Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush Mandate: reality or manmade myth
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 45 (158311)
11-11-2004 7:45 AM


conservatism and liberalism
I just wanted to offer these (to me) interesting commentaries on the state of conservative and liberal ideaologies in the US. These are short blog articles by David Gerrold, who is no more important than a moderately succesful SF writer. Nonetheless, it goes some way to demsonstrating that the perception of the debasement of American political debate is not only the percpetion of outsiders. Furthermore, Gerrold describes himself as an "old fashioned fiscal conservative" which makes his commentary all the more interesting.
Page not found | Gerrold
sections "the vision thing" (conservatism) and "the vision thing revisited".
quote:
The problem with defining liberalism is not quite the same problem as defining conservatism. Close, but not the same. If the conservatives have lost a clear sense of who they are and what they stand for, then the problem for liberals is doubly so. Not only have they lost their vision -- but conservatives have filled that vacuum for them. The conservatives in this country have redefined liberal to mean "tax-and-spend, government-inflating, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, tattooed, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show," as well as "godless, pinko, queer-loving, gun-grabbing, abortion-loving, socialistic, anti-war, soft-on-terrorism, bleeding heart, special-interest, tree-hugging, white-wine-sipping, tofu-loving, vegans with perky tits." (Okay, I made up the part about perky tits. Nobody is all bad. Even Mel Brooks acknowledges that Hitler was a good dancer.)

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 45 (158332)
11-11-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Loudmouth
11-09-2004 3:47 PM


Re: Extrapolation from Definition
quote:
It looks like moderates are on the outs, and the extremists (from both sides of the aisle) are going to control the soap box for awhile.
"Extremists" from the left side of the aisle?
There are communists and socialists in congress?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 11-09-2004 3:47 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 11-12-2004 3:45 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 45 (158363)
11-11-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by contracycle
11-11-2004 7:29 AM


Actually my argument is that they are real for MORE than 51% of the population
I don't see how you could know this. You certainly have not shown it with any evidence. It is too easy to stereotype, and a bit more difficult to set assumptions aside and try to get to the reality.
While many people (everywhere) are simple, and vote very simplistically, when it comes to politics in america I don't think you can say 51% of everyone, much less 51% of the voting population are simply bigots.
EVEN many democrats hold conservative, reactionary ideas that criticise affirmative action, pour scorn on progressive movements like feminism or unionisation, and uncritically repeat McCarthyist propaganda.
In this statement you have already brushed aside some of the counterexamples (republican examples at that) which I have given. Indeed Bush's new pick for Attorney General, while corrupt in many ways, is actually a social moderate and for abortion rights and affirmitive action.
I think you should drop the term "McCarthyist" from your arguments. It really is inappropriate and makes your statements look like they came out of a timecapsule. There are certainly people that have "McCarthyist" tendencies, by which I mean using his techniques of rousing hatred against any group outside their own, and some may even hold his stated opinions of communism. But it is not that widespread a phenomenon, and if combined would pretty much look silly. The communist and union baiting of the past is still well in the past.
