-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
Send an Email!
- Thread starter SemperReformanda
- Start date
D. Scarlatti-
I'm glad she feels bad for the war dead. I'm being honest about how the soldiers I served with felt about the sort of people who try to undercut what the military is fighting for and then weep crocodile tears for them. If you can't support them when they're alive, then your support for them dead rings a little hollow.
Brimshack-
You made a point! That's encouraging.
Of course if you were consistent you would also say that all those conservatives who didn't back intervention in Hati, Bosnia, or Mogadishu deserve the same critcism.
I thought the backbiting that conservatives did during the Serbia intervention was wretched. As for Mogadishu, a quick history lesson. Bush '41 initiated the Somalia action. All of the conservatives I knew, and the soldiers I was serving with, supported the action. It had a definite goal, a timetable, and a realistic plan. When Clinton came in office all of these went out the window. He literally sent more tanks to Waco than he did to Mogadishu. The criticism that the soldiers and conservatives were making was legitimate--we were poorly supported and the new plan was unrealistic. But the conservative mainstream wasn't against the Mogadishu action initially, only what it turned into. Which was a fiasco.
As for Haiti, are you really going to make the case that we were re-instating a worthwhile leader there?
And again, I have stated many times that I don't think a military intervention is advisable or necessary in the vast majority of cases in the world. The nature of the regime, the scope of the depradations, the duration of the problem, the threat to regional stability and the imperviousness of the existing regime to diplomatic and economic pressure all militated for this solution. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other human rights abusers are entirely different situations, and should be dealt with differently. War is a last resort, not a default.
I'm glad she feels bad for the war dead. I'm being honest about how the soldiers I served with felt about the sort of people who try to undercut what the military is fighting for and then weep crocodile tears for them. If you can't support them when they're alive, then your support for them dead rings a little hollow.
Brimshack-
You made a point! That's encouraging.
Of course if you were consistent you would also say that all those conservatives who didn't back intervention in Hati, Bosnia, or Mogadishu deserve the same critcism.
I thought the backbiting that conservatives did during the Serbia intervention was wretched. As for Mogadishu, a quick history lesson. Bush '41 initiated the Somalia action. All of the conservatives I knew, and the soldiers I was serving with, supported the action. It had a definite goal, a timetable, and a realistic plan. When Clinton came in office all of these went out the window. He literally sent more tanks to Waco than he did to Mogadishu. The criticism that the soldiers and conservatives were making was legitimate--we were poorly supported and the new plan was unrealistic. But the conservative mainstream wasn't against the Mogadishu action initially, only what it turned into. Which was a fiasco.
As for Haiti, are you really going to make the case that we were re-instating a worthwhile leader there?
And again, I have stated many times that I don't think a military intervention is advisable or necessary in the vast majority of cases in the world. The nature of the regime, the scope of the depradations, the duration of the problem, the threat to regional stability and the imperviousness of the existing regime to diplomatic and economic pressure all militated for this solution. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other human rights abusers are entirely different situations, and should be dealt with differently. War is a last resort, not a default.
Upvote
0
SemperReformanda said
If you can't support them when they're alive, then your support for them dead rings a little hollow.
I see.
And what of those in the armed forces that object to the purported motives for this "war," but nonetheless give their all when called to active duty?
Perhaps their numbers are small, perhaps even commensurate with the laughable caricatures to whom you direct your ridicule.
If you can't support them when they're alive, then your support for them dead rings a little hollow.
I see.
And what of those in the armed forces that object to the purported motives for this "war," but nonetheless give their all when called to active duty?
Perhaps their numbers are small, perhaps even commensurate with the laughable caricatures to whom you direct your ridicule.
Upvote
0
Y'all-
We can keep arguing this comfortably in cyberspace, but I think the real world will just keep on moving. Can you feel the absolute futility of all that you're on about? The war is pretty much over. The Iraqi people are celebrating. Better luck to you next time!
Here's a sample of what's happening in the real world while you argue for the status quo ante:
"I'm 49, but I never lived a single day," said Yusuf Abed Kazim, a Baghdad imam who was pounding the statue's pedestal. "Only now will I start living. That Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a criminal."
Other Iraqis picked flowers from a nearby garden and handed them to Marines.
U.S. troops walked around the square, east of the Tigris River, checking rooftops for snipers.
