A question for leftists/liberals, Who is more your real enemy?

[OrangeEmpire]

I do not post this as an anti-leftist, anti liberal rant and respectfully request (for the good I know it will do) that it not turn into one. Yet there is something I'm curious to know.

Why do you oppose regime change in parts of the Middle East?

I ask this because I can think of no governments that are farther away from the ideas of social democracy and inclusiveness than what we're fighting in the Arab and Islamic world.

Iraq's Ba'athi Socialist governing ideology has been described as fascistic. The Ba'ath party has ideologies of ethnic chauvenism comparable to that of nazis and racists. It's whole founding ediface is Arab nationalism. While in power in Iraq, this party has persecuted minorities such as the kurds in ways that make racial segregation in the south look tame. This government has violated international law countless times and used chemical weapons. If the U.S or Israel had done so, I can imagine your response. Back in the 30's, progressives and radicals the world over converged in Spain to help fight a government whose way of thinking is very much like that of Saddam. Why no support for the removal of a racist, fascist regime that has no respect for international law?

I can't think of anything farther removed from what progressives in the west believe in than the islamic theocracies of Iran and Afganistan under the taliban. This is Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell a thousand times over. Cherished liberal ideas like separation of church and state and women's rights were trampled in notorious ways. Yet so much progressive energy goes into criticising Bush and the Republicans whose reactionary, theocratic tendancies are not even a shadow of that which Bush is fighting against. I'm not saying follow Bush blindly or uncritically. Not at all. I merely point out that no governments in the world today are more at odds with progressive ideals than the Islamic theocracies of the middle east.

Yet few progressives I know advocate removal of these regimes. I'm not suggesting that they necessarily have to, I'm merely curious as to why?

 

[orange+white=heaven]

Setting aside the wholly unproductive labelling you begin this venture with... :shakehead:

Let's start with another question.
What makes you think one can actually affect such change?

The worldwide history of nation building is spotty at best(based on my admittedly limited depth of knowledge). Throw in that you're advocating taking on this grand political version of "Extreme Makeovers" in a region with 3000 years of well cultivated and well practiced enmity for one another, and the notion becomes even more perplexing to me.

I'm forced to a personal view that the idea represents little more than national ego run amok....

Have a nice day OE...

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Setting aside the wholly unproductive labelling you begin this venture with...

That is merely my humor which I cannot convey effectively over the internet.

I'm forced to a personal view that the idea represents little more than national ego run amok....

If we are not to nation build, are we to keep to ourselves?

Do we only concern ourselves with our sphere of influence, North and South America?

Do we have a world wide sphere of influence, should we flex our national egotistical muscles?

 

[hatvol96]

I do not post this as an anti-leftist, anti liberal rant and respectfully request (for the good I know it will do) that it not turn into one. Yet there is something I'm curious to know.

Why do you oppose regime change in parts of the Middle East?

I ask this because I can think of no governments that are farther away from the ideas of social democracy and inclusiveness than what we're fighting in the Arab and Islamic world.

Iraq's Ba'athi Socialist governing ideology has been described as fascistic. The Ba'ath party has ideologies of ethnic chauvenism comparable to that of nazis and racists. It's whole founding ediface is Arab nationalism. While in power in Iraq, this party has persecuted minorities such as the kurds in ways that make racial segregation in the south look tame. This government has violated international law countless times and used chemical weapons. If the U.S or Israel had done so, I can imagine your response. Back in the 30's, progressives and radicals the world over converged in Spain to help fight a government whose way of thinking is very much like that of Saddam. Why no support for the removal of a racist, fascist regime that has no respect for international law?

I can't think of anything farther removed from what progressives in the west believe in than the islamic theocracies of Iran and Afganistan under the taliban. This is Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell a thousand times over. Cherished liberal ideas like separation of church and state and women's rights were trampled in notorious ways. Yet so much progressive energy goes into criticising Bush and the Republicans whose reactionary, theocratic tendancies are not even a shadow of that which Bush is fighting against. I'm not saying follow Bush blindly or uncritically. Not at all. I merely point out that no governments in the world today are more at odds with progressive ideals than the Islamic theocracies of the middle east.

Yet few progressives I know advocate removal of these regimes. I'm not suggesting that they necessarily have to, I'm merely curious as to why?

I would not categorize myself as a progressive or a liberal. I would say that the policy toward Iraq is misguided. There are numerous regimes, primarily Iran and Syria, that I would wholeheartedly support America leading an effort to remove. Iraq is, in my opinion, comparable to the Balkans. I don't think it's our place in the world to referee Civil Wars and ethnic disputes. Genocide is another issue, but there is no credible evidence that outright ethnic cleansing had gone on in Iraq in some time. Was Hussein a bad guy? Yes. Was he the worst in his region? Absolutely not. The Syrians and Iranians are far more strategically and ideologically hostile to the US. In closing, I think the decision to wage a campaign in Afghanistan was 100% correct. My only complaint is that we didn't wage it more aggressively.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I would say that the policy toward Iraq is misguided. There are numerous regimes, primarily Iran and Syria, that I would wholeheartedly support America leading an effort to remove. Iraq is, in my opinion, comparable to the Balkans.