The centre of American politics is substantially to the right of the centre of European politics
This is not true at all. With the exception of a greater tolerance for sexuality, and socialist programs (and even this is waning), they are pretty much the same. And the trend is heading right. About the only nations I do not see trending that way are Spain and Sweden.
Certainly Italy, Britain, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Austria, Norway, and to some extent France, have moved against social programs and for greater intolerance for minority cultures.
The anti-communist hysteria of the last century destroyed any cogent leftist programme and replaced it with a set of nationalistic truisms.
You are correct that the hysteria produced an environment such that people have to argue for a liberal economic programs, rather than defend such a program from detractors. Liberal economic programs are not assumed to be true, and often assumed to generate negatives.
I still can't believe we (meaning a mjority of the US) are now against public social security programs in general, and people are willing to believe their future should be trusted on the stock market. That is ridiculous... almost patently so, given the reason we had it in the first place.
Kerry was reduced to offering to do he same as Bush only more elegantly - for which he was justifiably laughed at.
This is not true. Kerry had a solid plan for healthcare, which even if not truly socialist and all encompassing, was still a great alternative. I think his program was really never recognized for how good it was. He was also going to keep social security off of the roullette wheel.
This is not to mention the tenor of the administration he would have, by not setting agenda driven neocons in prime posts. I would trust him to create a better intelligence and security situation.
the war in Iraq would go on
At this point it has to doesn't it? The nature of it could have been changed under a nonBush administration, but everyone actually has to continue what was started in some fashion. The only other alternative is to drop it like we did Afghanistan last century, and that came around to bite everyone in the ass.
Do you have some alternative?
the phoney war against terror would go on
This is also not a very realistic criticism is it? Even if one felt AlQueda had reason to do what it did on 9-11, the point cannot be lost that they are engaged in a struggle against the US. It is an active "shooting war".
There is nothing phony about it.
Unless you have an alternative?
American imperilaism and base expansion would go on, affirmative action would still be criticised as PC, unions would still be criticised as "labour monopolies", American capitalism would remain unchallenged.
Sadly this rings true. Although I must say that the last point is not the duty of the american public.
the ideological centre would remain unmoved.
I think the ideological center would have shifted somewhat to the left if Kerry had produced results with some new programs. For example his healthcare plan might have made people realize there really isn't a reason to believe for-profit healthcare is the only answer. They may have also enjoyed a boost in their incomes due to salary protections.
If he had been able to finesse something in Iraq, or provided a greater sense of security in general through diplomatic or focused military actions, this would have removed perhaps the longest reaching scar liberals carry, and that is that they are incapable of handling foreign policy.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by contracycle, posted 11-11-2004 7:29 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 8:03 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 45 (158642)
11-12-2004 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
11-11-2004 11:01 AM