"He's [Saddam] kept us on our toes but we're ready to be finished and go home," one Marine told Sky News.
One Iraqi was asked by Sky News reporter David Chater what the coalition presence means for him.
"It's safety for me ... they don't hurt anyone," he said. "All the people here is happy -- I see happy."
"We were nearly mobbed by people trying to shake our hands," said Maj. Andy Milburn of the 7th Marines.
We can keep arguing this comfortably in cyberspace, but I think the real world will just keep on moving. Can you feel the absolute futility of all that you're on about? The war is pretty much over. The Iraqi people are celebrating. Better luck to you next time!
Here's a sample of what's happening in the real world while you argue for the status quo ante:
"I'm 49, but I never lived a single day," said Yusuf Abed Kazim, a Baghdad imam who was pounding the statue's pedestal. "Only now will I start living. That Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a criminal."
Other Iraqis picked flowers from a nearby garden and handed them to Marines.
U.S. troops walked around the square, east of the Tigris River, checking rooftops for snipers.
"He's [Saddam] kept us on our toes but we're ready to be finished and go home," one Marine told Sky News.
One Iraqi was asked by Sky News reporter David Chater what the coalition presence means for him.
"It's safety for me ... they don't hurt anyone," he said. "All the people here is happy -- I see happy."
"We were nearly mobbed by people trying to shake our hands," said Maj. Andy Milburn of the 7th Marines.
Upvote
0
"And what of those in the armed forces that object to the purported motives for this "war," but nonetheless give their all when called to active duty?"
We have an all-volunteer army. No one is "called" to active duty who hasn't chosen that life. Those who feel the war is immoral have the option to become conscientious objectors. No one is forced to fight and die against their will. I'm not clear how your question alters the fact that soldiers have a low opinion of civilians who mouth platitudes about support while actively undermining public support for the things they are sacrificing to accomplish. I was speaking of my personal experience over 8 years. Obviously there are isolated people who probably LOVE that individuals are back here undercutting the military. I just never met any.
Please demonstrate that my posts are directed at a "small" number of people if you're going to assert it.
We have an all-volunteer army. No one is "called" to active duty who hasn't chosen that life. Those who feel the war is immoral have the option to become conscientious objectors. No one is forced to fight and die against their will. I'm not clear how your question alters the fact that soldiers have a low opinion of civilians who mouth platitudes about support while actively undermining public support for the things they are sacrificing to accomplish. I was speaking of my personal experience over 8 years. Obviously there are isolated people who probably LOVE that individuals are back here undercutting the military. I just never met any.
Please demonstrate that my posts are directed at a "small" number of people if you're going to assert it.
Upvote
0
I am sick and tired of reading all these post about anti-war and we should not be killing all those innocent civillian people. does anyone remember sept. 11, 2001 or just like everything else, after about a week we forget about it because it didn't directly effect us. thousands of innocent people lost there lives that day in a war that they had absolutly nothing to do with. do you think that there were people in Iraq feeling sorry about what happened to us? NO! and Iraq had alot to do with those attacks on us by funding the taliban. has anyone ever though about that?
Upvote
0
You responded to a point, that's surprising.
You bring up a number of empirical observations regarding the (de-)merits of various battle contingencies. My point is that you allow no such room for such concerns to those who oppose this war. Opposition to this war you simply equate with support for attrocities. The inconsistency is rather glaring.
And a series of conclusionary remarks about Mogadishu does not amount to a history lesson.
You bring up a number of empirical observations regarding the (de-)merits of various battle contingencies. My point is that you allow no such room for such concerns to those who oppose this war. Opposition to this war you simply equate with support for attrocities. The inconsistency is rather glaring.
And a series of conclusionary remarks about Mogadishu does not amount to a history lesson.
Upvote
0
Brimshack-
And a series of conclusionary remarks about Mogadishu does not amount to a history lesson.
You seemed unaware that conservatives initiated the Mogadishu intervention. I imagine it was a history lesson for you, but we'll never know.
battle contingencies-
I know what this means in a military context. What do YOU mean by it?
My point is that you allow no such room for such concerns to those who oppose this war. Opposition to this war you simply equate with support for attrocities. The inconsistency is rather glaring-
Actually I have allowed, on several occasions, for exceptions. Primarily those who just don't think it's worth it to go liberate them as it'll cause more terrorism, etc.