I like that comparison, I have not looked at it in that way before.

I don't think it's our place in the world to referee Civil Wars and ethnic disputes.

Agree 100%

The Syrians and Iranians are far more strategically and ideologically hostile to the US. In closing, I think the decision to wage a campaign in Afghanistan was 100% correct. My only complaint is that we didn't wage it more aggressively.

I agree and would you add North Korea to that mix?

As far as prosecuting the war, we need to let our military loose at some point.........

I mention him all the time, but Lewis "Chesty" Puller should be the model for all combat officers.

"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't
be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our
women and breed a hardier race!"
-Lt. Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC

 

[smokedog#3]

we have no buisness being over there. first time they invaded kuwait we had to go to protect the oil fields. this time W went on his own agenda he had it planned the minute he decided to run for president. only thing he has done is kill our relations with the middle east and unite them against us. his actions in the long run will do alot more harm and very little good. he should have just given them the weapons and let them destroy themselves, if we could be that lucky. :bad:

 

[hatvol96]

I like that comparison, I have not looked at it in that way before.
Agree 100%
I agree and would you add North Korea to that mix?

As far as prosecuting the war, we need to let our military loose at some point.........

I mention him all the time, but Lewis "Chesty" Puller should be the model for all combat officers.

I don't worry as much about the North Koreans as others do because history shows if they get too aggressive and full of themselves, there's a country with a billion people in their region who will quickly slap them back into line. China was a key player in the fall of the Soviet Union. When they became uncomfortable with the Soviet expansionism and ideology, they quickly became adverse to them, forcing the USSR to worry about them as well as the US.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

That is merely my humor which I cannot convey effectively over the internet.

Figured as much. HaHa.

If we are not to nation build, are we to keep to ourselves?

Do we only concern ourselves with our sphere of influence, North and South America?

Do we have a world wide sphere of influence, should we flex our national egotistical muscles?

Alcoholics Anonymous says something about the addict having to want to change before real progress can come. I'm still waiting for those over there who are blowing each other away for their differing religious views to open their minds to democratic inclusiveness. Let them make a genuine stab at helping themselves, and then come talk to us about sending our children.

I would not categorize myself as a progressive or a liberal. I would say that the policy toward Iraq is misguided. There are numerous regimes, primarily Iran and Syria, that I would wholeheartedly support America leading an effort to remove. Iraq is, in my opinion, comparable to the Balkans. I don't think it's our place in the world to referee Civil Wars and ethnic disputes. Genocide is another issue, but there is no credible evidence that outright ethnic cleansing had gone on in Iraq in some time. Was Hussein a bad guy? Yes. Was he the worst in his region? Absolutely not. The Syrians and Iranians are far more strategically and ideologically hostile to the US. In closing, I think the decision to wage a campaign in Afghanistan was 100% correct. My only complaint is that we didn't wage it more aggressively.

A reasoned position. Well said Hat. Not used to seeing you dive into this stuff...

 

[hatvol96]

Figured as much. HaHa.
Alcoholics Anonymous says something about the addict having to want to change before real progress can come. I'm still waiting for those over there who are blowing each other away for their differing religious views to open their minds to democratic inclusiveness. Let them make a genuine stab at helping themselves, and then come talk to us about sending our children.
A reasoned position. Well said Hat. Not used to seeing you dive into this stuff...

It was my major in college. I figure I should put my degree to work occasionally.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

It was my major in college. I figure I should put my degree to work occasionally.

Even if only recreationally...
Yeah, I know, it's tough to make a buck in South Beach....

 

[CSpindizzy]

Even though I am not a progressive, liberal, leftist or any other label on this end of the spectrum I will jump in the mix. Who am I to NOT jump in a political debate? Right?

The problem in regime change is who we replace it with. The US has a history in comtemporary times of placing its own breed of democracy or at least 'friendly' governments in power once they toss out the previous governments. First of all democracy is not exactly a notion that works in various parts of the globe. Most nations of the world derive from years, decades, and even centuries of autocratic rule. Most of the populace is quite satisfied with the status quo and have learned through decades to accept that. As long as they are happy in their simple lives, they have no issue with what goes on up top. So you get these small groups vying for power. Most of the populace avoids these conflicts until the fighting minorities start killing indiscriminately or an outside force has the appearance of turning their proud nation into a puppet.

