3
   

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 12:31 pm
rayban1 wrote:
Nothing is covered in the US Press except tragedy, political assassination, Bush bashing and degradation of the US military.


Well, there was also the lightsticks ripping up deserving Muslim asses. That got some coverage.

And there was the heroic last stand of the football hero who finally fell only after the fifty-ninth American bullet went through him, harkening back to the Alamo.

And Laura cracking wise about George jacking off a horse.

And gay people...lots about gay people and about how, if they get any more acceptance in the culture, well sure as heck soon everyone will be heading out to the barn to jack of horses or something.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 10:19 pm
Setanta wrote:
A great deal of the force of your argument is dissipated from your use of a locution such as " . . . yet it seems to have a strong resonance among leftist thinkers." It suggests that you have motives equally unworthy to those whom you criticize for using their scorn to take a cheap shot.

The objection of many on the left to the Shrub, and his witless implementation of a PNAC agenda articulated well before he ran for office in 2000 is precisely that appearance of trying to bury their mistakes which glares out at one when one considers what good buddies the Reagan administration were with Hussein. Further, most of the people of liberal conviction with whom i am conversant do not point to the past--they point to the hypocricy of crying crocodile tears for the poor suffering population of an oil-rich nation strategically located in the world's largest oil producing region--while ignoring the Liberians, the Rawandans, the Sudanese, the North Koreans and so many others suffering a drab quotidian torment under the heels of vicious governments. Were the neo-cons of the PNAC as concerned for every one of the "Persons sitting in darkness" as they claim to have been for the Iraqis, the argument might be more plausible. But when the PNAC has articulated an agenda to include taking over Iraq and establishing military bases in southwest Asia since 1997, and then justifies doing so upon the basis of a deep compassion which they do not show for people in nations without petroleum resources, then certainly, the left charge them with errant and self-interested hypocricy.


Do not certain concepts resonate among leftist thinkers? Presumably, redistribution of wealth is one such concept, and I am suggesting that the notion that because past American presidents have treated with dictators, that the current president cannot oppose them is another.

I may very well be wrong, but how is this a cheap shot? I have seen the cited argument made by any number of people whom I would classify as leftist thinkers.

That the leftists you know may not find the argument appealing proves nothing more than you seem to know leftists who may not also be idiots, and, at the very least, hardly disproves my contention.

Point of fact is that the Bush Administration has not ignored Liberia, Sudan or North Korea (true enough though that the Clinton Administration ignored Rwanda). While it's true Bush has not ordered the invasion of these countries, are you suggesting he should have for the sake of ideological consistency? Would you have greater respect for Bush and the dread Neo-Cons if we had invaded these countries?

Typically, you begin with the premise that Bush is merely a hapless puppet for truly sinister forces (PNAC). What groups were pulling the strings of John Kerry, or was he that most rare of creatures in Washington, his own man?

Bush has been consistent in his support of democracy throughout the world. Only a true partisan would fault him for hypocrisy because he has not always backed it with a military invasion. I thought you guys wanted policies that were flexible, not monolithic. I thought you wanted multi-lateralism, and yet so many of you have nothing but derisive comments about the 6 Nation Talks.

It amazes me that the Left has so much contempt for a neo-con idealism which borders on the naive. Is it that this sort of policy by wishful thinking has always been a possession of the Left and that they resent its appropriation by the Right? No, forgive me...It is because unlike the Left, clearly the Right has no interest at all in advancing the rights of Man throughout the world. It's really always about profit and any suggestion otherwise is merely a cynical and devious ruse.

The reality is that no policy, foreign or domestic, liberal or conservative, is not based, to some degree, on satisfying the desires of particular interest groups, and in all instances the interests are based on the development of their own power. Rightwing interest groups simply tend to be more honest about their motivations.

That this is an inevitable underlying principle of politics does not diminish the idealism present in certain policies...unless of course one believes that only leftists have hearts.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 07:05 am
finn wrote
Quote:
Bush has been consistent in his support of democracy throughout the world.


I'm not sure this is a claim that careful analysis would support. Bush has been consistent in saying it, certainly. But what else suggests it to be true?