quote:
While many people (everywhere) are simple, and vote very simplistically, when it comes to politics in america I don't think you can say 51% of everyone, much less 51% of the voting population are simply bigots.
I certainly cannot and claim that it is statistically sound. I can say that the overwhelming majority of Americans I have encountered on the net are more right wing than most members of the south african national party circa 1980. And that on that basis I can quite succesfully predict lines of political argument, and to a lesser extent foreign policy.
quote:
I think you should drop the term "McCarthyist" from your arguments. It really is inappropriate and makes your statements look like they came out of a timecapsule. There are certainly people that have "McCarthyist" tendencies, by which I mean using his techniques of rousing hatred against any group outside their own, and some may even hold his stated opinions of communism. But it is not that widespread a phenomenon, and if combined would pretty much look silly. The communist and union baiting of the past is still well in the past.
Hahaha.
You turn your head, you turn your face, you say "that can't be true"
You stay safe locked up in your prefab world becuase you know it can't happen to you
Just wait till it happens to you
- Anti-Flag
How is it in the past? Again you are resorting to America's special identity rather than looking at the reality. And yet you say these are "innapropriate" and out of a "time capsule". Go on then, wallow in American fascism, under exactly the same delusion that at heart the US is a liberal state that I first identified.
quote:
This is not true at all. With the exception of a greater tolerance for sexuality, and socialist programs (and even this is waning), they are pretty much the same. And the trend is heading right. About the only nations I do not see trending that way are Spain and Sweden.
A liberal group of Euro MP's managed to have the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione to an EU cultural position reversed because he expressed the opinion that gays were sinful. He's catholic. YOU have frothing fanatics on the open air waves calling for gods wrath to strike gays down, and apparently likely to pass a law formally defining marriage as between male and female.
The United States launched its brutal invasion of Irtaq based entirely on domestic propaganda and racism: concelaing the truth, lying about WMD, exploiting national grief, tarring anyone who dares defend their homes as "insurgents", encourouging francophobia, and levelling the hystericall slipsist charge of "anti-americanism". Its not just the demonising of the other happesn from time to time - its America's basic modus operandi.
McCarthyism is alive and well and still poluting American politics, as universal American ignorance of Marxism, and parrot-like repititions of McCarthy's lies demonstrate uncontrovertibly.
quote:
I still can't believe we (meaning a mjority of the US) are now against public social security programs in general, and people are willing to believe their future should be trusted on the stock market. That is ridiculous... almost patently so, given the reason we had it in the first place.
Well, I don't know why you find it ridiculous - that is exactly the ideology that America has been exporting for nearly a hundred years - that in fact is exactly what "liberal economics" means. And this is also why, under US influence, the WTO has imposed MAXIMUM national spending limits on third world states. So Ethiopia frex is prevented by the WTO from spending more than $10 per annum per head on health care.
What you can't believe is what America is. I say again - stop referring to the ideal of America as it should be, and start dealing with the reality.
quote:
t this point it has to doesn't it? The nature of it could have been changed under a nonBush administration, but everyone actually has to continue what was started in some fashion. The only other alternative is to drop it like we did Afghanistan last century, and that came around to bite everyone in the ass.
And how long have the people of the world been saying "Yankee go home"? OF COURSE you can leave. Yes, you would then have to bear the guilt of the mess you left behind, but the alternative is war forever and thousands upon thousands more butchered civilians.
And afghanistan didn't come and bite everyone on the arse - some of America's victims struck back at the bully, that is all. You have only yourselves to blame.
quote:
This is also not a very realistic criticism is it? Even if one felt AlQueda had reason to do what it did on 9-11, the point cannot be lost that they are engaged in a struggle against the US. It is an active "shooting war".
People being shot does not a war make. America is not at war - its citizens go about their daily business without fear of death, unlike those in Iraq. America is merely in the grip of propagandist war hysteria. America is merely invading other states at its whim. America is not under threat; it is not fighting to defend itself; it is not exposed to any serious strategic risk. America can stop at any time, but CHOOSES to go on murdering and butchering.
I have lived in a much more real guerilla war, and to claim the American experience is of "war" is frankly offensive and absurd. Now that I look back on it, being 33, I calculate I have lived all of 3 years of my life in which my resident state was not involved in a fake "war against terror" - its purely a propaganda exercise to justify international bullying. There is no war.
quote:
Sadly this rings true. Although I must say that the last point is not the duty of the american public.
Well then don't be suprised when people hit you back. See previous commentary on America as a corrupt kleptocracy unfit to keep the company of civilised states.
quote:
focused military actions, this would have removed perhaps the longest reaching scar liberals carry, and that is that they are incapable of handling foreign policy.
Yes, but why do they carry that scar? Because of the doctrine of McCarthyist hysteria which brought us Vietnam among others - the doctrine that America's divine purpose to stamp its will on all the world at gunpoint, be that in Vietnam or Nicaragua or Iraq. Liberals carry this "scar" only becuase the general public is so keenly militarist, and reflexively reject a normal, sane approach to war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 11-11-2004 11:01 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by 1.61803, posted 11-12-2004 10:59 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2004 11:16 AM contracycle has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 35 of 45 (158690)
11-12-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by contracycle
11-12-2004 8:03 AM