Democracy in Iraq was NOT fought for by the people. Had we chosen to arm the Iraqis and let them overthrow Saddam and the end result a democracy, it would be a different stroy. But to call a democracy something that the people themselves did not fight for or have the desire to die for like our founding fathers, you have a completely different mentality. The mentality of many we try to 'change' is that we're doing this for our own selfish interests. Then you get the 'freedom fighters' that try to toss US out.

The issues in Iraq deal with a huge percentage of the population who do not care who is in charge as long as they have the basics to live. This leaves open the door to these small factions to fight it out. Our mistake in Iraq is allowing the local militias to still exist and gain so much control. Instead of incorporating them into the government, you now have set up these regional groups armed to the teeth to enact their own local laws. if the weak national military comes in, they'd be chewed up by these local militias. We've given them too much power and allowed them to breed these 'fascist' type ideas we tried to wipe out with Saddam.

Iraq will be an experiment on the level of Yugoslavia with Woodrow Wilson. With Yugoslavia, you had a strong secular leader who unified the people beyond regional, cultural, and religious differences. Once Yugoslavia collapsed, those latent hatreds centuries old suppressed by a strong unified secular government came out and broke the country apart.

Democracy in Iraq did the same thing. But in Saddam's case, we had a severely limited and watched secular dictator who still managed to control the internal factions in his country. But now we have religious and cultural hatreds now opened up. Democracy gives the ability of the ballot to gain control, similar to how Hitler came to power. The US is hoping these three major factions will weaken each other so no one group will control the government. But all this has done has created a rivalry that will draw on religious and cultural differences. We have Balkanized Iraq with our own doing.

 

[rockydoc]

Definition of a NEW CONSERVATIVE................a former LIBERAL that had be mugged 15 minutes beforehand!!!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Definition of a NEW CONSERVATIVE................a former LIBERAL that had be mugged 15 minutes beforehand!!!

CURVE YOUR TONGUE!

GOP 4$ LIFE!

 

[Orange-Neck]

CURVE YOUR TONGUE!

GOP 4$ LIFE!

:yuck:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

:yuck:

:question: ost-20645-1119625378:

GOP 4 LIFE!

 

[milohimself]

hatvol's post is a good example of the opinion of those who are against the war. Then you have the nutjobs on tv yelling "NO WAR FOR OIL!" and such just because they hate Bush, or something. I don't know.

Also, I'm still not sure as to why Iraq vs. any other country to invade. And here's some other questions to consider... Did Iraq possess weaponry that made them a reasonable threat to our national security? We've been there for a while and the answer is looking like probably not. I've seen a few of the war supporters still hoping for a winning card on the river. It may come, but you know not to keep your hopes up. Was Iraq knowingly providing aid to anti-American terrorists before our invasion? I'm not sure on this issue. I'd like to know. I don't think so but I'm always open to an educated opinion.

And continuing this idea, how has this war helped us at all? Okay, we removed an evil regime. I'm all against dudes like Saddam Hussein. But then what is the net difference of this war? We end up tying up a lot of our military over there, and for what gain.

I'm done asking questions on this for now, but you get where I'm going.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Why do you oppose regime change in parts of the Middle East?

It's not our place to topple the regimes of other nations.

I ask this because I can think of no governments that are farther away from the ideas of social democracy and inclusiveness than what we're fighting in the Arab and Islamic world.

What about Cuba? What about our so called allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia? What about our new friend Libya? Nobody has been more of a supporter of worldwide terror than Momar Quadafi. Reagan would roll over in his grave. Why don't we topple some of these regimes? They don't exactly support social demacracy either.

I can't think of anything farther removed from what progressives in the west believe in than the islamic theocracies of Iran and Afganistan under the taliban. This is Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell a thousand times over. Cherished liberal ideas like separation of church and state and women's rights were trampled in notorious ways. Yet so much progressive energy goes into criticising Bush and the Republicans whose reactionary, theocratic tendancies are not even a shadow of that which Bush is fighting against. I'm not saying follow Bush blindly or uncritically. Not at all. I merely point out that no governments in the world today are more at odds with progressive ideals than the Islamic theocracies of the middle east.

But that's not why we are there. We are there because Saddam has a massive pile of weapons of mass destruction, and he poses a threat to our national security. Oh yeah, I forgot there were no WMD, so we had to come up with an alternative reason for being over there, so now we are there to topple a despot who has brutalized his people for decades.

Yet few progressives I know advocate removal of these regimes. I'm not suggesting that they necessarily have to, I'm merely curious as to why?

Because it's not our place to force democracy on every other nation in the world.

