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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sua, I think I’m not being very clear. I think that this is an important paragraph from the OP:
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.
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.
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”.
You mean like Kuwait and Turkey? The Kurds? Iran isn’t going to support the Great Satan no matter what.
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.
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.