contracycle writes:
There is no
war

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 8:03 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2004 11:21 AM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 39 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 11:58 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 45 (158699)
11-12-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by contracycle
11-12-2004 8:03 AM


I can say that the overwhelming majority of Americans I have encountered on the net are more right wing than most members of the south african national party circa 1980. And that on that basis I can quite succesfully predict lines of political argument, and to a lesser extent foreign policy.
I can also predict lines of foreign policy without using the information you claim to use. Whether yours is a valid criteria for predicting online political arguments, and foreign policy is at best one thing... it is another to claim this means you know what americans are like.
Your arguments have had the duality of claiming that people have no power over the government, and then at other times making everyone not just complicit but morally supportive of government policies and actions.
Once again 49% of the voting population were against current policy. That is quite a number of americans. If the voting maps are any indicator, your criticisms are best made regarding people within geographic regions of the US, and not as a blanket criticism of all or even the majority.
Again you are resorting to America's special identity rather than looking at the reality. And yet you say these are "innapropriate" and out of a "time capsule". Go on then, wallow in American fascism, under exactly the same delusion that at heart the US is a liberal state that I first identified.
Number one I don't think that the US, especially right now, is a liberal state. Perhaps you can find where I said such a thing? You keep labelling me with an identity rather than looking at my reality.
Second, I am being accurate in my description of McCarthyism. The methods of McCarthy were old even when McCarthy used them, and they are obviously still alive. The term McCarthyism is now used primarily as a negative statement regarding such methods. There was of course his target and his villification of communism. You continue to attach that meaning to the term and label Americans with it, and that is simply not real.
I have already said that we are in a position where social programs must be fought for rather than treated with an objective analysis. In this way the US as a nation is still returning from the heights of the McCarthy brainwashing campaigns against social programs. However to state that the majority of americans are McCarthyist towards social programs or communism, and buy into his arguments... that just isn't true.
You have communists on college campuses and on the streets delivering tracts. Unions are around and are not completely blackballed socially. Some of my close relatives were relatively high level union reps and there was power in this.
Your criticisms look like they came out of the 1950's because they simply do not reflect the reality of life in the US. It is that simple.
A liberal group of Euro MP's managed to have the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione to an EU cultural position reversed because he expressed the opinion that gays were sinful.
You apparently missed the part where I said that Europeans were better about sexuality. Last time I checked, being gay was a sexual thing.
What you failed to mention is that European leaders are increasing references to Christianity and the adoption of Xian norms. They are also undercutting social programs in favor of privatization. And many are also for greater militarization. These are nonsexual issues where nations are trending right.
The United States launched its brutal invasion of Irtaq based entirely on domestic propaganda and racism
You don't need to tell me this. And yes, McCarthyist methods were used. This is different than saying people avidly hate communism for X, Y, and Z.
What you can't believe is what America is. I say again - stop referring to the ideal of America as it should be, and start dealing with the reality.
I can't believe people are buying into a quick bucks scheme, like people that play lotto rather than opening a savings account. That is different than what you are talking about.
Your game is over already contra, and you are just ruining your return to good posting form. You have absolutely no knowledge of what the US is like and it is embarassing to read your statements.
You have a negative ideal of the US and use any evidence as proof you are right. Heck, you've already made it clear that whoever was elected, it was a sign that americans are wrong.
I am not under any illusion that the american public is liberal. Especially regarding sexual issues, they are hardcore prudes. Unfortunately that is starting to sweep the globe as well. But then you are supposedly against everything the US stands for and are also a hardcore prude (based on our earlier arguments).
There is a difference between being not very liberal, and vastly conservative.
Yes, you would then have to bear the guilt of the mess you left behind, but the alternative is war forever and thousands upon thousands more butchered civilians.
Unless of course a stable and popular government is put in place. I don't think this is an impossible state of affairs, though it may take a bit. The main problem will be for the US, when it turns out a free Iraq does not have to be gracious, nor does it have to follow whatever we say.