 

[therealUT]

Here are the 23 reasons that Congress stated in 2002 to take action against Iraq:

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.
2. As a result of the cease fire regarding #1, Iraq agreed to destroy WMD and cease support of terrorism.
3. Iraq has lots of WMD is close to getting a nuke.
4. Iraq did not cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
5. Congress has before stated Iraq's WMD are a threat to US interests.
6. Iraq's WMD are a threat to the US and region, and Iraq harbors terrorists.
7. Iraq has violated UNSC resolutions.
8. Iraq has used WMD in the past.
9. Iraq has and continues to act aggressively toward the US.
10. Members of al Queda are known to be in Iraq.
11. Iraq aids and harbors terrorists.
12. September 11, 2001 showed it's particularly important to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists.
13. Iraq may use WMD against US or US troops deployed in the region.
14. UNSC resolution 678 authorizes force in response to certain conditions. And "authorizes member-states" to use "all necessary means."
15. Congress has before authorized to use force against Iraq pursuant to UNSC 678.
16. Congress has before authorized force against Iraq to enforce USCR pertinent to maintaining peace in the region.
17. The policy of the US should be to take steps remove Hussein from power.
18. President Bush has committed to enforcing USCR resolutions.
19. The US is determined to fight terrorism and Iraq's support for terrorists in combination with it's WMD is in violation of UNSC resolutions, and part of the war on terror is enforcing UNSC resolutions.
20. Congress has taken steps to pursue terrorists, including those behind September 11, 2001.
21. The President and Congress are committed to pursuing those countries backing terrorists, including those behind September 11, 2001.
22. The President has the authority to use force under the Constitution to deter and deflect terroristic threats to the US.
23. A secure and peaceful Middle East is in the national security interests of the US.


So, there were plenty of reasons besides WMD that Bush and Congress clearly stated prior to March 2003. Just because the media decided to focus on WMD does not make that a fault of the Bush Administration.

 

[smokedog#3]

Here are the 23 reasons that Congress stated in 2002 to take action against Iraq:

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.
2. As a result of the cease fire regarding #1, Iraq agreed to destroy WMD and cease support of terrorism.
3. Iraq has lots of WMD is close to getting a nuke.
4. Iraq did not cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
5. Congress has before stated Iraq's WMD are a threat to US interests.
6. Iraq's WMD are a threat to the US and region, and Iraq harbors terrorists.
7. Iraq has violated UNSC resolutions.
8. Iraq has used WMD in the past.
9. Iraq has and continues to act aggressively toward the US.
10. Members of al Queda are known to be in Iraq.
11. Iraq aids and harbors terrorists.
12. September 11, 2001 showed it's particularly important to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists.
13. Iraq may use WMD against US or US troops deployed in the region.
14. UNSC resolution 678 authorizes force in response to certain conditions. And "authorizes member-states" to use "all necessary means."
15. Congress has before authorized to use force against Iraq pursuant to UNSC 678.
16. Congress has before authorized force against Iraq to enforce USCR pertinent to maintaining peace in the region.
17. The policy of the US should be to take steps remove Hussein from power.
18. President Bush has committed to enforcing USCR resolutions.
19. The US is determined to fight terrorism and Iraq's support for terrorists in combination with it's WMD is in violation of UNSC resolutions, and part of the war on terror is enforcing UNSC resolutions.
20. Congress has taken steps to pursue terrorists, including those behind September 11, 2001.
21. The President and Congress are committed to pursuing those countries backing terrorists, including those behind September 11, 2001.
22. The President has the authority to use force under the Constitution to deter and deflect terroristic threats to the US.
23. A secure and peaceful Middle East is in the national security interests of the US.
So, there were plenty of reasons besides WMD that Bush and Congress clearly stated prior to March 2003. Just because the media decided to focus on WMD does not make that a fault of the Bush Administration.

still do not see the need.

 

[utvolpj]

still do not see the need.

Too much to read? I'll try to get you one of these to help:

[attachmentid=5457]

 

[GAVol]

still do not see the need.

After a post with a case laid out in detail, that's all you've got??

 

[smokedog#3]

After a post with a case laid out in detail, that's all you've got??

yep. to me it is nothing but a mark on W's agenda.

 

[GAVol]

yep. to me it is nothing but a mark on W's agenda.

Translation . . . Yes, it's all I've got.

 

[smokedog#3]

Translation . . . Yes, it's all I've got.

what's the use of saying the samething over and over again. nobody else besides england thought they were a threat, W had to talk Blair into it and he's been regretting it ever since. W didn't say anything about any of that other s___ in his speeches he said iraq was a threat and going to go bin laden on us. iraq was no threat they were a joke, alot like our president. he had talked about invading iraq before he took office 9/11 helped him do this, he worked off the fear of the american people. shame he got the wrong guy. as said before i still do not see any need for us to be over there they don't want us over there. the whole 2,500 americans killed over there was a waste that did not have to happen, all it accomplished was pissing everybody off. maybe that was W's agenda. in that idiots mind you never know. :bad:

 

[utvolpj]

what's the use of saying the samething over and over again.

:whistling: