Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/57159-why-liberals-so-eager-us-fail.html)

Hwed 05-28-2004 06:01 AM

Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail?
 
A serious question. Every thread I read here smacks of eager anticipation for failure, disaster, and a gleeful counting of US deaths in Iraq. I realize there is a lot of hatred toward George Bush, but these events are bigger than the president, and your anger toward him is recklessly endangering the lives of our servicemen while undermining our chances of success.

In my opinion, winning the war on terror and setting up a stable Iraq is infinitely more important than who gets elected in November.

So why are so many people so eager to snatch failure from the jaws of victory?

Our differences should end at our nation's borders. You may not like Bush, but at least recognize the good we're doing in Iraq and get behind our military. War is hell enough on its own. The last thing our troops need to hear is a bunch of hateful rhetoric from the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy dooming them to failure.

ARTelevision 05-28-2004 06:25 AM

That's a good question. Perhaps you loaded it to the degree that folks will get defensive and say something to the effect of "we aren't against our country - just the government." That's the most common response.

I agree with your assessment. Bashing one's country excessively is not very becoming.

Stompy 05-28-2004 06:32 AM

I wouldn't classify myself as liberal, but I'm guessing it's because if your leader is flat out corrupt, it'd be a good thing to have him fail so he can get out of office.

Not to say Democrats aren't corrupt either (pretty much all politicians are), but... you'd see the same thing if a liberal were in power. The conservatives would love to see them fail.

Ah, the beauty of politics..

Superbelt 05-28-2004 06:50 AM

Quote:

Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail?
Because I'm consumed with hate! And if I'm not happy, no one should be. :D

For a serious answer, it's our duty to question the government. At least we are basing our anger and arguments on criticisms of the way our leaders are making their decisions.
It's a far cry from the months long national circus of Republicans trying to ruin the Clenis for things that didn't affect this country. What it did do though was occupy Balls Clenis' attention for a ludicrous amount of time, time he could have been spending running the country. And it created an atmosphere of doubt where every decision he made (see. Desert Fox/Wag the dog) Was seen as smoke screening.

"Our differences end at the borders"
Qualifications for that statement is hard to define. In a sense we follow that. Dixie Chicks and Al Franken, both outspoken opponents of the war have donated their time and energy to visiting and entertaining our troops in Iraq and in veterans hospitals. Criticism for the war can very well be a method of troop support. It can help get our troops out faster, and force changes at the administrative level for the benefit of our troops.

Tell me, to you, what coverage of the war can do to endanger our troops.
And how are we snatching failure from the jaws of victory? Do you think we are anywhere near seeing victory in Iraq?

Finally, please tell me, (in your own words because it is important to see where you are coming from on these issues) why did we go to war with Iraq?

analog 05-28-2004 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
we aren't against our country - just the government.
I love this country. America is a great country, with opportunities for all that you just can't get everywhere in the world. I believe we are a nation that is as free as they come.

That doesn't mean I don't think our "elected" representatives- at all levels of government- are doing a good job. Rights have been abridged, personal agendas are made policy, and I believe there are few people in politics who actually, sincerely, carry out the will of those they represent.

And that's sad, because that's SUPPOSED to be what they're there for.

I say "elected", because in today's political realm, no one runs on a platform of, "this is who I am, and what I can do for you"- except maybe in small, local elections. All other positions are filled by special interest groups and corporations, depending on how much money they're willing to throw at a candidate.

Corporations run our government, whether democrat or republican, and if people can't see the facts for themselves, they will remain thinking the government cares about them.

Which, really, they don't.

OFKU0 05-28-2004 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by analog
I love this country. America is a great country, with opportunities for all that you just can't get everywhere in the world. I believe we are a nation that is as free as they come.

That doesn't mean I don't think our "elected" representatives- at all levels of government- are doing a good job. Rights have been abridged, personal agendas are made policy, and I believe there are few people in politics who actually, sincerely, carry out the will of those they represent.

And that's sad, because that's SUPPOSED to be what they're there for.

I say "elected", because in today's political realm, no one runs on a platform of, "this is who I am, and what I can do for you"- except maybe in small, local elections. All other positions are filled by special interest groups and corporations, depending on how much money they're willing to throw at a candidate.

Corporations run our government, whether democrat or republican, and if people can't see the facts for themselves, they will remain thinking the government cares about them.

Which, really, they don't.

I totally agree with this statement.

People in general tend to be very forgiving if a politician or government try something and in the end, if it fails, providing a level of honesty and sincerity was attached, are willing at times to move on and try again.

There are times though when entire governments lie, cheat, steal and are so corrupt even those who represent said parties, can do nothing but follow the party line simply in order to save face, at least what is left of it. Hence the vicious cycle of voter apathy.

An excellent example of this is presently occuring in Canada.

nanofever 05-28-2004 09:28 AM

Re: Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
A serious question. Every thread I read here smacks of eager anticipation for failure, disaster, and a gleeful counting of US deaths in Iraq. I realize there is a lot of hatred toward George Bush, but these events are bigger than the president, and your anger toward him is recklessly endangering the lives of our servicemen while undermining our chances of success.

In my opinion, winning the war on terror and setting up a stable Iraq is infinitely more important than who gets elected in November.

So why are so many people so eager to snatch failure from the jaws of victory?

Our differences should end at our nation's borders. You may not like Bush, but at least recognize the good we're doing in Iraq and get behind our military. War is hell enough on its own. The last thing our troops need to hear is a bunch of hateful rhetoric from the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy dooming them to failure.

You and that Goering guy would get along great...

" Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't wat war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood.

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. And it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Herman Goering "

Superbelt 05-28-2004 09:42 AM

And the flipside to that coin.


Quote:

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
-Thomas Jefferson

Other good ones.
Quote:

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government."
- Thomas Paine
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/avatar....ine=1067219432
Quote:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
Quote:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

Quote:

"Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion."
- Oscar Wilde

onetime2 05-28-2004 09:47 AM

Quote:

...as to praise him when he does right.
I guess I'm still waiting for any evidence that this will happen. A single admission that the man has done something right might lead me to be more open to others' criticisms of him.

