Well, I guess the right has supported some bad guys, too. How about that?
title of thread=
broad, sweeping, stupid generalization.......
typical.
I'm here to denounce Bush/Cheney, the worst of the bad guys. Aside from that, have a good chat.
Perhaps the Left's angst stems from the fact action is being taken against brutal, totalitarian despots and religio-fundamentalist, indiscriminately murderous thugs, and yet, as the action is being taken by the Right, The Left feels compelled to oppose it. Poor critters ... caught between Iraq and a hardplace.
Why does the right so often rely on invalid strawman arguments?
timberlandko wrote:Perhaps the Left's angst stems from the fact action is being taken against brutal, totalitarian despots and religio-fundamentalist, indiscriminately murderous thugs, and yet, as the action is being taken by the Right, The Left feels compelled to oppose it. Poor critters ... caught between Iraq and a hardplace.
Set up the despot. Knock down the despot.
Noriega is one of my personal favourites.
Quote:Noriega was a paid and demonstrable CIA collaborator since the early 70ies, as former CIA-Director Adm. Stansfield Turner admitted in 1988, and he retained U.S. support until February 5, 1988 when the DEA had him indicted on federal drug charges relating to his activities before 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
hmmmmm, early 1970's - Nixon
hmmmmmm, 1988 - Reagan/Bush Sr.
This is a particularly odd thread to me because:
A) Bush has supported the creation of a Palestine state in speeches repeatedly. Is he supporting the bad guys too then? I'm not clear.
B) As mentioned in a previous note the "right" has supported some unsavory characters in the past to get when they wanted. It seems forgotten after all this time but the Bush Sr. and Reagan admins are the ones who funded Saddam Hussein's rise to power in the first place in an effort to oppose Iran. (A good study on this policy can be found in With Friends Like These: Reagan, Bush, and Saddam 1982-1990
by Bruce W. Jentleson)
Cav, "it seems that the common argument against establishing Israel as a country is guilt over the Holocaust, which led to rash and misguided decisions"
I thought it was the opposite! I don't understand your argument there.
Bill Clinton wrote in his book of how he came so close to real peace in the region, when Israel agreed to return 97% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. Even he says : "If Arafat had only agreed to that..." (Thereby putting the blame on Arafat). By the same token, Israel could also be blamed for their insistence on keeping that 3%.
I find it hard to say who IS the bad guy there. Both are behaving deplorably.
I guess those on the left might tend to be more protective of those who are living under occupation as opposed to those who enforced the occupation, though. Doesn't mean we support bad guys, only that we support fair and equal treatment. They BOTH have a right to exist. One of them WAS existing already.
To put it as simply as possible, imagine this scenario: Some African tribe, well-armed and supported by, say, Arab money, decides they need a country of their own. They decide America suits them. So they come over, kick the crap out of us, and set up camp. They rename America and it is known now as BandarAfrica. McG and his family, along with the rest of us, are tossed in a fenced-off portion of Texas, and that is our new country. What are you gonna do? BandarAfrica has a right to exist, right? Tough for us! Oh well! We must accept it, lest we become bad guys. I am sure that McG and his family will be quite happy living in their new world order and won't try employing any terrorist tactics to gain freedom from their oppressors and get their country back, right?
Well there's one bad buy they aren't defending. George W. Bush.
suzzy good post. I think you described the initial problem very well.
I understand why MCG might get that impression. Sometimes I am tempted to champion even someone I think is guilty just because the right goes is going after them. However, I usually stop myself. Micheal Jackson is one such example. If I didn't think in my heart (I realize he hasn't been judged yet) think that that he was guilty of even more than he is charged and if it didn't involve children, I would be on his side merely because the right seems bent on going after all those they consider to be leftist or in some way on the other side.
But on the Israel and Palestine issue, I think it was telling to automatically put Palestine on the "bad side" to start with. If you were alive during the civil war would you characterize those in the south that opposed slavery as siding with the "bad side"; the bad side being yankees?
I am sure that there were Germans alive during the holocaust that were not jewish that opposed the way the Jews were being treated. Would they be characterized as those on the "left" siding with the "bad side?"
I am not saying that Israel should not exist at this late stage. Most of the Arabs have accepted Israel as well now. All I am saying is that it is time to think of Palestinians as people too who deserve the same things and just as much help as Israel does.
Everyone keeps bringing up how it is not fair that Israel has to live in fear not knowing if they are their loved ones are going to blown up on their way to school or to a night club or pizza place.