It is not at all clear, for example, that the impetus to attack the Taliban was other than to strike back at an organization complicit in events leading to 9/11, and to remove a potential source of further attacks on US interests. Internal reorganization of Afghan politics following the attack, though they have the stated aim of democratization, can be interpreted otherwise, quite in keeping with traditional real politic aims - to maintain a basic control of powers and events such that Taliban-style organizations and ideologies are inhibited on-going. You can ask yourself whether the US would likely choose to support democracy there if it looked to be leading to some unhappy (for the US) consequence or whether they would inhibit such, even if the populace wished it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 06:01 am
Or, we could of course consider the present situation in Uzbekistan...

Quote:
In a severe rebuke to London and Washington's approach to the region, Britain's former ambassador to the country yesterday said the countries had swallowed Uzbek propaganda that sought to portray the democracy movement as a brand of Islamic extremism.

Craig Murray told the IoS that the Government had to take some responsibility for the unfolding events because it had failed to support those trying to oppose the dictatorship of President Islam Karimov. He revealed that he visited Andizhan a year ago and met those trying to build a democratic opposition movement. In a bid to bolster their cause he asked the UK government to fund them. His requests were turned down by the Foreign Office.

"The Americans and British wouldn't do anything to help democracy in Uzbekistan," he said. Uzbekistan provides a base for US forces engaged in anti-terrorism operations in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Mr Murray added: "We didn't provide support for those who were trying to develop democratic opposition, and that includes these people in Andizhan. People are turning to violence because we ... gave them no support."

This is the more typical pattern.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 01:37 pm
Setanta's assertions thai the Reagan administration was "buddies" with Saddam's Iraq is false and quite contrary to verifiable facts. We provided very limited assistance to Saddam at a time when it appeared the Iranians might overwhelm his forces, already pushed back to the frontier and in a decidedly defensive posture vis a vis the far more numerous Iranians. Even then the principal suppliers of weapons to Saddam were the USSR and the French.

No recent Administration has allowed any single issue utterly dominate its choices in international relations. There are good reasons for this in the highly complex situations we face. All have given at least lip service to the advancement of Democracy and, as well, have backed it up in at least the central tendency of their actions. Certainly the advancement of democracy has been a much larger factor in the Bush administrations than it was in the Clinton administrations that preceded it. If dealing with autocrats, even when self-interest is involved, is unpardonable, then how does one excuse Clinton's fruitless attempts to bribe and kiss ass with Kim Jong Il in North Korea?

Of course our primary interest in striking the Taliban was to take out a regime that was actively supporting and harboring the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations which had struck us. It is undeniable that in addition to that we have worked very hard to replace it with a regime embodying as many elements of Democracy as are feasible in that unfortunate country - and doing so with a degree of success that is quite unprecedented in its mostly sad history.

Setanta and Blatham look very hard for contradictions in the policies of the Bush administration while ignoring much more prominent ones in previous administrations - and in their own arguments as well.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 01:44 pm
I haven't discussed contradictions in previous administrations--either to assert that there were or were not such contradictions. Don't charaterize my opinions or statements based on what you would like to assert O'George, as opposed to what you have evidence to support. You do your own image a disservice by making such specious claims.

You assume that because i despise the Shrub, i must therefore have been an admirer of Clinton. That is not true. I greatly resent you having the gaul to assert that you know one goddamned thing about me which i have not told you, or for which you cannot produce written evidence. Back off.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:35 pm
Quote:
Certainly the advancement of democracy has been a much larger factor in the Bush administrations than it was in the Clinton administrations that preceded it...


george

All that is actually 'certain' is that this administration claims (every chance it can get) that it is so motivated. And I suppose one could add another certainty here...that you will believe what they say. For me, one of the truly scary aspects of all this is how so many of your citizens, you definitely included, have emasculated your own citizenship and forgone your own integrity out of partisan membership.