If we drop pursuing the setup of a stable government, won't the result simply be a longer period of butchery?
And afghanistan didn't come and bite everyone on the arse - some of America's victims struck back at the bully, that is all. You have only yourselves to blame.
Britain screwed around with it first, then the soviets, and finally the Americans and most of the western European nations. Every time Afghanistan was treated as a pawn and disposed with afterward.
This last round religious fanaticism was flamed in order to get what the US and western nations desired. It certainly did come to bite everyone in the ass. Al Queda and various extremist organizations are global in scope and attacking all over the place. Even the internal politics of many African nations is not free of this manifestation.
People being shot does not a war make.
Well this gets into a symantics issue and one that I'd largely end up agreeing with you. 9-11 was not necessarily the beginning of a military war. However it most certainly was a form of warfare.
The "enemy" in this case was an organization and not a state. You are absolutely correct that the US is in no ways about to lose everything and get taken over. That is part of the hysteria that Bush and co fomented in order to get their way. No question.
Yet an organization may still engage in a form of warfare, covert warfare. That's the same as with criminal organizations and foreign intelligence agencies. Indeed this is much like if the KGB was actively sabotaging the mainland US and we had to stop it.
Or for a real life example, the covert Nazi intelligence programs that were run against the US.
In addition, in pursuing AQ, it became necessary to engage in actual military warfare against the Taliban regime. To that limited extent it became real military war.
But in any case, AQ does consider this a war. They call it a war. And they are mobilizing assets in a way to take the lives of citizens. It becomes necessary for us to respond in some way.
I see no problem with our engaging an destroying them. Do you? If so, what is your solution?
Well then don't be suprised when people hit you back.
They should hit back at us. I already commented somewhere that the US is in need of a serious bitchslapping to put it back in place on foreign policy.
Of course this "hitting back" does not have to be literal, in the sense of doing physical harm to Americans or the US in general. What needs to happen is for nations to band together and when the US is wrong, standing firm and not getting bought out.
The US can certainly be influenced if enough nations actually work against US interests. Although I feel I should caveat this a bit more. I am not saying they should do this just to spite the US, but where it is necessary to check US unilateralism and bullying.
Because of the doctrine of McCarthyist hysteria which brought us Vietnam
This is a clear indication of your simply being out of touch with what America is. You are correct only that communist paranoia eventually led to wars like Vietnam.
Liberals being weak on defense is a product of americans choosing to believe style over substance. Liberals have for a long time tended to portray themselves as products of the late 60's. Thus they are hippy-ish.
It does not help that many people that are actually hippyish (or lets say left radical) tend to be vocal and side with liberal causes and even moderates as they approach accepting liberal issues.
For some reasons cultures go back and forth like pendulums and right now we are swinging back to the right and such things are getting less and less popular.
You can see this kind of BS in the way paisano seemed more concerned about who Michael Moore was supporting, than the actual platform of the guy he was supporting. Even Ed Koch (this last weekend on CNN) stated that the Democrats made a mistake in not having Kerry publically criticize people like Whoopi Goldberg and Michael Moore.
Because liberal organizations have many radical anti-military types associated with them, the guilt by association thing has dragged liberal organizations into the realm of being seen as inherently weak on military (and intelligence) issues.
I guess this is to say that a liberal representative will by necessity have to keep his constituents happy and so not be strong militarily. Whereas a conservative has a center-right base which can only err on the side of military surplus and thus his pandering to his constituents will not leave us weak.
It is all very silly and stupid, but that is the real problem that America is facing. It is not that people are radical McCarthyites, it is that they are becoming less interested in facts and logic and would rather base everything on style and emotion.
Liberals look funny and sound critical, therefore they must be radicals and hate america. They talk about peace and alternatives to war, therefore (especially when bated by politicians that this is true) they must be for making us lose wars rather than fight them.
You need to lose your ideal and deal with the reality. It is actually a much more pathetic "foe" that you are dealing with. This is not a clash of ideologies, just apathy combined with a growing anti-intellectual movement which happens to be sweeping the planet... and a rise in religious fundamentalists who are not apathetic (also global).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 8:03 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 45 (158702)
11-12-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by 1.61803
11-12-2004 10:59 AM


