Which country would you like to invade and democratize next?
Which country would you allow to let oppression continue?
How about Uzbekistan? Oh wait, they’re part of the “Coalition of the Willing.” Guess we’ll let that dictator slide.
I think I asked a valid question.
You did too, so I’ll answer and expect one back. I do not favor sending US troops into Sierra Leone in an attempt to democratize that country.
Your turn.
Ravenman,
I answered your rhetorical question with a rhetorical question and I will leave it at that. I had no intention of turning this into a game of “Risk”. There are many other factors to consider than to just make a laundry list of countries “to do” with severe civil rights issues…it took 12 years of hymnin’ and hawin’ to get to this point with a known brutal dictator regime, and I’m sure the next time it will take the same amount of time before we do the same thing to the next dictator (unless the dictator chooses to start it earlier). The anti-war position is unknowingly (and knowingly) trivializing the suffering of the Iraqi people through their protests - that is what’s disturbing at this time; even when some Iraqi civilians are already expressing their happiness at our arrival and welcoming the Coalition force. Ever had the proverbial 800 pound gorilla getting off your back? I think that’s how they felt…
Ask a serviceman/woman what they saw or did (when they come back from Iraq) and if they felt if our government did the right thing; also ask them what boosted or decreased their morale when they saw how our country supported them while they were there. They won’t hold back.
As I read this, they are distinguising between the Left and a subset of the Left, namely those on the left who are anti-American. I do not interpret it to mean that all leftists hate America. I would agree that their use of the term “Hate-America Left” to mean “Anti-American Left” is inflammatory.
Their first point is that the New York Times decided not to run Akbar’s picture because he is black. This has nothing to do with race-baiting; it’s a complaint about media bias.
Their second point is that Akbar’s Muslim religion influenced his decision to lob the grenades. That seems obvious. IIRC he even made some comments to support that POV.
I’m not surprised that Coulter’s article got your blood boiling; that was her intent. I agree that her style is inflammatory. If you want to complain about specific content, I’ll try to respond.
“Anti-American Left”, december?
As I understand this label, it is yet ANOTHER exmaple of Conservative absolutism. What they’re probably talking about here are liberals who 1. point out that Americans don’t have some mystical, exclusive claim to the Right Way To Live and 2. criticize Ameican government polices that are insidiously based on this “America Is Always Right” philosophy.
Conservatives who slap this label on these sorts of people are, frankly, assholes. They prefer the comfort of the absolute moral right of their own theories to any meaningful rational engagement. Even worse, they refuse to accept the idea that America may not be the end-all, be-all of mankind, and even <gasp> that America might NEED the rest of the world to survive.
This whole post is probably an example of something Coulter would whine as being anti-American. After all, I didn’t start my post by tying a small American flag to my cock and jacking off to the Battle of Bahgdad. But I would hope that a rational person would realize that making the jump from philosophies counter to the current state of American policy to misguided lunatics running around with dynamite crammed in their bellybutton.
Its ok, though. Logic has obviously failed Coulter and her ilk, leaving them only with slander and empty empiricals. We should pity them more than dislike them… but be wary.
-C
That’ll teach me to post after having two beers. Anyone know why the hell we can’t edit on this board?
-C
This is silly. Of course he cares. And he will certainly care if the protests are successful in wining over larger segments of the population. In light of your statement above you must be wondering what possible purpose the protestors have altogether, but I’ll tell you the secret - it is an attempt to influence US policy. I’m skeptical as to whether you yourself believe your own position, though – not knowing you – anything is possible.
The motivation of defending their homeland is there in any event. The question is whether there is an additional aspect added by having a better chance of winning, or a detraction by having worse prospects. You seem to be suggesting that the Iraqis are so motivated by defending their homeland that they couldn’t possibly be more or less motivated. Nonsense.
No, the OP does not rest on such an assumption. It’s not as if once a person is overly optimistic about his chances nothing has the power to make him more or less optimistic. This is a simplistic assumption that you seem to share with your sympathizer, errata.
These three points are essentially the same, for purposes of this thread. I noted this aspect in my first post to this thread. Still, as mentioned, it would be a good idea to at least understand and appreciate the impact of what you are doing, before trying to justify it.
But, I would imagine, it is a lot easier for people to theoretically argue in favor of causing loss of life while simultaneously denying that they are actually doing this, than it is for them to acknowledge in the face of wartime sentiments that they are deliberately causing the death of other people because they have decided that other goals are more important. Of course, this leads to the type of contorted reasoning and willful blindness that has been displayed by many people in this thread. So it goes.
FrontPage Mag., to me, is a source for background on some of the old-timers, on both sides of the fence. You have your neo-con. hippies versus your new-Democrat hippies, versus the unreconstructed hippies. It’s unique in that respect. The rest… Eh. I read it when I’m not over at WRH, Znet, or Counterpunch.
I like to have a balanced diet of crap.
