I can recall several times off the top of my head. That, to me, is “all too often” for it to happen on the SDMB. I’ll search up some examples in a bit.
Regarding banning those who wish death on US troops, Shodan and I posted to the sticky thread in the Pit and Lynn Bodoni told us to report it when it happens to the mods of the forum. I don’t think there is any policy that says they get banned. It doesn’t seem to be the case from what I see.
I disagree. If someone on the right wished for the deaths of US troops because of some misguided right wing belief then we conservatives on the SDMB would jump all over them. Yet, there is silence from the left when some posters do this.
IIRC, Dinsdale (no longer a member, and good riddance) was one of those who posted to the effect that he was wishing for a lot of casualties from the US invasion of Iraq.
Cue the usual chorus of “that doesn’t count!” from the Usual Suspects.
So, the most recent example is rfgdxm, supporting the iraqi’s killing US troops in this thread.
(Why the full quote makes this statement excusable is beyond me, Jake.
rfgdxm has not been banned, or even warned that I am aware of. He wasn’t denounced by those on the left in that thread despite the requests of many conservatives there.
:rolleyes: You can’t possibly be that dense. rfgdxm is simply taking sides in a war – specifically, he his wishing victory to a group of insurgents fighting a foreign occupation of their country. What is inexcusable about that, even if you differ with his moral judgments of the situation? Remember, this board is not limited to Americans, therefore national loyalties must remain irrelevant to the rules and their application. And by that standard, there is no relevant difference between saying “I hope Iraqi insurgents kill a lot of American troops” now and saying “I hope Afghan insurgents kill a lot of Soviet troops” in 1980. OTOH, there would be a relevant difference between saying “I hope Iraqi insurgents kill a lot of American troops” and saying “I hope Islamic terrorists kill some more infidels.” And nobody in your post, not even Aldebaran, has even come close to expressing something like that latter sentiment.
I’ll grant that the short time I’ve spent on this board that it does lean left, I don’t think it is that significant of an imbalance.
It is my personal opinion that MoveOn publishes some pretty foolish things, if they want to be taken seriously. Even the Communist Party USA realizes that they have to take baby steps, and they try to make themselves as less leftist than they are. MoveOn seems highly reactionary to any news, and that makes them look like they’re screaming that the sky is falling every time Bush falls off his bike/scooter/whatever.
On the other hand, the Democratic party isn’t leftist at all. Right now, the political center in the US is on the rightist side of the line by a pretty good degree. I’m sure this is part of what inspires MoveOn to be as proactive as they can - but they need to remember that proactivity doesn’t always make you sound reliable.
Unless, of course, the ‘insurgents’ aren’t fighting an occupation of their country, but are in fact fighting their own people to prevent democracy from happening, because they are a bunch of fascist totalitarian thugs who want control of the country so they can oppress their own citizens and re-establish the kind of terror Saddam used to maintain power.
Because you know, if I were an Iraqi who just wanted to ‘end the occupation’, I’d think that having an election, stabilizing the country, and getting a new government up and running might just be the way to do that. And in fact, that’s exactly what the majority of Iraqis want.
But not the ‘insurgents’. They want power and death to anyone who stands in their way.
I don’t care where in the world you live, if you support the actions of those thugs you have some serious morality issues of your own.
From my perspective, I just haven’t seen any real evidence presented here that they are. It appears to be a pretty amorphous organization dedicated to getting Democrats elected. Does that make them “far left”? Only if you consider the Democratic party as a whole to be “far left”. Now, if you could show that they disproportionately put their energies behind the more left leaning memmbers of the Democratic party, that might be something. But is there any evidence that they do?
I remember the earliest days of moveon.org. The name was originally Censure and Move On–they were pushing for Congress to officially censure Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky stuff and then move on with the business of running the country. I thought they were one of the most sensible voices in the entire debacle.
Of course, an organizations origins do not necessarily have anything to do with the course they’ve taken since, especially not when they have grown and expanded their focus the way moveon.org has. I just thought it was an interesting aside.
A goal which, by international standards, would still be more legitimate than military occupation of a foreign country.
But that would not “end the occupation,” it would merely install a new U.S.-controlled puppet government with more clout than the present one. And U.S. troops would still be in Iraq and likely to remain there for years to come; and the U.S. would be positioned to go on controlling the Iraqi government even if the troops left. It would be incredibly naive to expect it to turn out any other way.
Disagree slightly, BG. In a chaotic situation, all outcomes are pretty much equally feasible, even one you could reasonably call naive. Hence the Mao quote: “The is great confusion under Heaven, and the situation is excellent”.
Really? You have a cite or anything? Since when is it legitimate in any sense of the word to wage terrorist attacks against the civilian population in order to gain control of a country and establish a dictatorship? Are you seriously going to claim that what they are doing is MORE legitimate than the U.S. invasion?
Man, the left has come a long way since the days when it thought the contras were the most evil people on the planet. Didn’t you use to claim that that is exactly what the contras were?
Is there any way in which you can show that the Iraqi insurgents are morally superior to the contras in Nicaragua? At least the contras were fighting against a dictatorship. The insurgents are fighting to establish one, and to prevent a democracy.
It’s moral equivalencies like this that put you guys out on the fringe, and why you think groups like MoveOn are centrist. You toss around notions about the legitimacy of the insurgency and their moral equivalence with Americans that would make your average centrist shake his head in disgust.
A) I’m well aware of the history of the Sandinistas.
B) I didn’t accuse the left of not knowing history - I accused them of being
hypocrites.
The fact is, the ‘insurgents’ are far, far worse than the contras ever were. In fact, it’s almost obscene to compare them. The contras were working to overthrow a dictatorship. The insurgents are working to install one.
And yet, back during the 80’s, the left was absolutely incensed over the contras. I’m sure you remember. Here in Canada, the Sandinistas were almost revered. We had pro-Sandinista handbills all over our campus. There were anti-contra demonstrations regularly. They were described as cutthroat, murderous swine.
And yet… These same people are willing to call the insurgents “akin to the American Minutemen”. They are freedom fighters, working to expel the evil invaders. Some on this board have expressed the desire to even join them.
So what’s the difference? I mean, we know what’s the same about them, right? In both cases, the left have sided with the group opposed to the United States. But what’s different? Why were the contras evil bastards but the insurgents oh-so-understandable?