The sad irony of that is that Palestinians cannot do those things to start with and it is not their fault because they have been oppressed and the United States have helped Israel do it.
10 are shot in 8 hours in city
Weekend toll: 10 Dead
Baghdad? The West Bank? Kabul? No, Detroit and New York City.
This is irrelevant and disengenious. First you are comparing the risk and sacrafice of our American military by claiming their lives could be lost on the streets of Detroit or NYC. Second it's not comparable because you have to take into consideration the population and other factors.
So if you wish is to diminish the job of the military then by all means stick with this argument.
Hmmmm... Let me expound on my original premise.
When i suggest the left, I mean the left on A2K. Not the neboulous evil "left" of America. Many times reading through various threads, I see that the left generally defends the palestinians, against the war in Iraq, supporting Islamic fundamentalists (by arguing about the evils of the US), supporting socialism, etc while the Right generally will support Israel, defend the war in Iraq, condemn Islamic fundamentalists, and curse socialism.
Now, being a right minded fellow, I see my side as being correct. It makes logical sense to me that Israel should be allowed to defend itself by any means neccessary. I feel the eradication of Saddam's regime to be a great achievement, no matter the excuse given. I wish ALL Islamic fundamentalists would allow themselves to become a part of at least the 20th century if not the 21st century. I am also a firm believer in capitalism, even when it sucks.
So, if my side is the good guys, then that means the other side is the bad guys.
I am not blind to the arguements of the side, I could argue them all day long, but they don't make sense to me.
McGentrix wrote:Hmmmm... Let me expound on my original premise.
When i suggest the left, I mean the left on A2K. Not the neboulous evil "left" of America. Many times reading through various threads, I see that the left generally defends the palestinians, against the war in Iraq, supporting Islamic fundamentalists (by arguing about the evils of the US), supporting socialism, etc while the Right generally will support Israel, defend the war in Iraq, condemn Islamic fundamentalists, and curse socialism.
Now, being a right minded fellow, I see my side as being correct. It makes logical sense to me that Israel should be allowed to defend itself by any means neccessary. I feel the eradication of Saddam's regime to be a great achievement, no matter the excuse given. I wish ALL Islamic fundamentalists would allow themselves to become a part of at least the 20th century if not the 21st century. I am also a firm believer in capitalism, even when it sucks.
So, if my side is the good guys, then that means the other side is the bad guys.
I am not blind to the arguements of the side, I could argue them all day long, but they don't make sense to me.
I meant the left on A2K = another broad, sweeping stupid generalization.
Your replies add so much to the conversation bear.
Nonsense, Redheat; its simply an observation by way of perspective, and referential to no particular conflict or military. As to population correlation, I'll admit there are more folks in either Detroit or New York than in The West Bank, but Detroit and New York combined come to about half the population of either Afghanistan or Iraq individually. Any death-by-violence is an inexcuseable waste. On the otherhand, from a purely, coldly military standpoint, combat casualties incurred thus far in The War On Terror are absolutely insignificant; the lowest casualty rate ever incurred, by a huge margin, for a military undertaking of anywhere near the size. In Afghanistan and Iraq combined, casualties-to-date do not equal casualties-per-hour at Gettysburg, for instance. On D-Day, the first 24 hours saw Allied casualties of over 6000, some 4500+ US. Over a 6 week period in 1944, the Battle of The Bulge cost The US forces some 16,000 casualties. The only folks impressed by the current casualty counts are the folks inflicting them and the folks those folks are playing to. This is war; in war, people, "ours" and "theirs", particularly those on the ground, are gonna die. That's unpopular, but unavoidable. If you wanna play the keepin' score game, don't look at just one side's points; in that regard, we're so far ahead the other side is scarcely on the board.
McGentrix wrote:Your replies add so much to the conversation bear.
Thanks ranger bob, probably at least as much as the original premise.
Your statement is a broad stupid sweeping generalization whether you like it or not and I'm betting that most A2kers on either side of the political spectrum agree.
C'mon, you guys ... knock of the fightin' ... dontchya know there's a war on?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:McGentrix wrote:Your replies add so much to the conversation bear.
Thanks ranger bob, probably at least as much as the original premise.
Your statement is a broad stupid sweeping generalization whether you like it or not and I'm betting that most A2kers on either side of the political spectrum agree.
Then don't answer them, don't reply to my threads. If they are such broad sweeping generalizations, then ignore them! Your comments add
NOTHING to the thread and only detract from what other posters are discussing.
