# U.S. Liberals' war stance shows a fundamental disconnect **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 24, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809 "2003-03-24T16:57:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/21 "2003-03-24T19:02:31Z")
> [@](#): > > But I have yet to hear a war-hawk speculate on what will happen if a power vacuum in Iraq will lead to a fanatical Islamic state that will present a real danger to the free world. And I see that as a very real possibility. Well, this particular hawk thinks it might turn out that the regime attempts to acquire WMD, and use them to threaten their neighbors. Sound familiar? And then the hawk asks how our kicking Saddam out of power (and, preferably, hanging him after a fair trial) is going to create a power vacuum. I think another motive not mentioned in the OP or subsequently is the liberal\* preference for bigger government. The tendency in liberal circles is to offload decision-making powers to the highest level of government available. Thus federal programs are preferred over individual initiative, try to get the Supreme Court to legislate (on, for instance, abortion), instead of working thru state legislature, the preference for a managed economy overa free market driven by consumer decisions, etc. This is partly historically-based, and partly because of the tendency toward group-identity over individual rights in liberal thought. The UN is considered a higher level of government than even the executive branch. Therefore, it is easy for liberals to side with the UN against Bush, just as they would side with the feds against some local initiative. \*I am using ‘liberal’ as a shorthand term for a tendency in many circles of thought. I hope we don’t get bogged down in definitions. Whoops, gotta get back to work. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/22 "2003-03-24T19:05:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Robb \* > Let me see if understand this: for liberals to be consistent, shouldn’t they support the US providing these “services” in every nation on the Earth where they aren’t currently provided? Actually, they do. What is the campaign against sweatshops, as but one example, but just that? Sua ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/23 "2003-03-24T19:31:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > **And then the hawk asks how our kicking Saddam out of power (and, preferably, hanging him after a fair trial) is going to create a power vacuum.** I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that removing Saddam will not create a power vacuum? Let’s assume a best-case scenario – we kill Saddam. The regime is gone. What next? ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/24 "2003-03-24T19:40:32Z")
**If** the liberal’s position is inconsistent, doesn’t the same logic apply to the conservatives? Oh, and I can’t resist: > [@](#): > > _ **Shodan** wrote:_ > Well, this particular hawk thinks it might turn out that the regime attempts to acquire WMD, and use them to threaten their neighbors. Sound familiar? Then how come the neighbors that share 90% plus of Iraq’s borders don’t support this action? Do folks here really believe that the general population of Iraq is more fearful of Saddam than the US? To quote _[Arabnews.com](http://Arabnews.com)_, I’ve got a pyramid I’d like to sell ya… ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/25 "2003-03-24T19:41:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\*I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that removing Saddam will not create a power vacuum? > > Let’s assume a best-case scenario – we kill Saddam. The regime is gone. What next? \*\* General T.Franks sees to the governing of Iraq until a suitable and acceptable Iraqi coaltion is transitioned in. No power vacuum. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/26 "2003-03-24T19:50:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*oh, good, I was low on “Other people distilling my world view into 10 second sound bites”. \*\* and thereby rendering it a ridiculous characicture that no one in their right mind would support. It would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that the people doing the distilling actually believe it. That just makes it sad. When you strip away the real ideas, the real, complex, motivations behind the worldviews all you do is dehumanize the people who hold those views. This practice is a travesty. Instead of addressing the ideas, address some tiny portion of them and pretend the entire idea is invalidated. Or abstract the ideas until no meaning is left and mock them. Or extend the idea into an unrealistic scenario that your opponent never intended for it to apply to and claim it fails because it doesn’t work there. No matter what type of strawman you use you’ve still not addressed the real issue. Propaganda, not debate. This is NOT a good way to fight ignorance. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/27 "2003-03-24T19:50:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*General T.Franks sees to the governing of Iraq until a suitable and acceptable Iraqi coaltion is transitioned in. > > No power vacuum. \*\* Well, I hope that happens. And I hope the “acceptable Iraqi coaltion” is truly acceptable. But the region doesn’t really have a reputation for building (or keeping) stable democratic governments. IM(v)HKB, the last two governments we installed were Afghanistan and Iraq. (I may be very wrong on this, and seek enlightenment.) ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/28 "2003-03-24T19:56:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*(and, preferably, hanging him after a fair trial) \*\* Ye gods! If I didn’t have a sig already this one would be right up at the top of the contenders list. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/29 "2003-03-24T20:39:57Z")
**Sua** , by “services”, I meant regime change by invasion. I admit that I don’t follow sweatshops much, but I haven’t heard of hte US planning many invasions to do away with sweatshops. I think **TaxGuy** won’t find us many examples of liberals being against people having a minimum levels of services. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/30 "2003-03-24T22:06:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Robb \* > \*\ ***Sua** , by “services”, I meant regime change by invasion. \*\* Well, it was McGovern who was pushing for a US invasion of Cambodia to put an end to the ‘Killing Fields.’ To our eternal shame, McGovern didn’t win that fight. Sua ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/31 "2003-03-24T22:13:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*oh, good, I was low on “Other people distilling my world view into 10 second sound bites”. \*\* Right. I should have spent a year writing a 1,000 page OP so I could set out all the premises correctly before launching in on my thesis. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/32 "2003-03-24T22:16:01Z")
Of course that was the only possible alternative. ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/33 "2003-03-24T22:23:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Munch \* > \*\*TaxGuy, the main premise of your argument is incorrect, that being anti-war equals being anti-involved in Iraq. Just because “liberals” don’t want to blow up every building in Baghdad doesn’t mean we all want to give Saddam a hug. \*\* Well, you’re absolutely right, and I don’t think I realized it until you said it. Thanks man (or woman). However, if someone is pro-“being involved in Iraq” and also anti-war, then my take is this: whatever else you think the federal government should do, it at least is supposed to deal with foreign affairs in the best way it thinks possible. Also, the federal government has more information about what’s going on than any of us do simply by virtue of being the federal government. So, when the government decides that talk-time is over and it’s time to get it’s war on, I’ll accept that as the deliberate and considered opinion of the party that’s best equipped and positioned to make the right decision. As you can probably tell, I’m rather libertarian politically; I don’t want the government to do much but protect my sorry ass, so I’m willing to give it lots of leeway to do what it thinks is best when it comes to that. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/34 "2003-03-24T22:48:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TaxGuy \* > \*\*However, if someone is pro-“being involved in Iraq” and also anti-war, then my take is this: whatever else you think the federal government should do, it at least is supposed to deal with foreign affairs in the best way it thinks possible. Also, the federal government has more information about what’s going on than any of us do simply by virtue of being the federal government. > > So, when the government decides that talk-time is over and it’s time to get it’s war on, I’ll accept that as the deliberate and considered opinion of the party that’s best equipped and positioned to make the right decision.\*\* And therein lies the rub. Not everyone accepts that the current administration is doing what is best for the country, and given the dubious quality of some of the evidence and many of the assertions used to support the lead-up to this war, there is some reason to suspect that there may well be other agendas involved here. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/35 "2003-03-24T23:09:50Z")