Like Setanta, I've made no comparisons between this administration and others as regards such a theoretical policy. What I point to is the disparity between what this administration claims about itself and what its actual policies and behavior reveals - that it consistently misrepresents what it is up to and why. This is the most deceitful (happily and aggressively deceitful) administration I've seen in my lifetime in a western government.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:38 pm
blatham wrote:
finn wrote
Quote:
Bush has been consistent in his support of democracy throughout the world.


I'm not sure this is a claim that careful analysis would support. Bush has been consistent in saying it, certainly. But what else suggests it to be true?

It is not at all clear, for example, that the impetus to attack the Taliban was other than to strike back at an organization complicit in events leading to 9/11, and to remove a potential source of further attacks on US interests. Internal reorganization of Afghan politics following the attack, though they have the stated aim of democratization, can be interpreted otherwise, quite in keeping with traditional real politic aims - to maintain a basic control of powers and events such that Taliban-style organizations and ideologies are inhibited on-going. You can ask yourself whether the US would likely choose to support democracy there if it looked to be leading to some unhappy (for the US) consequence or whether they would inhibit such, even if the populace wished it.


Well, if you are looking for (and I doubt you are) an unwavering supporter of democracy who makes no foreign policy decision that is not premised entirely on the advancement of democracy, then you got me.

But, if you examine something as recent as his visit to Europe and Russia for commemoration of the end of WWII you may see it's the case. Let's examine the comparative geopolitical influences of the following nations, on American interests: Russia, Georgia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. By any stretch of the imagination might anyone argue Georgia and the Baltic States present greater opportunities for American economic, if not strategic, interests than Russia? And yet Bush deliberately bearded the Russian bear it's own den for the purposes of supporting democracy.

Call Bush's advocacy of democracy naive, idealistic, simplistic, whatever, but it just doesn't ring true to question his commitment to it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:48 pm
blatham wrote:
Or, we could of course consider the present situation in Uzbekistan...

Quote:
In a severe rebuke to London and Washington's approach to the region, Britain's former ambassador to the country yesterday said the countries had swallowed Uzbek propaganda that sought to portray the democracy movement as a brand of Islamic extremism.

Craig Murray told the IoS that the Government had to take some responsibility for the unfolding events because it had failed to support those trying to oppose the dictatorship of President Islam Karimov. He revealed that he visited Andizhan a year ago and met those trying to build a democratic opposition movement. In a bid to bolster their cause he asked the UK government to fund them. His requests were turned down by the Foreign Office.

"The Americans and British wouldn't do anything to help democracy in Uzbekistan," he said. Uzbekistan provides a base for US forces engaged in anti-terrorism operations in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Mr Murray added: "We didn't provide support for those who were trying to develop democratic opposition, and that includes these people in Andizhan. People are turning to violence because we ... gave them no support."

This is the more typical pattern.


There is no adjective that calls into question the opinion of a political appointee than "former."

In any case, even if we assume the former British Ambassador has all of the facts, this one instance hardly constitutes a pattern.

Either Bush is a neo-con (or controlled by neo-cons) or he is not. That there is a real and substantive difference between the foreign policy objectives of neo-cons and realists, it seems to me, is indisputable.

I suppose if a critic of Bush were to operate from the premise that he is, at best, an amoral tool of economic interests rather than a misguided idealogue, there would be no need to attempt to look for a consistency of positions.

I find this take on things, whether from the left or the right, fascinating, primarily because it is rarely applied to both sides of the partisan coin.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 03:09 pm
Quote:
George Walker Bush took the oath of office for a second term yesterday and laid out one of the most expansive manifestos ever offered from an inaugural podium as he dedicated his presidency to spreading democracy and freedom "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

In the first wartime inauguration ceremony in more than three decades, Bush vowed to transform U.S. foreign policy to make human rights the defining priority, arguing that only liberty would "break the reign of hatred and resentment" that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that seared his first term.

From now on, Bush said, relations with "every ruler and every nation" will be predicated on how they treat their own people, a profound break from traditional U.S. policy and from the Bush administration's practices in his first term, when it worked with repressive governments in the war against terrorism. In his doctrine for the next four years, Bush presented the United States as a beacon for the subjugated around the world and promised to confront the despots who enchain them.

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors," Bush told tens of thousands of onlookers from the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in a 21-minute address in which he used the words "free," "freedom" or "liberty" 49 times. "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23519-2005Jan20.html


Yeah, he keeps saying stuff like that, but...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 03:11 pm
When Craig Murray wrote his requests to the Foreign and Commenwealth Office, he was Her Majesty's ambassador in Uzbekistan.
Shortly after the government turned them down, he became a former anbassador.

source: FCO
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 03:40 pm
yes and Bill told me even the press were beginning to realise that Murray was bonkers

Well thats what the minister said
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 04:16 pm
Well, it's true I did assume the recent lack of critique of the Clinton Administrations on the parts of Setanta and Blatham, constituted some element of affirmation on their respective parts. For this I have been justly chastised,

by Setanta;

Quote:
I haven't discussed contradictions in previous administrations--either to assert that there were or were not such contradictions. Don't charaterize my opinions or statements based on what you would like to assert O'George, as opposed to what you have evidence to support. You do your own image a disservice by making such specious claims.

You assume that because i despise the Shrub, i must therefore have been an admirer of Clinton. That is not true. I greatly resent you having the gaul to assert that you know one goddamned thing about me which i have not told you, or for which you cannot produce written evidence. Back off


and by Blatham;
Quote:
Like Setanta, I've made no comparisons between this administration and others as regards such a theoretical policy. What I point to is the disparity between what this administration claims about itself and what its actual policies and behavior reveals - that it consistently misrepresents what it is up to and why. This is the most deceitful (happily and aggressively deceitful) administration I've seen in my lifetime in a western government


each in his characteristic way. They are correct - I did assume, without direct evidence of any omission with respect to Clinton. However, I believe the point remains that both are inclined to look hard to find contradictions or fault with the Bush Administration, often without any comparable basis for what is typical or inevitable in these areas.

I don't accept everything from this administration at face value, and I don't agree with everything it does. However I do prefer the central tendency of its actions and stated policies much to the politically available alternatives.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 10:21 am
@joefromchicago,
Joe
While trying to learn how to use this site I unintentionally reported you. I dont know how to unreport so I am apoligezing. I wonder where spell ck is?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 10:54 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:
However, if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, you are rooting for the enemy. Anybody who roots for the enemy in a battle against their own country, is not a patriot in my book.

To control for the fact that you support the war in Iraq and Joe doesn't, let me turn Joe's question around: From your perspective could an Iraqi patriot in 2003 have rooted for the Americans? Could he have wanted the Iraqi forces to lose the war, expecting that the Americans would bring something better? How about the Iraqis who collaborated with the Americans in bringing down Saddam's regime, and making Iraq lose the war in the process? Are you prepared to look them in the eyes and say: "You are no patriots?"
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 10:56 am
@Thomas,
Oops, I didn't notice this was an old thread.

Very good initial post, though!
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 04:40 pm
@joefromchicago,
I want the US to lose the war in Iraq
You are not alone.
All the rational decent nonviolent belivers areound globle not excluding the majority of US innocentswish and dream the same.
Rama fuchs
OGIONIK
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 05:36 pm
@Ramafuchs,
the united states government and "america" are totally seperate, im a patriot and im an anarchist as well.
go figure
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 07:16 pm
@Thomas,
That was a top notch first posting.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 07:57 pm
@JTT,
Interesting. Do the troops want the US to lose? They must not be patriots.

Quote:
If money talks, the troops are saying, ‘Vote Obama’
By: Steve Benen @ 6:00 PM - PDT

Way back in September, we learned that Barack Obama and Ron Paul, who don’t have too much in common, were the top two presidential candidates when it came to financial support from U.S. troops.

It had a certain political salience " opponents of the war in Iraq took note of the fact that the top two recipients of military donations went to critics of the Bush policy " but it was still relatively early in the process. Would the trend continue once the race grew more competitive? Actually, yes.

The Center for Responsive Politics reported today that Obama has received six times as much money from the troops as John McCain.

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.

Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall " whether stationed overseas or at home " are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military, said, “That’s shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it’s about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one” in Democrats’ favor. “That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans.”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/23/2024 at 06:06:52