My contempt is reserved for the people who use humanitarian arguments for opposing the war. Particularly those who call for "peace" and "safety" for the people of Iraq when they've had neither for 22 years. A bit like telling a man to be fed and then denying him food.
I haven't put in this disclaimer in every single post because it's a logistical impossibility. But I have made this clear before, particularly on the Moral Infantilism post.
Further, I find it hypocritical for individuals who have actively opposed this liberation to now cheer it. If one has done everything possible to derail liberation, the proper response to today's celebrations is shame.
And a series of conclusionary remarks about Mogadishu does not amount to a history lesson.
You seemed unaware that conservatives initiated the Mogadishu intervention. I imagine it was a history lesson for you, but we'll never know.
battle contingencies-
I know what this means in a military context. What do YOU mean by it?
My point is that you allow no such room for such concerns to those who oppose this war. Opposition to this war you simply equate with support for attrocities. The inconsistency is rather glaring-
Actually I have allowed, on several occasions, for exceptions. Primarily those who just don't think it's worth it to go liberate them as it'll cause more terrorism, etc.
My contempt is reserved for the people who use humanitarian arguments for opposing the war. Particularly those who call for "peace" and "safety" for the people of Iraq when they've had neither for 22 years. A bit like telling a man to be fed and then denying him food.
I haven't put in this disclaimer in every single post because it's a logistical impossibility. But I have made this clear before, particularly on the Moral Infantilism post.
Further, I find it hypocritical for individuals who have actively opposed this liberation to now cheer it. If one has done everything possible to derail liberation, the proper response to today's celebrations is shame.
Upvote
0
I am quite aware that Bush initiated the intervention in Mogadishu. I asserted that conservatives have opposed it, which they have. The details of when and why they opposed it, and the grounds for doing so are certainly debatable, but that requires discussion of facts rather than conclusionary statements. Hence, your post was no history lesson, it was a summary statement of your evaluation, one devoid of empirical accounts.
Define it as you wish. The point is you only allow for any contingencies if reference to conservative views.
If you maintained a consistent allowence for different views that would be one thing, but throughout this thread you have not only failed to qualify your views, you have presented a categorical attack on all who opposed the war, thus erasing any qualifications you may have made before. And suggesting that one should not now celebrate the victory if one opposed it goes far beyond suggesting that one must actually the liberation of these people as a tragedy. Of course whether or not they will actually receive anything close to freedom remains to be seen, but you will no doubt consider it an act of disloyalty to even express doubts about such things.
Define it as you wish. The point is you only allow for any contingencies if reference to conservative views.
If you maintained a consistent allowence for different views that would be one thing, but throughout this thread you have not only failed to qualify your views, you have presented a categorical attack on all who opposed the war, thus erasing any qualifications you may have made before. And suggesting that one should not now celebrate the victory if one opposed it goes far beyond suggesting that one must actually the liberation of these people as a tragedy. Of course whether or not they will actually receive anything close to freedom remains to be seen, but you will no doubt consider it an act of disloyalty to even express doubts about such things.
Upvote
0
Define it as you wish. The point is you only allow for any contingencies if reference to conservative views.
I just gave you an example of a contingency that I accept from the other side. This statement is untrue.
And suggesting that one should not now celebrate the victory if one opposed it goes far beyond suggesting that one must actually the liberation of these people as a tragedy.
Before I respond to this, I want to clarify. Isn't it rather the reverse? That suggesting that the liberation of these people is a tragedy goes beyond not celebrating? The syntax on this sentence is bad, and I'm not sure what you're saying.
I just gave you an example of a contingency that I accept from the other side. This statement is untrue.
And suggesting that one should not now celebrate the victory if one opposed it goes far beyond suggesting that one must actually the liberation of these people as a tragedy.
Before I respond to this, I want to clarify. Isn't it rather the reverse? That suggesting that the liberation of these people is a tragedy goes beyond not celebrating? The syntax on this sentence is bad, and I'm not sure what you're saying.
Upvote
0
but throughout this thread you have not only failed to qualify your views, you have presented a categorical attack on all who opposed the war
Oh, I AM attacking all who opposed the war. Just not on identical grounds. Some are blatantly hypocritical. Others are merely foolish.
Oh, I AM attacking all who opposed the war. Just not on identical grounds. Some are blatantly hypocritical. Others are merely foolish.
