Thats not the point…the POINT is, so far only one lefty has come out and condemed it at all, and his rational was more realpolitic than outrage…i.e. we can’t really say that because it will cause us to lose more elections (which he’s right about btw)…we need to say THIS instead.
If you can’t understand the distinction then I’m at a loss to explain it. I’ll just say that said lack of understanding is another indiction IMO as to why the Dems keep losing.
-XT
A distinction without a difference, truly.
Due to the nature of American political parties, both of which major ones can be best described as loose confederations, it’s next to impossible to kick any particular member out. If the Democrats could have kicked Zell Miller out this year, they would have. They couldn’t do so. Neither could they ever kick out Lyndon LaRouche, who seeks the Democratic nomination for president every four years.
What they can do, and what the Republicans also do, is make clear that the views expressed by that politician don’t represent the broader party. This is done by statements from party leaders and elected officials, and by repudiation of certain ideas at primary ballot boxes and at conventions.
Pat Buchanan had no chance for his views on Israel, isolationism and economic protectionism to prevail in the modern Republican Party. He chose to go rather than remain as a marginalized member. The net effect is the same.
MoveOn needs to be similarlly marginalized. What Democratic politicians have the guts to do so? I’d love to see it.
xtisme, when you say that only one leftie has condemned terrorist tactics in Iraq, I assume you’re talking about this thread, not in the world in general. If it’s the latter, I got a million cites for you. If it’s the former, maybe you should try reading the title.
There’s a whole bunch of threads that you’ve posted in where you didn’t condemn terrorism…
I don’t support the Iraqis killing Iraqis and those that target civilians are indeed terrorists and unworthy of support. So I am outraged at the civilian attacks committed by Iraqis.
If the US kills terrorists, fine. But that does not justify the invasion (it probably has recruited more terrorists than what were eliminated) nor the continued occupation, nor the use of torture. The US has done wrong, and so have the terrorists. Acts of neither one is justification for the other.
I’m talking about rfgdxm’s statement so of COURSE I’m talking about this thread Avenger. I seriously doubt you have a million cites for lefties condemning rfgdxm’s statement. As to your dig at the end, its fairly meaningless as you know I was talking about only this thread…did you throw that in to make yourself feel better?
Certainly there are…as there are many threads I’ve posted in that don’t deal with terrorists at all. However, I usually pick up on statements such as the one cited for rfgdxm in this thread and condemn THOSE when I see them…reguardless of if its a righty or lefty who makes them. I’m an equal oppurtunity basher when it comes to stuff like that. The whole point is, there are several lefty/Dems posting in this thread…and ONE has come out so far saying that what rfgdxm said was stupid. And as I said, HE condemned it more from a realpolitic perspective than as being appalled at the content of the message. To me thats kind of telling…YMMV of course.
-XT
How about something like:
We, the Democratic party, oppose all forms of terrorism and violence against civilian populations, and the terrible attacks on 9/11 helped remind us that terrorism is global in scope, and the fight against terrorism must equally be global in scope. We therefore support strong, international action to capture and kill terrorists and punish those regimes which support them.
However, we can not do this alone. Terrorism is a multinational problem, and only a multinational solution is possible. We need cooperation with the rest of the world to fight the war on terror. Therefore, the US must call upon our allies, both in NATO and around the world, and must open dialogue with every nation affected by terrorism, as well as work with the UN and existing multinational organizations to develop a worldwide and unified response against the terrorist threat.
The Democratic party also realizes that an effective way to combat terrorism is to act on the underlying reasons that individuals join terrorist movements. Therefore, the Democratic party is committed to encouraging democratic values and human rights around the world, so that individuals can find peaceful ways to protest, and also to increase aid to the poorest nations of the world and work to increase the standard of living worldwide. We will work with the IMF and World Bank to renegotiate the interest payments that trap so many third world nations into a cycle of crushing debt and economic crisis. We will work to encourage a fair peace and settlement in Israel and Palestine, in Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka, in Cyprus, and everywhere around the world there is conflict.
The war against terrorism also must be fought at home. We therefore support tougher penalties against terrorist acts and funding of terrorism, and we will work to identify domestic organizations that fund and support terrorists and shut them down and prosecute them. We will step up our border security to make certain that people can not enter the US illegally and that those with evil intent can never cross our borders. However, we can not allow the fight against terrorism to take from Americans those civil rights which our ancestors have fought for. We must therefore make certain that those accused of supporting terrorism are represented by competant counsel, and are tried in an open and fair court. We must make certain that the rights of those investigated are respected.
The fight against terrorism will not be an easy one, nor one without cost. However, it is a fight we must fight, a fight we must win. And it is a fight we can win. Since its founding, the United States has never been afraid to fight, and under our leadership, we will defeat the terrorist threat and make both the US and the world safer.
I know you don’t…thats why it was odd that you hadn’t come out and said something before this. Of course, its more than possible you just hadn’t gotten back to this thread since then…I know when I’m at work a lot of times its tough to keep up with the back and forth.
I agree that nothing justifies the invasion. However, I disagree that the continued occupation isn’t necessary…we made the mess, its our duty to stay the course and clean it up if it can be cleaned up.
I also agree that wrong has been done on both sides…but I think the greater wrongs have been committed by the terrorists than by the US. Just my opinion of course…YMMV.
