to. But you very clearly said, earlier, "unless your various countries are perfect then it is rather foolish for you to tell how to run our country. Anyone who enjoys listening to criticism from citizens of other countries is masochistic". No mention of "threatening" countries - criticism from any other country is unwarranted and should be ignored. So which is it?

I'll pass over the question of how your initial statement - 'shut up if you're not from the US', basically - was directed against individual members of A2K (like me), and now you're suddenly talking about criticism from governments, instead. Important enough distinction, I'd say. You might not want to listen to what Saddam has to say, but what about an individual Iraqi exile telling you your country is doing the wrong thing in Iraq?

Still, let's continue on your second proposition, instead. "If they have progressed to the point where they are a threat this country then they have lost the right to be listened to." Butrfly asked, "Does this logic also hold true for countries who believe the US has progressed to the point where it is a threat to their country and need not be listened to?" I don't think you answered that one yet. Should Iranians refuse to listen to any American criticism anymore, considering how American policy statements ("axis of evil" and all that) clearly imply "a threat to their country"?

The Soviets posed the clearest threat to the US it had ever experienced. Was it wrong for LBJ (it was, I think) to agree to installing the Soviet-American presidential hotline? Was it wrong for his successors to agree to various arms treaties? Should they, instead, have insisted that the Soviets had "lost the right to be listened to"? To pose just one, random example ...

0 Replies

Nimh asked:

When did Iraq threaten to attack the US?

You memory is short-----during the first gulf war Saddam declared war on the US and he has been declaring it ever since. Are we supposed to laugh at him and say----now---now Saddam, you didn't really mean that did you?

It is irrelevant that he had no choice in the matter----he lost whatever rights he had the moment he invaded Kuwait and then laughed at that stupid US ambassador to Iraq who kept telling everyone that Saddam wouldn't do it.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

You memory is short-----during the first gulf war Saddam declared war on the US and he has been declaring it ever since. [..] he lost whatever rights he had the moment he invaded Kuwait.

Which of the two was it - did he invade Kuwait or the US?

I haven't googled it up right now, but this is what I remember: Iraq invaded Kuwait; the US and allies declared war on Iraq, so as to liberate Kuwait. I could be wrong.

0 Replies

This would seem to indicate "The Lefty Boom" is a bit less pronounced than some might prefer:

(Sorry 'bout the cut-and-paste; its from a subscription service)

Quote:

GALLUP TUESDAY BRIEFING

Government & Public Affairs
September 2, 2003

Ideological Crossroads: Gen X Marks the Spot
by Darren K. Carlson, Contributing Editor
A special analysis* of Gallup data on the politics of Americans between the ages of 25 and 38 -- post-baby boomers who correspond roughly to "Generation X" -- points toward a more conservative ideology than one might expect, given their relatively young age. Two survey questions focusing on respondents' stances on social and economic issues shed light on where Gen Xers stand ideologically.

Socially Balanced

The famous 1960's admonition to "never trust anybody over 30" alluded to people's penchant to grow more conservative as they get older. Gallup's data suggest that this transition toward conservatism may occur closer to age 40 than age 30.

When asked about their views on social issues, the youngest American adults (18- to 24-year-olds) skew slightly liberal, with 36% saying they are liberal on social issues, compared to 27% who say they are conservative (another 36% say they are moderate on social issues). Gen Xers are more ideologically balanced: 31% identify themselves as liberal, 33% as conservative, and 34% as moderates.

That shift toward conservative thought on social issues plays out among Gen Xers' elders: among those aged 39 and older, just 19% say they are liberal on social issues, while 40% are conservative and 38% say they are moderates.

Conservatism Rooted in the Economy

Americans' earning power and responsibility levels tend to increase with age. With more at stake than their younger counterparts, 25- to 38-year-olds are more conservative when it comes to economics, although not as conservative as older Americans.

The ideology pattern regarding economic issues is similar to that observed on social issues. Members of the youngest age group (18- to 24-year-olds) are the most likely of the age groups to identify themselves as economically liberal (26%), though more in this age group say they are economically conservative (33%) or moderate (40%). The group loosely corresponding to Generation X is somewhat more conservative on economic issues. One in five Gen Xers identify as economically liberal, compared to 39% who are economically conservative and 39% who are moderate.

The trend toward economic conservatism rises sharply after age 38, as 47% of Americans aged 39 and older say they are conservative on economic issues, compared to 12% who say they are liberal, and 38% who call themselves moderate.

Bottom Line

Gen Xers are more likely than those under 25 to identify themselves as conservatives, although many Gen X conservatives say they are political independents rather than Republicans. This dichotomy may be driven by the differentiation between Gen Xers' social and economic ideologies. On social issues, people in this group are fairly ideologically balanced, while on economic issues, they're more likely to skew conservative. Gen Xers are still very much the "middle generation" in American society.
*Results based on an aggregate of telephone interviews with 3,028 American adults, aged 18 and older, taken from polls conducted each May from 2001 through 2003. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

For the sample of 285 18- to 24-year-olds, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points.