Upvote
0
Brimshack-
I'm going to be out in a regional city, Kherson, for four days starting tomorrow night. I'll try to pop on tomorow night before I go. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find a cyber-cafe there or not. If so I'll try to log on and respond. If not, see you when I get back.
I'm going to be out in a regional city, Kherson, for four days starting tomorrow night. I'll try to pop on tomorow night before I go. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find a cyber-cafe there or not. If so I'll try to log on and respond. If not, see you when I get back.
Upvote
0
Re: Post 33
If you consistently allowed for such things, then you would be right, but your initial arguments in this thread specifically exclude such possibilities.
On point 2, yes, I botched the wording. My point is that you are presenting false alternatives. You state that it is hypocritical to celebrate the victory when one opposes the war. And yet, your initial post does more than tell us not to celebrate. It tells us that we are committed to mourn the military victory because we have actively supported the oppressor himself. I for one will be doing neither.
Post # 34:
"Oh, I AM attacking all who opposed the war. Just not on identical grounds."
But see from Post # 31:
"My contempt is reserved for the people who use humanitarian arguments for opposing the war."
As stated, this is a contradiction. In any event, you have not maintained a consistent distinction between your different criticisms.
Have a safe trip.
If you consistently allowed for such things, then you would be right, but your initial arguments in this thread specifically exclude such possibilities.
On point 2, yes, I botched the wording. My point is that you are presenting false alternatives. You state that it is hypocritical to celebrate the victory when one opposes the war. And yet, your initial post does more than tell us not to celebrate. It tells us that we are committed to mourn the military victory because we have actively supported the oppressor himself. I for one will be doing neither.
Post # 34:
"Oh, I AM attacking all who opposed the war. Just not on identical grounds."
But see from Post # 31:
"My contempt is reserved for the people who use humanitarian arguments for opposing the war."
As stated, this is a contradiction. In any event, you have not maintained a consistent distinction between your different criticisms.
Have a safe trip.
Upvote
0
Brimshack-
I'm grinning as I type this. It's funny after all these posts to realize you and I have been having two different debates. It explains why some of your comments have seemed off-target to me.
Let me say something that will perhaps clarify things for you. I disagree with you and Scarlatti, but I give you both a great deal of credit for wit and brains. It never occured to me that you would fail to realize my tongue was firmly lodged in my cheek as I typed this thread OP. I was using an absurdist approach to illustrate the illegitimacy of war opponents celebrating the war.
The support that war opponents gave the dictator was indirect, but they were de facto fighting to keep him in power. If they had prevailed, he would still be in power. We can spin that however we want, but on a functional level it's a fact.
You believe that these two statements are contradictory:
Post # 34:
"Oh, I AM attacking all who opposed the war. Just not on identical grounds."
But see from Post # 31:
"My contempt is reserved for the people who use humanitarian arguments for opposing the war."
Your argument rests on the false premise that "contempt" and "attack" are synonyms. They are very much NOT. And so your argument falls apart.
I hold the peace protesters who used humanitarian arguments in absolute contempt. I still attack the position of those who use Realpolitik arguments, because I don't think they're consonant with reality and that they're a bit anemic when faced with barbarity and evil of this scale. But that's not the same thing as contempt.
Anyway, I'm enjoying this discussion. My train leaves in a few hours, see you when I get back.
I'm grinning as I type this. It's funny after all these posts to realize you and I have been having two different debates. It explains why some of your comments have seemed off-target to me.
Let me say something that will perhaps clarify things for you. I disagree with you and Scarlatti, but I give you both a great deal of credit for wit and brains. It never occured to me that you would fail to realize my tongue was firmly lodged in my cheek as I typed this thread OP. I was using an absurdist approach to illustrate the illegitimacy of war opponents celebrating the war.
The support that war opponents gave the dictator was indirect, but they were de facto fighting to keep him in power. If they had prevailed, he would still be in power. We can spin that however we want, but on a functional level it's a fact.
You believe that these two statements are contradictory:
Post # 34:
"Oh, I AM attacking all who opposed the war. Just not on identical grounds."
But see from Post # 31:
"My contempt is reserved for the people who use humanitarian arguments for opposing the war."
Your argument rests on the false premise that "contempt" and "attack" are synonyms. They are very much NOT. And so your argument falls apart.
