Yes, another Pit thread about the war, which is in the Pit not so much because of the ranting contained in the OP but for the ranting that will surely come later. Also, I use the term “liberals” here really just for lack of a better word to mean those who want the federal government to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and whatnot; I’m really not one of those who sees an eeeeevil “liberal” behind everything I disagree with.
Here’s my proposition: liberals’ anti-war stance is fundamentally at odds with other standard liberal positions, namely the desire for the federal government to provide social services to people who can’t provide (or obtain) those services for themselves.
While we can bicker about just how nasty Saddam is, I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that he’s a big cuddly huggy bear that has only the best interests of his people at heart. We’ve all heard that he may have killed thousands of his own people, and his use of Iraq civilians as human shields has also been well documented.
Also, the people of Iraq are so afraid of Saddam and are so lacking in power (both military and political) that they are unable to bring about regime change on their own. They are essentially forced to sit back and take whatever Saddam dishes out. Therefore, I think that the present war could be viewed as the US providing a “regime change service” to the people of Iraq. (There are undoubtedly several other reasons for the war that may fully justify it without even bringing up this one, but for purposes of this discussion this is the one I want to highlight).
The fundamental disconnect is therefore that liberals want the federal government to perform all manner of social services to folks in the U.S. who, for whatever reason, are unable (in the liberals’ view) to provide that service for themselves, but they get all upset when the U.S. performs the same service for citizens of another country.
If liberals think that the Iraqi people should be responsible for themselves if they want a regime change, then why don’t they also think that Joe Homeless should be responsible for himself if he wants a housing situation change?
Sure, there are differences in how the U.S. government relates to its own citizens and how the U.S. government should relate to citizens of another country, but I think that the fundamental disconnect I’m positing still stands: liberals think that poor Iraqis are able to (and should) help themselves while simultaneously thinking that poor Americans are unable to (and should not be expected to) help themselves.
Thanks for listening, and if the response rate is anything like the other threads I’ve started, then I’ll go ahead and thank both repliers in advance.