Superbelt 05-28-2004 09:53 AM

He did a very good job immediately after 9/11. He acted in a reverent and solid manner. His run up to and invasion of Afghanistan was done in a way that leaves me without any criticism. Afghanistan was a military action that I fully supported.

I've always felt that way about that period of his presidency.

Outside of that, there really is nothing though that I can think of that he did in a way I approve of.
Please list me some of what you think are his positive accomplishments and I will see if I feel I missed any.

matthew330 05-28-2004 10:02 AM

Wouldn't you say that whackjobs out in San Fran who stood in the way of supplies that were being shipped out to our troops unpatriotic, and though completely ineffective, their intentions if at all successfull (haha - i love that pic of that dumb bitch with the big welt on her neck from the sand bag guns) could have exposed this country to danger.

When are you guys gonna get it? Questioning the war is not unpatriotic, disagreeing with our president is not unpatriotic, disliking your president is not unpatriotic. This kind of idiotic behaviour is, and these are the people you align yourself with. Making your little 7 year old girl hold up a sign that says "Pull out Bush, your daddy should have" if it wasn't so ignorant would be unpatriotic.

So that's where that comes from, and i think if anyone here has perfected goering's tactics it's the left:

- What??? You question MY patriotism - go have dinner with Nazi's...YOU, YOU NAZI!!

-What??? You don't want affirmative action. YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE!!!! RACIST!!!

-WHAT???? No universal health care, You want my MOM to DIE!!!! YOU HATE OLD PEOPLE, YOU HATE MY MOM!!!

and so on and so on and so on....Goering would be proud, not philosophically but certainly in practice (judging from that quote you posted, anyway).

Superbelt 05-28-2004 10:07 AM

If we are alligned with the people in San Fran who tried to prevent the shipment of supplies, then you are alligned with the Coulters, Limbaughs, Falwells, Robertsons, Hannity's etc who want to bomb all the arab countries, kill their leaders and forcibly convert them to christianity.

Yeah! Nice allies you got there! If I had to pick one group over the other, I think I'd stick with the Frannies.

(Obviously, well at least I hope, neither of us are "allies" of either of these groups of people. Just because they have a semblance of similarity with the rest of us does not mean they are interchangeable with us. They are the minority, they are a fringe.)

Superbelt 05-28-2004 10:10 AM

I also disagree with your assessment of Goering. You might want to read it a little closer. All you need to do is change several words and it seems like something Bush, Rummy or Ashcroft have said in the runup to war.

Superbelt 05-28-2004 10:14 AM

Quote Comparison
 
Virtually interchangeable in the purity of the message.

Ashcroft: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."

Goering: "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. And it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Publius 05-28-2004 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I guess I'm still waiting for any evidence that this will happen. A single admission that the man has done something right might lead me to be more open to others' criticisms of him.
OK here you go. First, I voted for Bush because I had high hopes that he would turn out to be to sort of president that I had hoped he would be, and I hate Al Gore. Second, I think most people (not all) were glad Bush was the man in office come 9/11, I sure know I was. Here he had a great opportunity to do awesome things in this country at home and abroad. In my opinion, going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and he did it well.

It wasn't until Bush started bungling foreign policy over Iraq that I started to become critical of his administration. I tried defending him for awhile, but as events unfolded I finally had to admit he was making some huge mistakes. Now I've been to Europe and the Middle East to talk with people there over US foreign policy and it is amazing how fast there sympathy and support over 9/11 turned to animosity and hatred over Iraq. Most of them (including the French) still love Americans and America, what they don’t like (like many of us) is our leadership. The first step to repairing US foreign policy is getting rid of George Bush, because it is the president who dictates this country’s foreign policy stance. (Personally I think the president should be limited to foreign policy and leave domestic policy concerns to the Congress who by its nature is much more representative of the American people.)

Now, I personally don’t see how being critical of our administration hurts our troops abroad. If anything being critical at home works to insure that their lives will not be senselessly wasted when a little diplomacy could have been used.

onetime2 05-28-2004 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
He did a very good job immediately after 9/11. He acted in a reverent and solid manner. His run up to and invasion of Afghanistan was done in a way that leaves me without any criticism. Afghanistan was a military action that I fully supported.

I've always felt that way about that period of his presidency.

Outside of that, there really is nothing though that I can think of that he did in a way I approve of.
Please list me some of what you think are his positive accomplishments and I will see if I feel I missed any.

Certainly you give some credit but anyone who can only point to a single thing that a President has done during nearly 4 years in office isn't trying very hard.

Things that I feel he's done a good job on (I'm tempted not to provide a list because we'll get distracted in debating the merits of them) but here are a few. I'm fairly certain you won't agree:

Prescription Drug Benefit (people can detract from it all they want but the fact is it's better than what low income seniors had before)

Decision not to tap into the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower prices (Americans are spoiled by low gas prices and thinking that tapping into the reserves in a time of war just so we can pay a few cents less a gallon is assinine IMO)

Tax cuts (again you will disagree but I definitely don't believe the government needs more of our money, they need to become more efficient with the massive sums they already get)

Not continuing to be extorted by Kim Jong Il in North Korea

Filing suit to get the 527 organizations to stop skirting campaign finance reform

Standing up for the countries that joined us in Iraq by keeping France and Germany from profiting from reconstruction monies.

Continually standing up for those countries that joined us in Iraq by pointing out that the Democrats who claim we have no international support are doing a disservice to our relationships with them.

There are others (and there are plenty that I disagree with him about) but I have yet to hear any Democratic leader come out and say that a single action of his was "good". Hell they even criticize his handling of the hours and days after 9/11.

Go into the archives of the Tilted Politics board and see how many times the "lefties" on the board have stated he did something right vs how he's done everything wrong. Hell they are so happy that he choked on a pretzel and fell off a bike I think they'd sooner elect Rush Limbaugh to the Presidency than point to a Bush success.

Superbelt 05-28-2004 10:35 AM

You are right. I don't agree with you list.