I hold the peace protesters who used humanitarian arguments in absolute contempt. I still attack the position of those who use Realpolitik arguments, because I don't think they're consonant with reality and that they're a bit anemic when faced with barbarity and evil of this scale. But that's not the same thing as contempt.
Anyway, I'm enjoying this discussion. My train leaves in a few hours, see you when I get back.
Upvote
0
Actually, your deliberate use of irony is pretty hard to miss, Semper. There are some genuinely clever twists to your approach. But too many tropes spoil the irony. Since you are making tongue in cheek criticisms of people who are citicizing a policy, the end result is to support the policy without providing a straight-foreward defense of that policy. Add to this the fact that so many of the posts on this site insult war-protesters without addressing their actual concerns, and so many of the arguments in favor of the war betray a tremendous ignorance of even the most basic facts of the political issues at stake, and your burlesque adds to a problem that we on the left have been trying to deal with for months: How to get people to actually address the issues instead of simply insulting us?
The war is a fact; it's over and done, and there is no way to stop it now. My own goals at this point are twofold:
1) to try and encourage people to think more clearly about the situation (i.e. at least get them to realize that Al Qaida is not the Baath party, that stopping attrocities is at best a unique rationale for this war and at worst a false rationalization, etc.) Some are aware of these things; others are not, and I won't try to advance any generalizations about that, but where I find these oversimpliications I oppose them.
2) to try and stop the lefty-bashing itself. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've read on this site everything from suggestions that protesters should be locked up for 25-years to life (in the event that they commit any violent misdemeanor offenses during the protest), shipped overseas (Cuba, etc.), and run over with vehicles. I have read people seriously suggest that the privelage of the writ of habeus corpus should be revoked to handle protests, etc. And I have read a host of bitter invectives directed against any celebrity that has voiced any opposition against this war whatsoever. There is a point at which all this becomes shear hate-mongering, and it is a poor substitute for producing reasonable arguments in support of the war.
So, when I read your posts, yes, I realize that you understand the issues better than usual, in some areas better than I, and I see some posts which betray a reasonable attempt to address differences within the left. But the rhetorical force of your posts remains that of contributing to a general attack on opponents of the war. You haven't entirely qualified your posts consistently, and so the end result is simply the propogation of a negative stereotype which you yourself realize is untrue. You are showing contempt for a specific subsegment of the protesters, but you are not consistently making that clear, and hence your specific attacks contribute to the over-generalized stereotypes that so many here are spreading. I suspect that both your occassional qualifiers and your tongue in cheek humor may in the long run have less impact than your simple contribution to the hatred that is growing for anyone who criticizes the war effort or ares to question President Bush. So how do I deal with the humor? To be honest, by ignoring it. It's the same strategy that I use with other types of hyperbole. I assume you mean what you say, and hold you to your exact words until you address the issue more directly.
There are reasonable arguments in favor of the war; capping on the left is not one of them.
I will forgoe a follow-up to the last argument. My blood pressure is going up for doing so, but I've already taken more time in this thread than I should.
The war is a fact; it's over and done, and there is no way to stop it now. My own goals at this point are twofold:
1) to try and encourage people to think more clearly about the situation (i.e. at least get them to realize that Al Qaida is not the Baath party, that stopping attrocities is at best a unique rationale for this war and at worst a false rationalization, etc.) Some are aware of these things; others are not, and I won't try to advance any generalizations about that, but where I find these oversimpliications I oppose them.
2) to try and stop the lefty-bashing itself. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've read on this site everything from suggestions that protesters should be locked up for 25-years to life (in the event that they commit any violent misdemeanor offenses during the protest), shipped overseas (Cuba, etc.), and run over with vehicles. I have read people seriously suggest that the privelage of the writ of habeus corpus should be revoked to handle protests, etc. And I have read a host of bitter invectives directed against any celebrity that has voiced any opposition against this war whatsoever. There is a point at which all this becomes shear hate-mongering, and it is a poor substitute for producing reasonable arguments in support of the war.
So, when I read your posts, yes, I realize that you understand the issues better than usual, in some areas better than I, and I see some posts which betray a reasonable attempt to address differences within the left. But the rhetorical force of your posts remains that of contributing to a general attack on opponents of the war. You haven't entirely qualified your posts consistently, and so the end result is simply the propogation of a negative stereotype which you yourself realize is untrue. You are showing contempt for a specific subsegment of the protesters, but you are not consistently making that clear, and hence your specific attacks contribute to the over-generalized stereotypes that so many here are spreading. I suspect that both your occassional qualifiers and your tongue in cheek humor may in the long run have less impact than your simple contribution to the hatred that is growing for anyone who criticizes the war effort or ares to question President Bush. So how do I deal with the humor? To be honest, by ignoring it. It's the same strategy that I use with other types of hyperbole. I assume you mean what you say, and hold you to your exact words until you address the issue more directly.
There are reasonable arguments in favor of the war; capping on the left is not one of them.
I will forgoe a follow-up to the last argument. My blood pressure is going up for doing so, but I've already taken more time in this thread than I should.
Upvote
0
Brimshack-
the end result is to support the policy without providing a straight-foreward defense of that policy.
I'll admit the OP was applied with a very thick brush. It was also a great deal of fun to write. As for the critique I've quoted above, I think that the substantive nature of my other posts allows me the indulgence of one moment of burlesque.
How to get people to actually address the issues instead of simply insulting us?
This rings a bit hollow in my ears, to be honest. While some of your opponents may be guilty of sloganeering, your deliberately obscurantist approach seems equally calculated to stifle debate through intimidation and semantic devices rather than to open an honest dialogue.
1) to try and encourage people to think more clearly about the situation (i.e. at least get them to realize that Al Qaida is not the Baath party, that stopping attrocities is at best a unique rationale for this war and at worst a false rationalization, etc.)
On one level there is truth here. Al Qaida is NOT the Ba'ath Party. Stopping atrocities wasn't the ONLY reason we went to war, etc.
These are surface truths. But there are deeper realities where simple truths can be misleading if not viewed in context. For instance, the Syrian and Iraqi Ba'ath parties have heavily funded Hezbollah, have paid bounties to suicide bombers, and have sheltered the Abu Nidal and Nasar al-Islam groups for a very, very long time. In other words, they have direct and immediate ties to terrorism.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these types of near-totalitarian dictatorships that characterize post-colonial Middle East politics are the seedbeds of terrorism. They are the indirect cause of the bin Ladens of the world. So long as legitimate protest is stifled in these countries, the only abive-ground option for dissent that citizens will have will be militant Wahab Islam.
As for atrocities, it was A reason we went to war. Along with support for terrorism, the 17 broken resolutions, the intransigence of the regime to peaceful solutions, and pursuit of WMD. Causality is complicated, as anyone taking even a freshman philosophy course has discovered. (Which no doubt you have done.)
2) to try and stop the lefty-bashing itself.
I think the Left has brought this on itself to an extent. Pre-1960's, the Left was rather patriotic (with the exception of the Trotskyite Henry Wallace types.) They led us through WWII and through the dark early days of the Cold War. The Left has marginalized itself since then. The fact that Americans have taken note of this and reacted isn't surprising.
I Lefty-bash because I see us at the beginning of a new Cold War-like era. This isn't WWII we're fighting, but rather a long, grinding war of attrition. Resolve and dedication of purpose are the only things that will see this through to a successful conclusion, just as they did in our long struggle with totalitarian Communism. The Left has chosen to undermine this struggle, just as they did in the latter half of the Cold War. If it were not so, I wouldn't oppose them so vociferously. But America is in a death-struggle, and they seem more intent upon being apologists for the enemy than in preserving our national security. This is reality as I see it, and I am open to you providing a different view.
So how do I deal with the humor? To be honest, by ignoring it. It's the same strategy that I use with other types of hyperbole. I assume you mean what you say, and hold you to your exact words until you address the issue more directly.
That's your perogative, of course. But it means that your sniping will continue to strike well right of center mass.
Again, I'm enjoying our discussion. Look forward to hearing from you again.
Yours,
John
the end result is to support the policy without providing a straight-foreward defense of that policy.
I'll admit the OP was applied with a very thick brush. It was also a great deal of fun to write. As for the critique I've quoted above, I think that the substantive nature of my other posts allows me the indulgence of one moment of burlesque.
How to get people to actually address the issues instead of simply insulting us?