For the sample of 733 25- to 38-year-olds, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

For the sample of 1,983 Americans 39 and older, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

Then again, its just statistics, and we all know what they mean. Besides, who says Gallup has any credibility?

0 Replies

Look---I'm not trying ignore anyone's questions but they are coming rather thick and furious.

This one is for Dlwoan--Once again everyone is confusing people having friends and countries having friends. Counties---each and every country acts in their individual best interests and have a right to do so. Everyother country has a right to criticize what ever country it wants up to and including going to war.

I as an individual have a right to dislike listening to other individuals from other countries and think it is silly to the point of masochism. Other individuals only listen to it because any criticism of our country merely re-enforces their own negative views of this country. I have a right to dislike it just as much as you have a right present it. I don't believe anyone has ever heard me criticize any other country except those that have, due to their actions, threatened the outcome of the war in Iraq when everyone of those duplicitous rascals signed on to the first UN resolution and every other UN resolution condemning Iraq for failure to comply with those same resolutions. When it came time for substantial action the French acted in what they perceived as their best national interests---which involved many deals with 'Saddam that they didn't want to lose.

0 Replies

Now here's my personal reaction to the same statements.

perception wrote:

Now I don't really know how many participants of this thread are not citizens of this country I would suggest that unless your various countries are perfect then it is rather foolish for you to tell how to run our country.

1. The way you run your country directly impacts the (lack of) safety and prosperity of me and mine. What we do in Dutch politics doesnt affect you in any way. US foreign policy directly affects my life. That gives me the right to speak up about it.

2. I am not in "one parade" with all my fellow countrymen, and in total disconnect from people outside my country. Hell, I spend my time on A2K, don'I? A2K is a community - it crosses borders - there's ever more of those communities - that means that I have more in common with many foreigners than with many compatriots. Same goes for ever more people in this world. That means any dialogue (and yes, any proper dialogue includes criticism) will cross state borders. And lucky thing, too, cause any political measure does, too, in this interconnected world.

3. People don't have to be running their own lives perfectly to have something useful to say about how I'm doing. I take advice from others all the time - especially from those who themselves have made the necessary mistakes as well - they know how it is. Same goes for countries. People from another country might just happen to have as useful an insight about your country's politics as any random person within your borders. Some of the more astute observations of Dutch history were made by foreign observers (e.g. Simon Schama). You're absolutely welcome to join my thread about the Netherlands. If I really think outsiders get it all wrong, on that thread, I can still always tell them so. There's enough fellow-Dutchmen who I think have it all wrong as well.

0 Replies

Nimh

You don't seem to remember that Saddam really didn't expect the US to act as we did----after we started the war against him he in his stupid boasting ---declared war on the US. As I said earlier it is irrelevant that he at that point had no choice. It was his decision to invade Kuwait and thus brought him to point where had to declare war on us or lose face.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

I don't believe anyone has ever heard me criticize any other country except those that have, due to their actions, threatened the outcome of the war in Iraq when everyone of those duplicitous rascals signed on to the first UN resolution and every other UN resolution.

What if we were to have believed that actions of the US "threatened an outcome of the war in Iraq" that would be directly detrimental to the security of the world we live in - to our safety? What if our governments signed the same UN resolutions as the American government and thought it was the Americans who dangerously - and deliberately - misinterpreted them?

Wouldnt we have the same right to talk about that as you had to complain about France? If you consider it below your dignity to listen to us if we do, since we are merely "individuals from other countries", why are you expecting us to listen to you?

0 Replies

OK - as promised:

perception wrote:

I should have said: what are the outer limits of "Left" or Right as they go over the edge into extremism. And then is that extremism dangerous or not?

I have laid out my position relative to the above-----anyone else care to wade in where angels fear to tread.

"Extremism" is a pretty tricky term, as "extreme" is by nature relative. Nevertheless, I bandy it around as much as anyone, so here goes.

-> Any political movement that uses violence to achieve its goals is extremist.

As for whether that extremism, then, is "dangerous": well, it's always dangerous, for violence engenders more violence, both in the short and in the long term. Whether violence can ever be justified is another question.

I think that it was justified for the (Kosovar) KLA to take up arms against the Serbian soldiers and militias, considering the DLK had tried non-violent resistance for 10 years and still Kosovars were being terrorised. On the other hand, again, the KLA culture even now is still undermining peace and democracy in Kosovo, which just goes to show how contraproductive, as well as dangerous, using violence can be.

-> Any political movement that rejects the existing socio-political order wholesale is extremist. Communists, anarchists, fascists: fundamentally, they have no interest in reforming any part of the current political system; they want to do away with it all.

Whether that is dangerous or not, depends on how they aim to implement their goal. A hermit rejects the existing order wholesale as well, withdrawing into a zone as autonomous from it as possible, but he poses no danger. Same goes for some anarchists and ecologists: they want none of the present system, so they withdraw from it, retreating into "free zones" of their own that can be a house in the city or a piece of forest. As long as they are peacable about it, they pose only a relative danger, namely that their zones can come to constitute a freehaven from the justice system.