Marginally the strategic oil reserves could count, but that is such a minor thing.

It would be ok that he tried to stop 527's. But it gets negated that he ignored the predominantly republican backing 501(c)'s.
501(c)'s include Nature conservancy, AARP, religious groups (such as the National Right to Life Committee), and the NRA.
These tax exempt groups are allowed to use their tax exempt donations to run political ads and Bush has a huge advantage on this front.
If it wasn't clear that fighting the 527's was just a political maneuver to give him an advantage I would applaud that action as well.

Quote:

Prescription Drug Benefit (people can detract from it all they want but the fact is it's better than what low income seniors had before)
No it's not. The private companies that are going to provide the benefits have a horrible weapon on their side. Citizens must pick a card and stick with it for one full year. But the (HMO's) don't have to keep their benefits stable, only the membership costs. For example, An HMO could start off offering 60% off of a heart medication and then two months later drop that percentage to 15% and royally screw everyone who depends on that.

Quote:

Not continuing to be extorted by Kim Jong Il in North Korea
We backed off that and we are giving them aid again in exchange for not producing weapons.
I think that was one of our biggest problems. Bush focused on the impotent Saddam while Kim Jong and Osama etc were allowed to run around doing what they wanted.

onetime2 05-28-2004 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Publius
OK here you go. First, I voted for Bush because I had high hopes that he would turn out to be to sort of president that I had hoped he would be, and I hate Al Gore. Second, I think most people (not all) were glad Bush was the man in office come 9/11, I sure know I was. Here he had a great opportunity to do awesome things in this country at home and abroad. In my opinion, going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and he did it well.

It wasn't until Bush started bungling foreign policy over Iraq that I started to become critical of his administration. I tried defending him for awhile, but as events unfolded I finally had to admit he was making some huge mistakes. Now I've been to Europe and the Middle East to talk with people there over US foreign policy and it is amazing how fast there sympathy and support over 9/11 turned to animosity and hatred over Iraq. Most of them (including the French) still love Americans and America, what they don’t like (like many of us) is our leadership. The first step to repairing US foreign policy is getting rid of George Bush, because it is the president who dictates this country’s foreign policy stance. (Personally I think the president should be limited to foreign policy and leave domestic policy concerns to the Congress who by its nature is much more representative of the American people.)

Now, I personally don’t see how being critical of our administration hurts our troops abroad. If anything being critical at home works to insure that their lives will not be senselessly wasted when a little diplomacy could have been used.

I'll start with your last statement first. Being critical of the administration is perfectly acceptable but it should be done in constructive rather than destructive ways. Let's say a husband and wife go to an auto dealer to buy a car. If their goal is to get the best deal possible, should they get into a screaming match on the showroom floor and disclose their dividing points to the salesman? Of course not. Why then is it appropriate to do so in the face of an enemy who wants to kill our citizens? Exposing and fomenting divisiveness rallies the enemy. People are so quick to point out that Bush hasn't used diplomacy in world affairs yet have no concern that our politicians refuse to use it here at home.

Now, onto your first point. I too voted for George Bush. Not because I had great hope for him. Not because I agreed with him. And certainly not because I thought he was well suited for the job. I wanted McCain. Gore was simply unacceptable so that, realistically, left George Bush.

I was surprised he handled 9/11 as well as he did. I was even more surprised by the restraint he showed in the days, months, and years after it. People seem to forget that he didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq on 9/12. The US went to Afghanist in October 2001. We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003. People claim there was no diplomacy prior to the invasion of Iraq. There were UN resolutions, meetings with just about every ally we've ever had, and plenty of alternatives given to Hussein before the invasion took place. Could it have been done better? Absolutely. Were there reasons to go into Iraq also absolutely. Everyone points to WMDs as the only reason. The simple fact is we (the United States) created a reputation over the last 30 years of not getting their hands dirty. Of there being no consequence to those who commit or support terrorist acts. Afghanistan and Iraq were answers to that image. Would countries supporting terrorism have taken the US seriously if their only reaction to terrorism was a successful invasion of Afghanistan? Of course not. Iraq proved that we would risk lives and reputation in the war on terror. Is it an accident that other countries that never would have worked with us before have come forward (Pakistan, Libya, hell even Iran has opened up a bit with regard to nuclear inspections)? Not a chance they would have looked at Afghanistan as an example.

And I will close with a reiteration of the statement I made to Superbelt, anyone who can only find one or two examples of "good" from a man who has served nearly four years as our leader isn't trying very hard.

Superbelt 05-28-2004 10:54 AM

We are ideological opposites. It's to be expected.

How much good did Clinton do for you?
How about Kerry. What do you like about Kerry?

Hell, what should I like about Bush?
The things you posted are things I am just politically opposite from (Even McCain is opposed to the tax cuts). My other big issue is the environment and Bush has done nothing but roll back regulations.
Everything you posted as positives that look like they should be acceptable on the surface I have shown to have flaws that I can't accept.

Sorry, but if everything he does is the opposite of what I see as good, it isn't my fault that I can't change to like it.
He is not a president who espouses my views and values.

-Gone for Memorial weekend

onetime2 05-28-2004 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
You are right. I don't agree with you list.

Marginally the strategic oil reserves could count, but that is such a minor thing.

It would be ok that he tried to stop 527's. But it gets negated that he ignored the predominantly republican backing 501(c)'s.
501(c)'s include Nature conservancy, AARP, religious groups (such as the National Right to Life Committee), and the NRA.
These tax exempt groups are allowed to use their tax exempt donations to run political ads and Bush has a huge advantage on this front.
If it wasn't clear that fighting the 527's was just a political maneuver to give him an advantage I would applaud that action as well.


No it's not. The private companies that are going to provide the benefits have a horrible weapon on their side. Citizens must pick a card and stick with it for one full year. But the (HMO's) don't have to keep their benefits stable, only the membership costs. For example, An HMO could start off offering 60% off of a heart medication and then two months later drop that percentage to 15% and royally screw everyone who depends on that.


We backed off that and we are giving them aid again in exchange for not producing weapons.
I think that was one of our biggest problems. Bush focused on the impotent Saddam while Kim Jong and Osama etc were allowed to run around doing what they wanted.

This is precisely why I was hesitant to post a list. You've ignored a central point that I made about the simple fact that anyone who can only find one or two examples of good from a leader in four years isn't trying.

In response to your criticisms of my list:
There are 501cs on both sides of the fence and they differ in that they are not purely political organizations. They are typically geared towards a specific cause first and the political support is an offshoot of that cause. Groups like Move On stand for what cause exactly that isn't motivated purely by politics?

In terms of the Prescription Drug Benefit your arguments hold no water in relation to my point. You assume the HMOs will do this when it's the antithesis of what they need to do to make money. How many Seniors will renew or sign up for that card if they followed your business model? Seniors with high drug costs are better off with the card than without it. These cards force prices down because the prices are listed along with the card description. The companies administering these cards will only be profitable if they can convince people to sign up and renew. They can only do that by offering the best prices on the drugs the seniors in their geographic areas use. I work in the pharmaceutical industry and not a single person has ever said "oh boy this is a boon for us".

Osama has been allowed to run around doing whatever he wanted? I presume one of his biggest wants is to attack the US again. Haven't seen that happen since 9/11 though. The only reason we know about Kim Jong Il's nuclear program is because Bush cut him off. Otherwise we'd still be in the dark and been paying him off for the last several years.

onetime2 05-28-2004 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt

Sorry, but if everything he does is the opposite of what I see as good, it isn't my fault that I can't change to like it.
He is not a president who espouses my views and values.

-Gone for Memorial weekend

Despite the fact that I disliked Clinton's morality and many of his beliefs there were many things I thought he did a good job on. Since you're not willing to even try to find anything redeeming in Bush I won't bother to compile a list.

hannukah harry 05-28-2004 11:38 AM

i havent' read more than a couple responses, so if something to this effect has been said already, sorry.

i'm liberal, but in the more moderate area. it really depends on the particular subject. anyways. i'm not "eager for the US to fail." well, i sort of am. let me explain. i think the direction the current administration has put us in is the wrong direction, that their policies are failing us, failing the american people. to make an analogy... the US is currently getting an A+ in raping little school girls and i would love to see us fail that. not a pretty analogy, but it pretty well sums up how i feel about what this administration has done to our country.

it seems to me (i'm just reading into things and making assumpitons though) that what you probably consider "liberals wanting the US to fail" is not that. it's that we think things are already going horribly astray and want things to change positively, and for that to happen bush needs to get out of office. things like body count and other things said (although i'm sure there are some on the fringes who have other motives for saying things) is to remember and keep people from forgetting what's going on, why, and what the results have been so far and that is why we need change.

my probably incomplete $.02, but that's enough for now.

Publius 05-28-2004 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
[B
Now, onto your first point. I too voted for George Bush. Not because I had great hope for him. Not because I agreed with him. And certainly not because I thought he was well suited for the job. I wanted McCain. Gore was simply unacceptable so that, realistically, left George Bush.

(...)

And I will close with a reiteration of the statement I made to Superbelt, anyone who can only find one or two examples of "good" from a man who has served nearly four years as our leader isn't trying very hard. [/B]
John McCain yes! Now here is the guy that I wish was running the country for the past 4 years (I too was a big supporter of McCain in 2000) Unfortunatly we got stuck with a choice between two evils and I picked what I thought to be (and still believe to be) the lesser of these evils. (Its just too bad we are once again faced with a similar choice. Damn the two party system!)

As for the last part, what is there to find that is good? I disagree with everything, and I do mean everything, that Bush has done domestically (or should I say allowed Congress to do to us) and well you already know how I feel about his foreign policy. So let me TRY to find something good he has done. Well lets see, he choked on a pretzel once, that was good (but he actually did that fairly poorly). And he fell off his bike last week, that was good too (well it would have been if he hadn’t been wearing a helmet).

Back to protesting Bush’s actions at home and political infighting, well that’s politics, that’s how it works, that’s how the founders intended it to happen, and when it stops happening then we might as well be living in Saddam’s Iraq because that is what you get when nobody openly questions governmental leadership. Oh, and just let me point back to almost every war the US has ever engaged in, there had always (without exception) been those who questioned how the (then) president was handling the situation. Did it hurt us then? Maybe, but are we better off today for it? Defiantly.

filtherton 05-28-2004 12:03 PM

I think you're confusing "wanting to fail" with "wanting to not be dragged into a war of questionable merit".

Mojo_PeiPei 05-28-2004 02:08 PM

I think your war of questionable merit has been a long time coming and justified.

cthulu23 05-28-2004 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I think your war of questionable merit has been a long time coming and justified.
Which justification for war are we talking about this time...phantom WMDs or the suffering of the Iraqi people?

I'm no fan of brutal dictators, but Saddam's butchery was not the reason that was originally used to sell this boondoggle to the American public. We were told, over and over again, what an imminent threat Saddam was to our safety with his active nuclear program and tons of chemical weapons, although we haven't been able to find much evidence of said WMDs. We were told that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium and was involved with the 9-11 tragedy, neither of which has been proven in the slightest. All in all, Bush and Co. furiously spun bad intelligence to sell this invasion to a country already involved in another (more legitimate) war.

Now we are supposed to forget all of that misinformation and convince ourselves that we really went in there to liberate the people...yeah, that's it. Never mind the fact that Wolfowitz, Perle and company have been advocating the invasion if Iraq for use as a stable Middle East base of operations for the last decade....how could that have anything to do with our humanitarian crusade?

You say that this war has been a long time coming....perhaps the starting point of that "long time" was at this instant? If our relationships with Diem or Noriega were any indicator, we have a tendency to take down the thugs that we champion.

Mojo_PeiPei 05-28-2004 05:16 PM

The Wolfowitz doctrine is a brilliant piece of foreign policy, which yes he has been advocating for a very long time. It would've been better if the UN took care of this mess a long time ago, but they didn't. I could care less about about some of the shaky allegations, a lot of other ones hold up. Besides Saddam was a brutal murderous asshat, he had it coming.