This rings a bit hollow in my ears, to be honest. While some of your opponents may be guilty of sloganeering, your deliberately obscurantist approach seems equally calculated to stifle debate through intimidation and semantic devices rather than to open an honest dialogue.
1) to try and encourage people to think more clearly about the situation (i.e. at least get them to realize that Al Qaida is not the Baath party, that stopping attrocities is at best a unique rationale for this war and at worst a false rationalization, etc.)
On one level there is truth here. Al Qaida is NOT the Ba'ath Party. Stopping atrocities wasn't the ONLY reason we went to war, etc.
These are surface truths. But there are deeper realities where simple truths can be misleading if not viewed in context. For instance, the Syrian and Iraqi Ba'ath parties have heavily funded Hezbollah, have paid bounties to suicide bombers, and have sheltered the Abu Nidal and Nasar al-Islam groups for a very, very long time. In other words, they have direct and immediate ties to terrorism.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these types of near-totalitarian dictatorships that characterize post-colonial Middle East politics are the seedbeds of terrorism. They are the indirect cause of the bin Ladens of the world. So long as legitimate protest is stifled in these countries, the only abive-ground option for dissent that citizens will have will be militant Wahab Islam.
As for atrocities, it was A reason we went to war. Along with support for terrorism, the 17 broken resolutions, the intransigence of the regime to peaceful solutions, and pursuit of WMD. Causality is complicated, as anyone taking even a freshman philosophy course has discovered. (Which no doubt you have done.)
2) to try and stop the lefty-bashing itself.
I think the Left has brought this on itself to an extent. Pre-1960's, the Left was rather patriotic (with the exception of the Trotskyite Henry Wallace types.) They led us through WWII and through the dark early days of the Cold War. The Left has marginalized itself since then. The fact that Americans have taken note of this and reacted isn't surprising.
I Lefty-bash because I see us at the beginning of a new Cold War-like era. This isn't WWII we're fighting, but rather a long, grinding war of attrition. Resolve and dedication of purpose are the only things that will see this through to a successful conclusion, just as they did in our long struggle with totalitarian Communism. The Left has chosen to undermine this struggle, just as they did in the latter half of the Cold War. If it were not so, I wouldn't oppose them so vociferously. But America is in a death-struggle, and they seem more intent upon being apologists for the enemy than in preserving our national security. This is reality as I see it, and I am open to you providing a different view.
So how do I deal with the humor? To be honest, by ignoring it. It's the same strategy that I use with other types of hyperbole. I assume you mean what you say, and hold you to your exact words until you address the issue more directly.
That's your perogative, of course. But it means that your sniping will continue to strike well right of center mass.
Again, I'm enjoying our discussion. Look forward to hearing from you again.
Yours,
John
Upvote
0
Brimshack-
I want to be quick to add that the entire Left is not guilty of this undermining. Several Left/liberal thinkers have been very clear-eyed about the nature of the threat. Chris Hitchens, Mickey Kaus, Liberman and others have spoken very forthrightly.
Just as in the last Cold War there was a brave minority of men such as Daniel Moynihan, Lane Kirkland and Scoop Jackson who were solid liberals yet fought valiantly for the cause of freedom against Communism.
Sadly, for every Scoop Jackson there were always several Frank Churchs. And the same dynamic seems in place today. Particularly on the Left (as opposed to the DLC center-left.)
Irving Kristol said a neo-conservative was just a liberal who had been mugged by reality. My great hope is that more on the Left will have the same experience. There are a lot of great thinkers over there, it would be nice to have them as allies in the fight against terrorism and dictatorship.
I want to be quick to add that the entire Left is not guilty of this undermining. Several Left/liberal thinkers have been very clear-eyed about the nature of the threat. Chris Hitchens, Mickey Kaus, Liberman and others have spoken very forthrightly.
Just as in the last Cold War there was a brave minority of men such as Daniel Moynihan, Lane Kirkland and Scoop Jackson who were solid liberals yet fought valiantly for the cause of freedom against Communism.
Sadly, for every Scoop Jackson there were always several Frank Churchs. And the same dynamic seems in place today. Particularly on the Left (as opposed to the DLC center-left.)
Irving Kristol said a neo-conservative was just a liberal who had been mugged by reality. My great hope is that more on the Left will have the same experience. There are a lot of great thinkers over there, it would be nice to have them as allies in the fight against terrorism and dictatorship.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