(I wanted to include the militias in the American mountains and plains in that sentence as well, but puttng "militias" and "peaceable" in the same sentence seemed weird.)

-> I think that any politician who preaches hate or despisal of fellow citizens on the basis of their skin colour, origin or religion is extremist. Should I include class? Perhaps. Basically, I consider anyone who rejects article 1 of our constitution (about each citizen being equal before law and government) an extremist.

-> I think that any polical movement or government that rejects compromise not because of the specifics of the situation, but as a matter of principle, is extremist. This will include the two categories above but also other actors. I think that it is almost always dangerous. In fact, those who stay within the system but refuse all compromise are more dangerous than those who simply retreat from the system altogether.

Extremist, too, in my book, is any movement or government that sees the world in digital terms - 0s and 1s, good and evil, with us or against us, with nothing in between - and that sees its own "rightness" in equally digital terms, experiencing it in terms of a religious kind of truth (absolute) rather than a scientific kind of truth (relative). Dangerous? The first is, if its your government - will get you into all kinds of avoidable danger, isolation and confrontation. The latter is if it leads politicians to impose the implementation of their "truth" onto others even against their will, or through violent means. Thats anti-democratic. See categories above for specifics.

This is probably the most "flexible" definition of this list, and could well be used to include forces within the current US government.

There. List is not exhaustive, but comes a long way ;-). Now I'm going to bed.

0 Replies

Nimh

I am about to make an enemy of someone whose opinion I always have respected so I apologize for offending you.

I do not apolize however for the intent of what I said and that is this:

During the past century totalitarian regimes murdered or caused the deaths of almost 200 million people. The USA joined forces with other people of the world to rid the world of the causes of those deaths. Instead of putting the losers of those wars in chains as they would have done us----we helped rebuild their countries.

For those deeds we are now considered a pariah nation and worthy only of scorn and criticism?

I feel the citizens of other countries who are now not wearing swastikas or the hammer and sickle owe us the benefit of the doubt at least until the real result of the Iraq war is known.

I will now say goodnight to you all.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

During the past century totalitarian regimes murdered or caused the deaths of almost 200 million people. The USA joined forces with other people of the world to rid the world of the causes of those deaths. Instead of putting the losers of those wars in chains as they would have done us----we helped rebuild their countries.

For those deeds we are now considered a pariah nation and worthy only of scorn and criticism?

I feel the citizens of other countries who are now not wearing swastikas or the hammer and sickle owe us the benefit of the doubt at least until the real result of the Iraq war is known.

I will now say goodnight to you all.

And the US engaged itself with and suported totalitarian regimes in the name of the fight against "communism."
A short list off the top of my head:
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Greece
Spain
Portugal
El Salvador
Nucaragua
Argentina
Phillipines
Libya
Pakistan
I'm sure there are more. Your argument is fallacious to the extreme. Do you hold the US to a different standard than other nations, and if so, why?
Please do not attempt to deny that the US supported totalitarian governments. The citizens of the world do not "owe" the US anything. Your argument is petty posturing, not reason.

0 Replies

Hobit

Thanks for reposting my post for everyone to see. Laughing

0 Replies

Percy...answer the question. Do you hold the US to different standards than other nations,and if so why? Is the US exempt from the criticism it most certainly deserves for sponsoring totalitarian nations?

0 Replies

Hobit

You seem to think I owe you an answer-----sorry smoochie woochie---I don't owe you anything Laughing

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Hobit

You seem to think I owe you an answer-----sorry smoochie woochie---I don't owe you anything

Failure to answer valid questions like the ones presented to you on this forum displays an intellectually shallow ideology. You have consistently posted links and cut and pastes that have been from:
Neo Nazi Newspapers
Unverifiable "emails"
Faux News.
When you are challenged on these poor sources, you resort to name calling, and accuse us of "picking on you." Please render to us the intellectual respect you seem to wish to receive.

0 Replies

Hobit

What other forms of masochism do you indulge in? You just don't seem to know your limitations.

0 Replies

As I wrote, and you demonstrated:

Quote:

When you are challenged on these poor sources, you resort to name calling, and accuse us of "picking on you." Please render to us the intellectual respect you seem to wish to receive.

Still waiting for you to back up your position.
Aditionally, if, as you posit above, the world owes the US a debt of gratitude for WWII, what about the debt it owes the former Soviet Union, Britain, Australia, China, and the oter allied forces?Britain , Canada, Australia, South Africa, et al were engaged with the Nazis long before the US was. China had been engaged with the Japanese before Pearl Harbour. Does their greater length of time in combat not yield to them a greater debt?

0 Replies

Hmmm. It does seem to have earned China a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which makes neither more nor less sense to me than the inclusion of France. Great victors they were not.

0 Replies

What do you mean by "great victors they were not" Roger?

0 Replies

If he means Nationalist China, they were sort of losers, since they were relegated to Taiwan.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know