Always remember, all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

To the point of the post though is that it all comes down to Bush. You think the anti-American left would learn to never cut your nose to spite your face.

Zeld2.0 05-28-2004 06:13 PM

I highly doubt the UN would adopt a piece of foreign policy with a goal of taking the world for US interests...

I think your problem is summed up in what you said:

To the point of the post though is that it all comes down to Bush. You think the anti-American left would learn to never cut your nose to spite your face.

---

Simple fact is, that is not what the left wants, nor is it what they are advocating - yes there are those who do way on the left but on the same there are those on the right who want nothing more than to see all liberals killed as well.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) this is America and its their right to believe it so

And as to the original question....

Liberals aren't out to destroy the country - hell usually i'm against what many do. But I like to play devil's advocate and IMO thats what we need right now - I would say the same if Clinton were in office.

cthulu23 05-28-2004 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
The Wolfowitz doctrine is a brilliant piece of foreign policy, which yes he has been advocating for a very long time. It would've been better if the UN took care of this mess a long time ago, but they didn't. I could care less about about some of the shaky allegations, a lot of other ones hold up. Besides Saddam was a brutal murderous asshat, he had it coming.

Always remember, all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

To the point of the post though is that it all comes down to Bush. You think the anti-American left would learn to never cut your nose to spite your face.

I believe that we are currently seeing the Wolfowitz doctrine in action and, in my opinion, it's brilliance has yet to be confirmed.

I brought up the Wolfowitz doctrine to illustrate how the administration's claims of humanitarianist motives in Iraq are just a smoke screen for a deeper strategic motive, albeit a fundamentally flawed one. Not to mention that the administration's first excuse for invasion was the "threat" of Iraq, not concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people. Couple this with Bush's history of dismissing Clinton's "nation-building" humanitarian missions in Kosovo , Somalia and Haiti, as well as his party's legacy of actively supporting some of the worst butchers on the planet (the Democrats do this, too) and it becomes hard to disregard the disingenuosness. I am continuously astounded by how many Americans seem to easily dismiss this chameleon-like shifting of motives . Personally, I consider starting a war under false pretenses as one of the most disgraceful actions that a leader can visit upon his nation.

One tangential point: when did the anti-war left become the "anti-American" left? America is a nation founded on protest and is big enough for a multiplicity of opinions. Vigorous debate is a cornerstone of any democracy. Accusing the opposition of a lack of patriotism implies a misunderstanding of just what America is supposed to be about. If I'm concerned with the present direction of a country's progress, isn't it my patriotic duty to right the course? Not everyone feels that destroying a country's infrastructure, divvying up it's natural resources to a select few and building airbases there is the most effective way of helping it's people (or engendering good will in the Middle East).

I find the allegations of acquiescence in the face of evil a little insulting. I've been involved with many campaigns against repressive governments, such as Burma, Indonesia and, yes, Iraq during the sanction years, and the support for these efforts by Republicans was always minimal. In fact, most human rights organizations and campaigns seem to be labeled as leftist, bleeding-heart whining by many right-wing pundits. I know that not all conservatives feel this way, but you cannot deny that this sentiment exists in mainstream American conservative thought. When you question someones patriotism, you shouldn't crudely co-opt a piece of their ideology.

Edit: corrected grammar error

DJ Happy 05-29-2004 03:52 AM

Re: Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed

In my opinion, winning the war on terror and setting up a stable Iraq is infinitely more important than who gets elected in November.



Winning the war on terror? And how exactly do you propose to do that? This is a war that will never end and is utterly impossible to win - for either side. My main criticism of Bush has always been his inability to see that. He stumbles along with his cowboy hat cocked to one side while clicking his spurs, without the slightest realisation (or care) that he has endangered all Westerners the world over for the rest of their lives. Thanks for that George. You go off and enjoy your lifetime of secret service protection at the taxpayers' expense while I stress about whether I'll come back from the supermarket alive or not.

Quote:

Our differences should end at our nation's borders. You may not like Bush, but at least recognize the good we're doing in Iraq and get behind our military. War is hell enough on its own. The last thing our troops need to hear is a bunch of hateful rhetoric from the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy dooming them to failure.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean, "the good we're doing in Iraq?" I fail to see any good coming from any of this. Not that I do not support the military. My cousin served in both Afghanistan and Iraq and I prayed for his safe home-coming every day of his duty. But I hate Bush for sending him and the thousands of others over there, directly in harm's way to satisfy his own personal agenda.

matthew330 05-29-2004 05:25 AM

if 50% of the population agree with him, then it's not really his own personal agenda now is it?

cthulu23 05-29-2004 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
if 50% of the population agree with him, then it's not really his own personal agenda now is it?
Huh? So ideas with any popular support can't be part of someones agenda? I don't understand what you mean by that.

DJ Happy 05-29-2004 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
if 50% of the population agree with him, then it's not really his own personal agenda now is it?
Firstly, what cthulu23 said.

Secondly, 50% of the people agreed with his STATED reason for the invasion. What about the reality?

filtherton 05-29-2004 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
if 50% of the population agree with him, then it's not really his own personal agenda now is it?
Have you seen his approval ratings lately?

HarmlessRabbit 05-29-2004 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
if 50% of the population agree with him, then it's not really his own personal agenda now is it?
Well, it could be, or it couldn't be. Whether others agree with a person (or not) doesn't have any bearing on whether the person is doing for their own personal agenda or for the good of mankind.

Don't make me pull out my philosophy books!

tecoyah 05-29-2004 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
if 50% of the population agree with him, then it's not really his own personal agenda now is it?
If 50% of the population don't agree with him....he really isnt listening very well is he?

By the way...your 50% came from a poll, most people of reasonable intellect understand that the wording of a poll is set to give the prefered answer a high rating.

Never trust the polls....even if they do show 'ol GW with the lowest rating since he took office (46% approval) and an even lower stat for his handling of the war in Iraq (37%).

