Mature intelligent right wing freaks

Eric wrote: The insurgents certainly aren't anybody with whom you'd want to have a cup of coffee.

Don't they have an "Iraqi insurgents meet-up night" at Muddy Waters now?

Carnivore, women have no place in political discourse. I would thank you kindly to step away from this.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Eric][quote=Anonymous]with "our" president making statements like
"those barbaric people, whose backward theology" referring to the insurgents...who are only trying to defend their home from occupation, it's no wonder that terriorst attacks have tripled in the past year, worldwide.

You lose most of your credibility when you cast the insurgents in Iraq as patriots defending their home from occupation if not for your overuse of scare quotes. The insurgents are really a diverse mix of 1) recent non-Iraqi foreign terrorists whose focus is mainly on the disruption of the United States mission there rather than the future of Iraq and 2) former powerful members of the minority-ruling Sunni who don't like the fact that they will be just another Iraqi come (if it does constructively happen) the new Iraqi democracy. The majority Shiites were for the most part oppressed under the old regime and there is at best in the future a reduction in power for the Sunni and at worst, payback for the previous oppression.

The insurgents certainly can't be looked upon as noble (unless you think purposefully targeting Iraqi civilians is breaking eggs to make an omelette) and certainly can't be looked upon as proper representations of Islam either. So I don't think that calling them barbaric or backward is too much of a stretch.

The insurgents certainly aren't anybody with whom you'd want to have a cup of coffee.
Let's face it: we've created a situation where there is a civil war going on there. Yes the Shiites were oppressed by the Sunni minority onder the Baath government. Yes there are foreign groups who have joined the fight to expell our forces. But to characterize the opposition as "terrorists" is to ignore the fact that they have some real concerns. No one is saying they want to have coffee with them. But I'd be willing to bet that the U.S. invasion and occupation led to more loss of Iraqi civilian life than the subsequent opposition. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4760756

Well, I don't think I ever said that the entire opposition were terrorists. I noted the heavy influence of non-Iraqi foreign terrorists there. From what I recall reading (I think in the NY Times) is that even those who were once somewhat sympathetic to the "opposition" are getting tired of their tactics.

As for the scare quotes on "terrorist" I don't buy too much into identity politics and what we're going to call things. I like adjectives and words that have precise meanings instead of ones that people use because they fear they are judging. I'm not out to be a nihilist.

I think that combatants that don't identify with a state and whose objective it is to kill civilians in order to disrupt, not necessarily to "win", are satisfactorily called terrorists.

Therefore, I feel pretty safe noting that there are terrorists in Iraq. No scare quotes necessary.

I don't think it's fair to say that the US invasion has caused more deaths than under Saddam Hussein. I think that's more of a reflection of Hussein than the U.S. invasion, though. I can't subscribe to the idea that Hussein was relatively harmless compared to the U.S. He's a bad bad bad man. Unfortunately his dictatorship kept a country that had always teetered towards civil war together under the grips of fear and strong tribal rule.

Shit would have hit the fan no matter who unwrapped the Pandora's Box that is Iraq with out a Hussein in power. The U.S. might have made it worse because of their bad reputation...or maybe not because they have great military resources. But no matter what, a civil war would have erupted at some point in Iraq. Too much tension, too little solutions.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Anonymous]I don't think it's fair to say that the US invasion has caused more deaths than under Saddam Hussein. I think that's more of a reflection of Hussein than the U.S. invasion, though. I can't subscribe to the idea that Hussein was relatively harmless compared to the U.S. He's a bad bad bad man. Unfortunately his dictatorship kept a country that had always teetered towards civil war together under the grips of fear and strong tribal rule.

I never compared deaths due to the U.S. with deaths under Hussein. I compared them with deaths due to the subsequent insurgency (read my post above). I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the simplistic idea that Hussein was a "bad man", although the then Republican administration didn't seem to have any problem with him when he was at war with Iran.


Sorry about the reading comprehension problem. I think I got confused by the fact that the US is still occupying.

I still disagree though...and let's be honest, there's only a greater chance of me being right as time goes on.

I've heard people on the left pooh-pooh Hussein. Usually in comparisons like the one I thought you were making instead of the one you actually were.

Here's what's a sticky point for some people. Noting that the US once turned a blind eye towards Hussein and now suddenly care about the Iraqi people when it serves the U.S. does indeed point out hypocrisy. However, is hypocrisy alone an argument against acting?