You missed his point. 9-11 was not the beginning of a war in the traditional sense.
Iraq was a real war, but... as has been proven beyond any possible denial except to the true believer... had nothing to do with 9-11.
If we wanted to pursue the enemy it was not in Iraq.
Whether it ends up helping Iraqis in the long run has yet to be seen. I hope so because I have Iraqi friends. Of course that still says nothing about whether they will side with us on other foreign policy issues once they have a stable government in place. For example this invasion was supposed to help Israel because Saddam was for the Palestinians. Guaranteed most average Iraqis are for the Palestinians even after they've been "liberated" by the US.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by 1.61803, posted 11-12-2004 10:59 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 45 (158720)
11-12-2004 11:55 AM


quote:
it is another to claim this means you know what americans are like.
You put your pants on one leg at time.
What makes you think Americans are so opaque, holmes? I have caught you out resorting to American exceptionalism again. Americans are people just like everywhere else.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2004 2:29 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 45 (158724)
11-12-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by 1.61803
11-12-2004 10:59 AM


1.68, you lost 6,000 citizens in industrial accidents this year, is that a war?
Certainly, the US is killing a bunch of people. But it is simply not at war.
And as for your photo, for a breif period after the war there was this level of support. But guess what - just as predicted, as soon as the emptiness of American proimises became clear, opinion shifted the other way.
Which just might, maybe, possibly, I suggest, be why they are trying to drive you out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by 1.61803, posted 11-12-2004 10:59 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2004 2:38 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 45 (158791)
11-12-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by contracycle
11-12-2004 11:55 AM


I have caught you out resorting to American exceptionalism again. Americans are people just like everywhere else.
Reread your posts. You are the one arguing that americans are exceptions to the rest of the world. I realize you may believe it is because they have been duped rather than being inherent, but that is your argument.
I am arguing they are like everyone else. The political center is not vastly to the right of Europe, and they are not almost entirely racist, sexist, religious bigots.
Like everyone else in the world you cannot generalize who they are from the criteria you laid out. It is also true that you cannot really know what their day to day behavior and culture is like without going and seeing it.
That last one is the same mistake most americans make all the time. It is part of the anti-intellectual movement sweeping the globe.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 11:55 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by contracycle, posted 11-24-2004 6:18 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 45 (158797)
11-12-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by contracycle
11-12-2004 11:58 AM


But guess what - just as predicted, as soon as the emptiness of American proimises became clear, opinion shifted the other way.
There were many people against the invasion beforehand, yet there were many for it. Afterward there were still many for and many against.
Things seem to indicate that while they do not like occupation and hate the way Bush and Co have bungled the day to day operations the majority are grateful for the invasion and having had Hussein removed.
Indeed there are plenty of insurgents who are not even Iraqi, rather foreign forces hoping to either hit american troops or somehow influence the future government of Iraq. There are many many Iraqis who hate them just as much as the occupation.
Remember at this point it is regular Iraqis getting targeted and hit day to day, even more than US troops. You really think they hate us more than them?
Which just might, maybe, possibly, I suggest, be why they are trying to drive you out.
They? You mean the nonIraqis targeting Iraqis and American troops? I mean it is Iraqis that are getting "driven out" as you call it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 11:58 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 45 (158832)
11-12-2004 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
11-11-2004 9:00 AM


Re: Extrapolation from Definition
quote:
"Extremists" from the left side of the aisle?
There are communists and socialists in congress?
I meant extremist in the American sense, not the European connotation. This would include pulling out of Iraq immediately, ceding certain powers to the UN, universal health care, major increases in taxes, a major reduction in the military with more reliance on allies for national defense, and a few more I can't think of at the moment. You are right of course, the real left extremists are socialists and communists, a slight overlook on my part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 11-11-2004 9:00 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 11-12-2004 6:05 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 45 (158871)
11-12-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Loudmouth
11-12-2004 3:45 PM


Re: Extrapolation from Definition
quote:
I meant extremist in the American sense, not the European connotation. This would include pulling out of Iraq immediately, ceding certain powers to the UN, universal health care, major increases in taxes, a major reduction in the military with more reliance on allies for national defense, and a few more I can't think of at the moment.
OK, I see.
But, who on the left is saying anything like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 11-12-2004 3:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 45 (159121)
11-13-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by contracycle
11-11-2004 6:57 AM