NY Times 05/28/04

yatzr 05-29-2004 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ Happy
Winning the war on terror? And how exactly do you propose to do that? This is a war that will never end and is utterly impossible to win - for either side. My main criticism of Bush has always been his inability to see that. He stumbles along with his cowboy hat cocked to one side while clicking his spurs, without the slightest realisation (or care) that he has endangered all Westerners the world over for the rest of their lives. Thanks for that George. You go off and enjoy your lifetime of secret service protection at the taxpayers' expense while I stress about whether I'll come back from the supermarket alive or not.

so are you saying that we'd be better off if bush didn't do a damn thing about 9/11? Are you saying that we are in fact worse off because bush did do something about it? I agree with you that the war on terror can never truly be won, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought. Seriously...do you think 9/11 was their one shot for the century and since they got that one off they're done?? I really don't see how the war on terrorism has endangered your, or anyone elses (excluding the army, etc.) life.

By the way, maybe the next time you go to the supermarket you can pick up john mccain's book "Why Courage Matters"...then maybe you won't worry for your life coming back home.

ARTelevision 05-29-2004 10:19 PM

It's seriously misplaced to blame the President for our being a terror target. It's as misplaced as putting the cart before the horse.

In any event, those who did not respond to the significant topic and instead, decided to turn this thread into another opportunity to bash the President, only reveal their inability to come to terms with the topic's pointed question.

DJ Happy 05-29-2004 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
so are you saying that we'd be better off if bush didn't do a damn thing about 9/11? Are you saying that we are in fact worse off because bush did do something about it? I agree with you that the war on terror can never truly be won, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought. Seriously...do you think 9/11 was their one shot for the century and since they got that one off they're done?? I really don't see how the war on terrorism has endangered your, or anyone elses (excluding the army, etc.) life.

Why do you only equate "doing a damn thing" with invading other countries? There are plenty of other things he could've done that would actually have made a difference. Invading Iraq under false pretences was not one of them.

Anti-American sentiment and terrorism didn't start with 9/11. Maybe Bush had better look at the reasons behind the attacks. Then he might have a better idea as to how to combat the problem.

You don't see how this supposed "war on terror" has endangered people's lives? Take a look at what happened in Khobar yesterday and tell me that again. Look at Spain, at Bali, at Riyadh, Yanbu and Jeddah. His reckless invasion of Iraq has made the citizens of every country he dragged into this sorry mess a target.

ARTelevision, why is it misplaced to blame the president for making the West a terror target? It's his misguided foreign policy and constant meddling in the internal affairs of others that has led to this. He is completely and absolutely responsible for it.

boatin 05-30-2004 12:00 AM

this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
A serious question. Every thread I read here smacks of eager anticipation for failure, disaster, and a gleeful counting of US deaths in Iraq. I realize there is a lot of hatred toward George Bush, but these events are bigger than the president, and your anger toward him is recklessly endangering the lives of our servicemen while undermining our chances of success.

and this:

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
In any event, those who did not respond to the significant topic and instead, decided to turn this thread into another opportunity to bash the President, only reveal their inability to come to terms with the topic's pointed question.
just sadden and demoralize me. I read a fair amount of Politics here, and I see very little that "smacks of eager anticipation for failure". I see little "gleeful counting of US deaths".

The fact that some see this as a "significant topic" is silly. It's the worst possible spin on a lot of well meaning tfpers posting good questions. It's the evening news version of reality:
"what's the most sensationalistic way we could spin this story, forget about balance". It is all about ratings after all, isn't it?

I see a striking resemblance to threads on the Politics Board at the start of the war. There were some tfpers questioning the existence of WMD, many asking questions about the aftermath of war, and many expressing displeasure about the process. Those posters (including me) were shouted down as unpatriotic and not supporting the troops.

Having largely been ignored, and proven right in the last 6 months, the 'unpatriotic' issue is still on the table. Only now it's:

Quote:


your anger toward him is recklessly endangering the lives of our servicemen while undermining our chances of success.

I see no difference between then and now in the rhetoric. Wish I had a solution...






And yes, there is some trolling on this board. But the tone of the original post isn't picking on the minority of trolls. The word "every" is my tip off about that...

cthulu23 05-30-2004 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
so are you saying that we'd be better off if bush didn't do a damn thing about 9/11? Are you saying that we are in fact worse off because bush did do something about it? I agree with you that the war on terror can never truly be won, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought. Seriously...do you think 9/11 was their one shot for the century and since they got that one off they're done?? I really don't see how the war on terrorism has endangered your, or anyone elses (excluding the army, etc.) life.

By the way, maybe the next time you go to the supermarket you can pick up john mccain's book "Why Courage Matters"...then maybe you won't worry for your life coming back home.


Ummmm....Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

cthulu23 05-30-2004 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
It's seriously misplaced to blame the President for our being a terror target. It's as misplaced as putting the cart before the horse.

In any event, those who did not respond to the significant topic and instead, decided to turn this thread into another opportunity to bash the President, only reveal their inability to come to terms with the topic's pointed question.

Is it really so far fetched to believe that invading a Middle Eastern country under false pretenses could inflame the passions of Islamic fundamentalists?

As for the topic of this thread, can't you see it for what it is? "Why are liberals so eager for the US to fail" is nothing but an inflammatory, insulting jab and reduces the debate to childish "with us or against us," unfair terms. How would you feel about a thread tilted "why do conservatives hate brown people" or "why do republicans like to kill muslims?" I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect a little civility and respect for different opinions.

ARTelevision 05-30-2004 04:28 AM

For the most part, this thread has been civil.
My statement regards staying on topic.

boatin 05-30-2004 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
For the most part, this thread has been civil.
My statement regards staying on topic.

Riiiiight. As cthulu23 says, this thread is just inflammatory. If you disagree, please show us the "every" in the first paragraph. Hell, show me 10 posts that do what the poster says. 5? 2? 1?

Shouldn't be a tough challenge for the poster: go to the first two pages, and just copy links of what you mean. Surely you can get that many from the first two or three pages.