-XT
That was kinda the point. This thread is a discussion on what the democrats position on terrorism should be. No-one need to condemn anything to participate. No-one has made any statements supporting terrorist activities as you have defined them. Therefore I feel no need to condemn anyone’s position.
rfgdxm made a statement correcting Debaser’s erroneous confusion of terrorist activities and insurgent activities and stated that he supported the rights of an invaded populace to resist an invading army, as do I. If you want to debate that point feel free, but it’s nothing to do with this thread.
A billboard for you, too! “Democrat ‘Avenger’ says, ‘I also support the rights of the citizens of an invaded country to take up arms against the invaders.’ You should too!”
Never mind that those invaders are American soldiers. Your sentiment will play well in the 2006 elections. And then we can have more threads about how the sheeple are easily led and foolish.
Bwahahahaha!
Yes, the “sheeple” are the big problem for the Democrats.
So you support the right of Nazis to kill American troops invading Germany?
That’s the $64 question… CAN the mess be cleaned up? If it CAN, then I agree we need to stay to do the job once we toppled Saddam. But if it CANNOT, at what point is it prudent to cut our losses and get the heck out of there? Personally, I don’t think it can be done and sooner or later the US will realize this and bug out. I would not mind being proved wrong, however.
Anyone who claims the majority of the Iraqi people support the insurgents is either incredibly stupid and gullible, or willfully denying reality. Invading another country isn’t wrong in and of itself.
It’s a very simple concept. Although I think you’ll find that ‘Nazi’ is not actually a nationality. I would also support the right of Americans to kill invading ‘Nazis’. I take it you wouldn’t, in the interests of consistency, like.
BTW, Bricker, I have no affiliation to any of your identikit right wing political parties.
Nonsense. The insurgency is being fought against the establishment of a democratic government. Almost all the attacks in the last few weeks have been against Iraqis - Iraqi police, election workers, teachers, people trying to build a free society.
Please explain to me how dragging three election workers out of their cars and executing them counts as an ‘insurgency’ against occupiers.
The insurgents are largely made up of two groups - Islamic fascists, and ex-Baathist fascists. And they are closely connected to al-Qaida. Bin Laden himself has declared Zarqawi his deputy, and Zarqawi appears to be controlling the insurgency. That makes it a terrorist fight (it already was, since their primary modus operandi is to terrorize the population).
That you guys can’t see the nature of this insurgency, and instead choose to believe that it is a populist uprising against an occupation by Americans, just shows your bias. And it’s not pretty.
As for Republicans repudiating extremists - you must not be paying attention. In 2001, Jerry Falwell made some intemperate statements about Islam, and he got stomped on by Republicans from the President on down. Trent Lott was removed from the Republican Leadership for saying that the country would have been better off had Strom Thurmond been elected president back when he was a racist.
The Republicans have gone a LONG way to silence the extremists on the right. That’s why the Republicans now occupy the center in America. In the meantime, the Democrats put Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at their convention. Stupid, stupid move.
Well, I feel a great many people who voted for bush were mindless gucks, voting from fear, stupidity and ingnorance. YMMV but I am confident I’m right. I’m not worrying about hurting their feelings because they don’t debate poltical issues online – involves too much reading, dochaknow. I feel I can safely say whatever I like about the gucks online without fear of offending them or of their knowing about it.
I promise you that if address a group that is likely to include a significant quantity of gucks, I’ll moderate my tone considerably.
You might want to check out this thread.
Gaudere does not find it “cool” that a member of this board says anything that refers to killing US soldiers by Iraqis, because you see, there are a few US soldiers member of this message board.
But because not coming from me, but from a Made in the USA member, you are safe for the Moderator’s Hat showing up shortly.
Salaam. A
Invading another country is not always morally wrong. Resisting an invader is not always morally right. Germans resisting the Allied invasion of Germany and Japanese resisting the Allied invasion of Japan were morally wrong. Today, the terrorists in Iraq are morally wrong to resist the American invasion, and leftwing bootlickers in the West are morally wrong to support the terrorists.
Really? Have you read the original post that started this discussion:
I’m still waitng for that poster to come back and say (s)he left out “not” after “do” in that sentence.
Getting back to the OP… The Dem position on Islamic terrorism should be that they will:
The Democrats should hammer home the fact that Iraq is NOT a front in the war against Islamic terror. Kerry made the mistake of trying to be on too many sides of that issue. The Iraq war is not a popular issue among Americans, and it wouldn’t take much leadership on that issue to make it even less popular. We do have to finish the job there, and we may very end up being there for a few more years, but most Americans are ready to accept that we should never have gone in there in the first place.
Cite? As near as I can tell, members of the JBS helped define the New Right and most of the current Republican Party policies.
Republicans of the SDMB, please (finally) understand that the stance all but the nuttiest Democrats on terrorism is that we are against it. Maybe we disagree with you on some of the methods of fighting it but Yeesh! can we disagree without the villification, strawmen, and accusations?
Myself, I really don’t know. I have good days where I think I see trends that are positive…and bad days when I see the opposite. Basically I think it really is still too early to tell. IF the Iraqi’s manage to elect a strong government with at least some ties back to the people, and if that government can get its legs under it, get its army reformed and useful, can repair AND protect its infrastructure…all with the help of the US of course…then I think the Iraqi’s have a chance. At this point though, I think its way to early to say that it won’t happen at all, or that the best thing for the US to do is to tuck tail and bolt…and I think the majority of American’s agree with that assessment, even if they (and I) are pessimistic about Iraq and the situation today.
And (to get back to the OP) thats something the Dems are perceived as saying…that we should perhaps tuck tail and look to bolt from Iraq because its simply too tough. Its too early to be making those noises IMO.
-XT