contracyle responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Like hell they must. The point of being the loyal opposition is to be in opposition. If Bush is going to take his re-election as license to do whatever the hell he wants and completely wreck the very idea of what it means to be an American, then it is up to those who oppose him to stand up to him and fight against him, to convince those in the majority that they have backed the wrong horse.
Well thats great stuff but what does it mean? That you write to your congress-critter? Dedicate yourself to making sure a democrat fills any vacancies that arise in congress or senate? Start working now for election 2008?
Yes, and more. You don't let those in power off the hook. The Senate does not have a filibuster-proof majority. The Democrats can keep legislation deadlocked forever if they refuse to knuckle under. They can stop every single one of Bush's appointments if they appear to be right-wing ideologues such as Alberto Gonzales.
Bush has laid down the gauntlet: I was given political capital and now I'm going to spend it. The Democrats have every opportunity to make sure that he has to spend it all in order to get the most miniscule of returns. This insane notion that they have to "pick and choose their battles" is ridiculous. They're in the minority and they have the power to block the majority. For crying out loud, DO IT. This idea that they can only block some but not all is inane. If Bush really wants to be this "uniter" he claimed to be four years ago, then the Democrats had better make sure that Bush and the Republicans come to them.
They have the power. They are simply unwilling to use it. Take Alberto Gonzales. They should raising holy hell that Bush would dare to nominate such an odious person for the job of AG. A man who thought torture was a good thing? Who claimed that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint"? Who when presenting death penalty cases to then Governor Bush somehow managed to forget to include EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE? This is the guy Bush wants running the Justice Department? No friggin' way! And if the right is going to live by the morality card, the left had better make sure they die by it. Point out the absolute immorality of Gonzales's position. Torture is ungodly. Gonzales wants to put our soldiers in mortal danger by abandoning the treaties that we have signed that might protect them. What did the Bible say about going back on your word? Killing somebody who is innocent? How many commandments does that break? For someone who supposedly respects the sanctity of life, he's doing a bang-up job of getting people who have absolutely no respect for it in power.
Every single time a Democrat steps in front of a camera, they need to beat the Republicans at their own game of repeating the same message and never, ever wavering from it: The Republicans represent a culture of death.
quote:
Fantastic - Bush still has 4 years of untramelled freedom to exercise the political mandate he has or claims to have.
No, he doesn't. The Senate is filibuster-proof. And if the media were actually "neutral" and not simply scared and lazy, they could make life major hell for Bush. Every time he gives a press conference and every time he avoids a real question, the very next reporter needs to stand up and say, "I'm sorry, Mr. President, but you didn't answer the question. I have the same question and would like an actual answer to it, please." And so on and so on down the row until he either answers the question or it becomes extremely obvious that he simply considers himself above judgement by the people whom he supposedly serves. What's he gonna do? Put everybody in the back of the press room so that there isn't anybody left to ask a question except the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and the various other right-wing media outlets? And then the media needs to honestly report that: "At the press conference today, President Bush refused to answer questions given to him regarding X, Y, and Z." That isn't "biased." That's honest. If Bush is asked a question about jobs and he goes off on a tangent about No Child Left Behind, he needs to be called on it. Someone needs to say that it isn't an answer.
quote:
You can't challenge that mandate without walking right into a criticism of being anti-democratic, and probably in the present climate, anti-american.
Then grow some balls. Of course you're going to be accused of all of that. Get over it and learn how to turn it back on them. Point out that this country was founded on the presumption that we as the citizenry have the right to question our leaders. That they are in power solely at our discretion. Start invoking those wonderful leaders of our past. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." Start calling names back. Those who would dare to question the right of the people to demand justification from their duly elected leaders are communists and fascists. They don't want democracy. They want a dictator.
Yes, it's hyperbole, but they won't respond to anything else. Look at their methods of communication. They're already calling us communists. Why do we sit and take it? We have logic on our side. If they will only respond to hyper-emotional words like "communist," then we need to start throwing those words around and, using that logic that we have, show them how they are doing exactly what they claim to be so against.
And never, ever stop. We don't care about their feelings. They're WRONG plain and simple. There is no sympathy for those who are wrong and refuse to change.
quote:
This is not to say you cannot argue - but this all you will be able to do for 4 years.
Bullshit. You are only as powerful as you're willing to act. Democrats and others on the left are unwilling to act.
quote:
Even if you persuaded a simple majority of americans that Bush's agenda was counterproductive, you still could not dispose of him without an impeachment process as far as I am aware.
So let's do it. He lied to the American people about the justification for war leading to a complete trashing of the economy, budget deficits we will be paying back for generations, and the callous disregard for American life as he sends young men and women to their death for no justifiable reason. If those aren't "high crimes and misdemeanors," what else is?
If you aren't pissed off by what this man has done, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
You put enough pressure on the bottom, the top will bust.
Alas, not enough people want to do that. We got the government we deserve.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by contracycle, posted 11-11-2004 6:57 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 45 (162852)
11-24-2004 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
11-12-2004 2:29 PM