If you can not, perhaps that illustrates that this thread is, in fact, staying on target. There isn't a desire by liberals to see the US fail, and most if not all of the postings over the last year are about poor decisions and idiotic things the people in charge are doing. If there is no validity to his post, then it's impossible to stay on target. Hmmmm?

You don't have a problem with civil dissent, do you? You don't think Tecumsah, Harmless Rabbit or Superbelt are unpatriotic, do you?

ARTelevision 05-30-2004 09:28 AM

I believe that an impartial observer could indeed come to the conclusion that Liberals are eager for the US to fail. That seems a reasonable perception to make.

Perhaps the rhetoric of incessant bashing could be intermixed with some small doses of appreciation for this country and its political system, the Commander in Chief, and our contributions to the world's stability and prosperity. One would think that an individual who had even a small amount of affection or allegiance to his or her country would occasionally state something along those lines whether it is fashionable among one's peer group to do so or not.

cthulu23 05-30-2004 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I believe that an impartial observer could indeed come to the conclusion that Liberals are eager for the US to fail. That seems a reasonable perception to make.
Reasonable only if one is so blinded by their own ideas that they refuse to acknowledge that any others might be valid. I've been disturbed by the recent theme in US Republican political dogma that
reduces Republican enemies to unpatriotic, conniving, anti-American traitors. I'm not talking about some wacko fringe groups, but popular conservative pundits, such as Ann Coulter. Can you understand that others might share a common goal while disagree completely on the best method to achieve that goal? This demonization of the American left can only serve to freeze the political dialogue and forment misunderstandings and resentment between the parties. The accusation of "traitor" (which the title of this thread implies) is a serious one to make, and it's use conjures up unpleasant images of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare (Ann Coulter has been trying to polish McCarthy's tarnished image lately...a disturbing thought).

Quote:


Perhaps the rhetoric of incessant bashing could be intermixed with some small doses of appreciation for this country and its political system, the Commander in Chief, and our contributions to the world's stability and prosperity. One would think that an individual who had even a small amount of affection or allegiance to his or her country would occasionally state something along those lines whether it is fashionable among one's peer group to do so or not.

So if I simply preface every post with "God Bless America and Dubya," then I can espouse my own beliefs without being accused of trying to lose or betraying my country. Golly, that sounds fair. Especially since Republicans showed complete restaint and fairness when they politely criticized President Clinton, right? I can love my country yet oppose my President (or any other elected official). That's the American way.

Edited to correct tag


ARTelevision 05-30-2004 12:36 PM

Sure. We're talking about a group here - not individuals of either stripe who may have a great deal of integrity.

cthulu23 05-30-2004 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Sure. We're talking about a group here - not individuals of either stripe who may have a great deal of integrity.
What group is that? Liberals as a whole? That's the title of this thread. Do you understand how that is an unfair generalization, albeit a common one these days? Wars almost always have a polarizing effect, but it is at times of great national distress that we must be most careful not to demonize the political oppostion. I find it extremely galling to be accused of being unfair to my political opponents while I'm simultaneously dubbed a traitor.

yatzr 05-30-2004 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ Happy
Why do you only equate "doing a damn thing" with invading other countries? There are plenty of other things he could've done that would actually have made a difference. Invading Iraq under false pretences was not one of them.

Anti-American sentiment and terrorism didn't start with 9/11. Maybe Bush had better look at the reasons behind the attacks. Then he might have a better idea as to how to combat the problem.

You don't see how this supposed "war on terror" has endangered people's lives? Take a look at what happened in Khobar yesterday and tell me that again. Look at Spain, at Bali, at Riyadh, Yanbu and Jeddah. His reckless invasion of Iraq has made the citizens of every country he dragged into this sorry mess a target.

Okay, so bush never should've went after al-queida since that only endangered people's lives. I can see what you mean with the WAR ON IRAQ....but the war on terror is a little different. Why do you think they are the same...you do know that afghanistan was a productive part of the war on terror right?? I know that terrorism didn't start with 9/11, but do you really think that terrorism in those other countries started with the war on iraq??

Quote:

Originally posted by cthulu23
Ummmm....Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
i don't remember saying anything about iraq. I know that everyone considers the war on terror and the war on iraq to be the same, but I don't. To me the war on iraq and against saddam is a different thing. I know they didn't have much if anything to do with 9/11. I know it's bush's own agenda. I don't even really consider it part of the "war on terrorism". But when you say the entire war on terrorism has been a failure and only making things worse, all you're doing is forgetting about afghanistan. If you want to say that that was a failure too, then I think you are one of those eager to see the US fail.

cthulu23 05-30-2004 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
i don't remember saying anything about iraq. I know that everyone considers the war on terror and the war on iraq to be the same, but I don't. To me the war on iraq and against saddam is a different thing. I know they didn't have much if anything to do with 9/11. I know it's bush's own agenda. I don't even really consider it part of the "war on terrorism". But when you say the entire war on terrorism has been a failure and only making things worse, all you're doing is forgetting about afghanistan. If you want to say that that was a failure too, then I think you are one of those eager to see the US fail.
When the US invaded Afghanistan, there was no great debate or crying foul from mainstream leftists. sure, anti-war groups were opposed, but that is there mission. To paraphrase David Cross, Ralph Nader would have invaded Afghanistan after 9-11. It is the war in Iraq and it's tenuous connection with terror that has inflamed the ire of many on the left (and some on the right). Although you may not consider the "war on terror" as connected with the war in Iraq, that is not the popular conception, nor the way that our leaders have described this war. Some quotes:
Quote:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. " Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons." Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
So, with that in mind, you may understand why I (and most people with a memory) consider Iraq as part of Bush's "War on Terrorism." I have not forgotten Afghanistan...if anything, I beleive that we should pay more attention to it rather than squandering our military strength and global political capital on a war that people like Paul Wolfowitz have been itching to fight for a decade.