Well, there are different motivations for different protestors, but I put their odds of influencing foreign policy as somewhere between diddly and squat. It’s mainly a form of self expression. People don’t change their minds about war because someone’s shouting and waving a sign. What will change people’s minds will be mounting casualties with no end in sight. When Johnny comes home in body bag, that’s when people start changing their minds about things like that.
Nonsense? Is that the best “proof” you can come up with?
Tell me, is there any way that you can measure the rise in Iraqi morale after protests and how this morale has caused a rise in deaths in the US/UK forces?
Or is the unicorn invisible as well as pink?
The hidden premise to the OP is that Saddam and Iraqi generals would be quicker to surrender or capitulate if there wasn’t any dissent. Obviously (to me, at any rate), this is extremely dubious. If nothing else, the fact that the Bush administration is prosecuting this war in the face of fierce domestic and international protest should convince them of the seriousness of the administration’s goal of regime change, and capitulate more quickly, rather than less. As many reasonable analyses point out, the Bush Administration is now in a position where it has to win, in order to justify the invasion after the fact.
If you haven’t received an honest answer as to why we have invaded, how do you automically know that “The Iraqi regime is evil, and oppressive”, is not, in fact, the reason?
If you haven’t received an honest answer as to why we have invaded, how do you automically know that “The Iraqi regime is evil, and oppressive”, is not, in fact, the reason?
Optimism is not the issue; resolve is the issue. My opinion of Saddam is that he will never surrender, no matter how dismal his chances of victory. The Iraqis are not fighting because they think they can defeat the U.S. Army. Optimism is already zero. Sheer determination is the only thing that can fuel a hopelessly outmatched army. You are trying to apply reasoned analysis where it is irrelevant. Saddam is quite obviously not looking at the situation logically, and any slight skewing of U.S. public opinion one way or the other is not going to affect anything.
On the contrary, yours is the simplistic view, and I don’t see what comparing me to errata has to do with the price of tea in China.
This is quite vague. Care to try again?
Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? WHO argued in favor of causing death? You need to be WAY more specific; right now what you are posting just sounds like bitter ranting.
I’ll tell you what’s happening. The prowar folks are gonna end up causing more casualties than necessary.
As others have rightly pointed out, neither side in Iraq much gives a shit what American protestors have to say.
But there is one armed, deadly contingent in this fight that does care: Al Qaeda.
The more it looks to young Arabic men like the US is united behind a war of invasion, the easier it’s going to be for Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists. Conversely, the more that young Arabic men see that people in the United States are protesting this war, the harder it’s going to be to recruit terrorists.
We protestors are saving lives.
Evidence? I’ve got every bit as much evidence for this dreamlace scenario as Izzy has for his. Inductive reasoning, I thought, went out of style during the Enlightenment.
Daniel
december and Beagle,
I do not want to inadvertantly hijack this thread any more than necessary, so I wil capitulate that somewhere amidst the inflammatory tripe of FrontPage Mag, there may be some actual news. And it probably puts it in a way that makes those on the far right feel all warm and fuzzy. I am certain that you could point to equally repugnant sites representing the far left. Both sides deserve the right to stroke themselves verbally. I simply question that either of you would really want to use such a site to represent your views on any topic. The right side of the aisle has some valid arguments to make and these loonies are only capable of preaching to the choir…
CTB
Before I respond to this little bit of flamebait, let me ask you a question: are you under the impression that this article represents a majority view amongst Iraqis themselves?
Daniel
From the Straits Times
It is true that the body bags will have a huge impact on which way opinion will turn. Of course. But it is also true that seeing other people expressing an opinion reinforces those who might tend to think along the same lines. But more to the point is that it provides a gauge of current dissatisfaction and how far is needed to go before it becomes a more serious factor. Seeing that there is already all this vocal opposition as it is makes one tend to think that any amount of setbacks might raise the level to a point at which it becomes a political factor. If there was apparent broad(er) support for the war, one might conclude that it would take a lot more in the way of setbacks before public opinion reached the point of playing a role.
I am not attempting to “prove” anything here. If you wish to deny the obvious - as you evidently do - be my guest.
“Measure the rise in Iraqi morale”? What in the world does this mean? All I’m saying is that the presence of protests causes Iraqi morale to be higher than it otherwise would be, and that this tends to forestall conceding defeat. I’m not about to “measure the rise” or figure out how many extra deaths are caused by protests or anything of the sort.
It is not a matter of Saddam himself. There are hundreds of people in the Iraqi army, from leaders to privates, and the morale of these people is as important as that of Saddam, or more.
I guess we essentially disagree with regards to your statement that “Optimism is already zero”.
I’m not sure what was vague. But in brief, your latter three points were justifications for protesting even at the price of more deaths. I would not argue those as part of the same debate.
I was referring to your aforementioned justifications. I am suggesting that even for those who would justify it, it is a lot easier if you are also denying doing so. Which provides a rationale for the twisted logic presented here.