quote:
Reread your posts. You are the one arguing that americans are exceptions to the rest of the world. I realize you may believe it is because they have been duped rather than being inherent, but that is your argument.
Eh? Where? All I have argued is that America is not possessed of any moral halo.
quote:
I am arguing they are like everyone else. The political center is not vastly to the right of Europe, and they are not almost entirely racist, sexist, religious bigots. Like everyone else in the world you cannot generalize who they are from the criteria you laid out. It is also true that you cannot really know what their day to day behavior and culture is like without going and seeing it.
Its also by-and-large irrelevant. The fact that many ordinary germans went about their daily business without committing a racist hate crime against jews in 1939 does not mitigate the presence of an anti-semitic culture that was actively or tacitly endorsed.
quote:
Things seem to indicate that while they do not like occupation and hate the way Bush and Co have bungled the day to day operations the majority are grateful for the invasion and having had Hussein removed.
Well no kidding. The fact of the matter though was that before the invasion, most Iraqi's lived in daily peace. After the invasion, they live in fear; furthermore, raqcist American troops using overwhelming firepower against civilian areas is producing the reaciton that this always produces - a widening or resistance.
quote:
Indeed there are plenty of insurgents who are not even Iraqi, rather foreign forces hoping to either hit american troops or somehow influence the future government of Iraq. There are many many Iraqis who hate them just as much as the occupation.
Evidence please? The figures given for Falluja I saw were an estimated 2,500 resistance fighters with "a couple of hundred" foreigners. Furthermore, in a globalised world, why is this unreasonable? International Brigades operated against Fasicm in Spain, too, for example, and the US was quite happy to work alongside foreign fighters from the very same mujahadeen among the KLA in Kosovo not so long ago.
Insurgent, like terrorist, is a propaganda term in circulation in the west. These people are properly resistance fighters, and if we lived up to our declared principles we would not be afraid to descrivbe them as such. It has, of course, been previously used, equally dishonestly, in Vietnam.
quote:
Remember at this point it is regular Iraqis getting targeted and hit day to day, even more than US troops. You really think they hate us more than them?
Without a shadow of a doubt. I find the idea that a foerieng invasion force should garener more sympathy than demosteic resistance utterly ubsurd and illogical.
quote:
They? You mean the nonIraqis targeting Iraqis and American troops? I mean it is Iraqis that are getting "driven out" as you call it.
No, I mean Iraqis. The vast majority of people fighting the US are Iraqi's, defending their homes, their families, and their national independance. This much was inevitable, and I predicted it before the war began. Put yourself in their shoes: if the Soviet Union had invaded the US in 1975 claiming to liberate the people, do you think that the majority of people would have accepted that?
{Plus, the contempt displayed by US forces for Iraqi civilians makes it abunmdantly clear that the US never, ever, had the interests of Iraqis at heart. Why then should you expect ordinary Iraqi's to be on your side, just becuase the ex-CIA-man Allawi comes and does a dog-and-pony show on TV? Its nonsense.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-24-2004 06:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2004 2:29 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024