I'm not so many people have created a solid foreign policy on when they feel it's appropriate to violate the sovereignty of another land and remove their leader. If you say never, you have to be somewhat comfortable with the idea that others in the world are suffering and although we might be able to alleviate it or stop it, we won't.

Incidentally, to stave off some arguments...I was/am against the war because I didn't think it would serve our foreign policy interests. I didn't think it would make us more secure and that it would enflame anger against us and cause us more problems. So far, unfortunately I think I'm right. I was hoping that I would have been wrong.

Isn't this fun?

And I meant "creAtively", not "cretinly". I'm certainly learning alot about this by the postings here now.

BTW, what happened to our avatars? Do we need to re-upload?

This thread has been dormant for awhile, but I've got to extricate myself from the Ratner thread and tackle a new topic.

Moving back to the original line of discussion (I'm not about to stick my hand in into fire that is the Iraq issue), I wanted to make a point about the liberal vs. conservative issue. I think those words are badly misused. Many of those on this board who like to identify with the concept of liberalism are actually quite conservative. Think about the word: if you want to conserve or preserve something (character of the neighborhood, for example), if you are skeptical of change and hesitant to take risks, if you lean towards isolationism, or are opposed to free trade, you are a conservative. Many here, while presenting themselves as liberal, have in fact been espousing very conservative views. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's important to get the terminology right.

There is a big difference between socialism and liberalism, even though we often inaccurately equate the two. Socialism emphasizes equality, stability, constistency, the rights of the group over the individual, and self-sufficiency. Liberalism emphasizes openness, freedom, tolerance, change and progress, and gives priority to the individual over the group.

It strikes me that most of the lefty posters on this board are socialists, not liberals. We're just afraid to use that word in the U.S. b/c it's stigmatized.

I definitely agree with escap. We have a strong need for new terminology/a better understanding of current political divisions in this country.

It drives me crazy that the majority of people who claim to be "conservative" are the first ones to go for laws that restrict personal freedoms FAR more than the laws "liberals" want. I can't understand how a person can at once rail against the government for being too controlling because it is (for example) trying to keep AK-47s out of the hands of mental patients, but lobby wholeheartedly for laws that restrict what an individual can do with his or her own body in his or her own private life!

I know this is a blanket statement, but I hope you know what I mean.

Subject: Re: semantics

escap wrote: For the record, I dislike the term libertarian. It's a contrived term that just means liberal, because in America we're too afraid to say "socialists" and instead call socialists liberals, even though they're really not.

What are we so afraid of about saying "Socialist"? Because it carries a vague McCarthy-ish stigma? Whats so bad about that? Cause it makes people start humming Imagine?

I'm a Socialist. I am what most people would call "liberal", but I hate the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" so much... as well as their automatic implications of "Republican" and "Democrat", especially since I don't ascribe to the majority of what either the Conservatives or Liberals would call their core platform.

This past election, I voted for Kerry under the Socialist party-line. That way, Kerry got my vote, and the Socialist party got another tally in their column (which effects them staying on the ballot in future elections, btw, this is why its important... its a longer-term goal than mostAmericans can deal with staying true to). When/if the Socialist party ever puts together a candidate that has any chance of making waves, I'll vote straight Socialist, and hopefully leave the proto-american-conservative-liberal-republican-democrat clusterfuck behind!

My parents are both southerners, and would most likely be called "Conservatives" nowadays... but they are Socialist to the core, despite how anyone could ever label their spiritual/political/social views. Its just all semantics...

...and semantics are a bitch! Be proud to be Socialists, if you swing that way... and be proud that you can exist under a different- yet still very much respected and all-American- label! 8)

I would like to bring up two things that i haven't read in this thread. First off all regarding Iraq its stricking that none has brought up the fact that we supported Saddam. Rumsfield has been photogrpahed shaking his hand. In fact we allowed the killing and gasing that Saddam perpetrated until he attacked one of our (the united states) interests: Kuwait. Osama Bin laden was trained by the CIA. These people were trained, aided and supplied with weapons by our country until it did not suit our needs.
In fact Bin Laden demanded three things after the attack: withdrawal of troops from saudi arabia, ending of the occupation in palestine, and an end to the sanctions in iraq which were hurting its people and children. This was not "hating our freedom."
As a country it seems impossible that we can ever be "safe" if we ignore the reasons these actions are not being committed. does this justify them-of course not, but if you're ill you treat the cause and not the symtpoms. The fact of the matter is that we in this country could have used $300 billion for food, education, health care. Ever person in the world could have fresh water to drink for 1/300th of that amount of money. Bag checks are but a small added part of our lives, trying to maintain the idea of, but not the reality of security and resolution.

Bluedove, not to be repetitive but my point is that many policies supported by the right wing that are labeled "conservative" are actually anything but that. In fact, the extreme right wing, while it has many conservative social values, also has a distinct anarchist streak, which is the extreme opposite of conservatism. Small govt, guns for everyone, etc., are not conservative values at all. And I agree with you that they are hypocrites.

As for the "war on terror", America's bloody hands, who's to blame, etc., I think the argument over who's right and who's wrong morally is completely subjective and essentially a waste of time. Ideally, we should be trying to make peace with the enemy. If the, "we won't bother you if you don't bother us" strategy works, I'm all for it. However, the pessimistic side of me believes that even if America were to back off, leave the Islamic world alone and always take the high road (which we should do anyway), our enemies might not be so gracious. In that case, it's not about who's right or wrong, it's just about whose side you're on.

escap wrote: Bluedove, not to be repetitive but my point is that many policies supported by the right wing that are labeled "conservative" are actually anything but that. In fact, the extreme right wing, while it has many conservative social values, also has a distinct anarchist streak, which is the extreme opposite of conservatism. Small govt, guns for everyone, etc., are not conservative values at all. And I agree with you that they are hypocrites.

I know...I agree with you. Sorry if I was unclear, but what you said is what I meant. The labels "liberal" and "conservative" have almost become meaningless because so many ideologies that people stuff into these two little words are completely contradictory. Might as well start calling it "red" and "blue".

Well, and then you get into the whole (very good) argument that the REAL way to end all this is to start weaning ourselves off of oil dependency! I mean, it's the smart thing to do regardless of current events since it's not a renewable resource and will run out eventually

agree, %100 and advocate daily for the gov to put $ into renewable energy.
the irony and hypocrisy of it all is that according to the ASPO-Assoc. for the Peack Oil and Gas, what we are in danger of doing is using up oil so quickly that we cannot physically keep pace with the demand in our harvesting techniques, and not that oil will run out. (greedy bastards!)
so it's a perfect time to advocate and put money into renewable resources...and not build more refineries. the money is going to be spent either way...the only difference is in who will make the money from the production and the sale.
opec, unocal, bushies...guess who's in charge all over the world?

How about a Politics Forum?

I'd say I'm more centered politically than most of my friends which is kind of scary because I'm pretty left wing. I am starting to see the Libertarian light though.

bluedove wrote: [quote=Alex]That would be nice if we could just leave them alone, but I agree with you we don't have much of a choice. Our economy is based on oil so we are forced to deal with them.

Well, and then you get into the whole (very good) argument that the REAL way to end all this is to start weaning ourselves off of oil dependency! I mean, it's the smart thing to do regardless of current events since it's not a renewable resource and will run out eventually whether we have learned to live without it at that point or not...the war and all the issues surrounding it only make the case stronger.

Of course, that's a VERY hard sell in our car- and foreign-goods-dependant culture, and the pragmatist in me is pretty sure absolutely nothing in the way of change in demand will happen until it's forced to by the cease of supply.

At least we will be able to count on your blue vote in a red state.

Subject: Re: semantics

rhodamine wrote: semantics are a bitch

Exactly.

So, in this case, I think we have to be very careful when using the word "conservative" and lumping all "conservatives" into one homogenous pot: Social Conservative; Fiscal Conservative; Christian Conservative; Paleoconservative; Neonconservative ... all the way to what I think is the most extreme form of conservatism: Nationalism (and its corollaries nazi-ism, stalinism ... totalitarianism ...)

There is a spectrum. And within the spectrum there is fluidity. There are so many "brands" ... and the one term we hear bandied about these days ... "neocon" ... is actually a movement that in some respects aimed to move conservatism somewhat to the LEFT. Now it's the "neocons" who are being vilified as the "hard-right" conservative hawks.

What is it that William Kristol said? ... "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged ..." Or as an economics professor of mine once, hmmm, professed (exaggerating, of course): all young men are liberals, all old men are conservative. Do I agree with these off-the-cuff statements, no. Do I think there is a kernel of truth there? Perhaps yes.

And, by the way ... the same argument holds for the term "liberal."