**Sua** , I think I’m not being very clear. I think that this is an important paragraph from the OP: > [@](#): > > 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. I doubt that liberals are upset that the US might perform social services in Iraq. I’ve heard that they are complaining about the wisdom of invading Iraq at this time. If this is an inconsistency for liberals, than it is inconsistent for reasons other than the OP suggests. That McGovern supported invasion to prevent mass murder, isn’t exactly what the OP posited. I think that to fit the OP, liberals would need to be in favor of such invasions all the time. I think that is the only way for liberals to be consistent in the terms laid down by the OP. I don’t think this is fair to liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/36 "2003-03-24T23:32:00Z")
I’m also rather libertarian politically. I want the government to protect my sorry ass. The difference is that I don’t see a danger to my sorry ass from Saddam Hussein any time in the near future, or at all if we keep up inspections/sanctions. Some sort of action is probably necessary, but as a fan of the noncoercion principle(you may not know about it, it’s a libertarian thing) I don’t see why we’re suddenly justified to use force, especially full-scale war, against Saddam. He’s on his property, he’s doing things his way. If he steps out of his property lines or sends weapons our way then we turn his place into a parking lot. Until then, containment, sanctions, inspections, and humanitarian aid are pretty much all I feel justified in doing with regards to Iraq. In an ideal libertarian mindset we wouldn’t do a damn thing about Saddam. His people, the ones he has wronged, would take him to arbitration and make him back down from his aggressive tendencies. I also disagree with you on the proprietary nature of the “information” the Federal government has. I think if they’ve got it, then we are entitled to it. That whole “we the people” thing you know. Not the nitty gritty that would allow Hussein to plan counterstrikes or where to plant minefields, but some pictures of actual WoMD verified as having been taken in Iraq recently. Some sort of document issuing orders to move WoMD to hide them from inspectors. The confirmation of this document as genuine instead of a forgery. That sort of thing. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/37 "2003-03-24T23:42:07Z")
If one wants to use the technical definitions, Bush’s actions in Iraq are very liberal (note: not “Liberal”)… that is, he plays loosely with definitions, is very reckless, generously exaggerates his own evidence… I really hate the notion that, just because Bush is “a Conservative”, that automatically makes everything he does “conservative”. ---
**Author:** ![Angel\_of\_the\_Lord](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/angel_of_the_lord/32/2949_2.png) [@Angel\_of\_the\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angel_of_the_Lord)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/38 "2003-03-24T23:44:07Z")
I’m tired, and a bit stressed, so I’m sorry if I missed this point when I read over the thread. But I’ve got to make this point: Social welfare programs don’t involve shooting people and bombing cities. Not giving and judgement on the morality of those actions; I’m just saying. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/39 "2003-03-25T02:18:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by AZCowboy \* > Then how come the neighbors that share 90% plus of Iraq’s borders don’t support this action?_\* You mean like Kuwait and Turkey? The Kurds? Iran isn’t going to support the Great Satan no matter what. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AZCowboy \* > Do folks here really believe that the general population of Iraq is more fearful of Saddam than the US? > \*\* Give us a few days. 😉 I suspect (to return to the OP) that in at least a few cases, the reason for anti-war sentiment is no more than that there is a Republican in the White House. Does anyone doubt that if Gore had won the election, (no, he didn’t - spare me your misconceptions about the Electoral College), people like **Stoid** , **elucidator** and a few others would be praising his cool courage to the skies for not letting the UN endanger the national interest? I don’t remember a lot of street protests when Slick Willie thought lobbing a few missiles at Saddam might bump him a few points in the polls. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809/40 "2003-03-25T16:39:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*I suspect (to return to the OP) that in at least a few cases, the reason for anti-war sentiment is no more than that there is a Republican in the White House. Does anyone doubt that if Gore had won the election, (no, he didn’t - spare me your misconceptions about the Electoral College), people like **Stoid** , **elucidator** and a few others would be praising his cool courage to the skies for not letting the UN endanger the national interest? > > I don’t remember a lot of street protests when Slick Willie thought lobbing a few missiles at Saddam might bump him a few points in the polls.\*\* and thereby rendering a ridiculous characicture that no one in their right mind would support. It would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that the people doing the distilling actually believe it. That just makes it sad. When you strip away the real ideas, the real, complex, motivations behind the worldviews all you do is dehumanize the people who hold those views. This practice is a travesty. No matter what type of strawman you use you’ve still not addressed the real issue. Propaganda, not debate. This is NOT a good way to fight ignorance. Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-liberals-war-stance-shows-a-fundamental-disconnect/163809.md?page=3)