I never said that the "entire war on terrorism is a failure." I argue against the shakey rationale that led to the invasion of Iraq under the rubric of the "war on terror." Do you consider misleading the public to justify invasion of a foreign nation a serious offense? I remember how Republican's cried out "wag the dog" when Clinton let loose a few Tomahawks on Afghanistan...where's the outrage now?

hannukah harry 05-30-2004 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
i don't remember saying anything about iraq. I know that everyone considers the war on terror and the war on iraq to be the same, but I don't. To me the war on iraq and against saddam is a different thing. I know they didn't have much if anything to do with 9/11. I know it's bush's own agenda. I don't even really consider it part of the "war on terrorism". But when you say the entire war on terrorism has been a failure and only making things worse, all you're doing is forgetting about afghanistan. If you want to say that that was a failure too, then I think you are one of those eager to see the US fail.

to say that the war on terror is a failure, does not mean that you're eager for the US to fail. that's like saying "the yankee's are losing" when the score's 3-1 in the third inning must mean you want the yank's to lose. it doesn't, it's stating an observation. iraq so far has been a failure, and considering how much coverage iraq is getting over afghanistan, there's no wonder people may leave out/forget/not think to mention that afghanistan is in there.

i don't think that most liberals think of iraq as being part of the war on terror, other than that it has made it worse because it's making iraq a breeding ground for terrorist groups and increasing anti-american sentiments abroad.

finally, it seems to me that we may be failing in afghanistan too. i haven't heard any reports recently, but osama and the taliban head are still out there, opium fields are thriving, and i don't know if tehre's even a stable govt. in there at the moment. until there is and OBL's been caught, i'd say we're not meeting our objectives.

i do not want us to fail. but under the current administration, i believe we are. i love my country, but i hate the direction it has been going in under the leadership of Bush, and i do not think he's a good man or has much integrity. but that doesn't make me anti-american and it doesn't make me a "traitor."

ARTelevision 05-30-2004 02:19 PM

Groups exist. They are part of the lexicon and part of socio-linguistic praxis/methodology. As such groups are characterized by group tendencies and qualities. To say the concept of a group is a generalization is to state a truism.

Feel free to start a decent thread about conservatives and I'll tell you the issues I as an individual have with conservatives as a group.

cthulu23 05-30-2004 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Groups exist. They are part of the lexicon and part of socio-linguistic praxis/methodology. As such groups are characterized by group tendencies and qualities. To say the concept of a group is a generalization is to state a truism.

Wow, that must be an expensive textbook you have. Can I get my differential equations text and read from that? It should be as relevant as your mini lecture. Anyway, you didn't address the unfair part of the statement..."saying all liberal want to see America fail is an UNFAIR generalization." Well, do you think it's unfair or not? we can debate linguistics in another thread.

Quote:


Feel free to start a decent thread about conservatives and I'll tell you the issues I as an individual have with conservatives as a group.

A decent thread with a title like "Why are conservatives determined to destroy America?" Does that sound accurate and fair? Can't you admit that the title of this thread is untrue and intellectually dishonest? I hate to ruin the good 'ol liberal bashing fun, but come on....


tecoyah 05-30-2004 03:19 PM

Here we go, Time to head it off at the pass.......Art is an intellegent guy, and I am sure knows that all who dislike or refuse to support Bush are not hoping for American failure.
cthulu23, you also seem a well informed and intellectually blessed individual, and are obviously passionate about this issue, as am I.
There is no reason for this to get any closer to the flames than it already is.....you are both right in your understanding of things.

We all know that Bush is less than perfect, and that the War is not going as planned, but the Liberal label is becoming a witches pole while the conservative label heads towards the great Satan.....how about losing the labels, and talking as people of opinion.

Many very bright people believe in the current administration....and there must be a reason for this. Many equally bright people do not, again what are the reasons.
Perhaps if this thread is to be hijacked(and it probably should be), it could be used as a forum of understanding, rather than bashing.

Or.....I could be talking out my ass, and have no clue whatsoever.

ARTelevision 05-30-2004 03:56 PM

In my initial post, I indicated that it was stated in a loaded way to begin with. But it's a good question as far as perceptions go.

Another tack responses might have taken would have been to discuss the wording and loading and to attempt to clarify the statement - with an addition of some willingness to criticize one's own group. That's not so hard to do. But it is probably harder than becoming defensive and refusing to acknowledge any problems one's group might exhibit.

I would respond to a thread entitled "Why are conservatives determined to destroy America?" by saying that in my opinion they are not. I might also inquire as to what motivates the thread and question its wording. Perhaps I might even suggest a re-wording that seems fairer to me. I would also offer criticism of conservatives - a group which albeit characterized by obvious generalization - is a group to which I belong.

Another staff person - perhaps another Admin or Moderator might see it as a troll. Some might see this one that way. I decided to simply respond to it and see where it goes.

cthulu23 05-30-2004 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
In my initial post, I indicated that it was stated in a loaded way to begin with. But it's a good question as far as perceptions go.

Another tack responses might have taken would have been to discuss the wording and loading and to attempt to clarify the statement - with an addition of some willingness to criticize one's own group. That's not so hard to do. But it is probably harder than becoming defensive and refusing to acknowledge any problems one's group might exhibit.

I would respond to a thread entitled "Why are conservatives determined to destroy America?" by saying that in my opinion they are not. I might also inquire as to what motivates the thread and question its wording. Perhaps I might even suggest a re-wording that seems fairer to me. I would also offer criticism of conservatives - a group which albeit characterized by obvious generalization - is a group to which I belong.

If you look through my earlier posts, you will see that I argue against the demonization of political opponents, be they conservative or liberal. I have attempted to point out why the "unpatriotic liberal" meme that seems to be popular in conservative circles these days is absurd, wrong headed and dangerous. The example thread title that I gave was blatantly incorrect, just as I consider this thread to be. To admit that there are those of the leftist persuasion that do not wish for America to fail is an implicit rejection of that very notion. I've only attempted to illustrate that point.

analog 05-30-2004 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Another staff person - perhaps another Admin or Moderator might see it as a troll. Some might see this one that way. I decided to simply respond to it and see where it goes.
I initially decided to quell any "troll-like" atmosphere by posting something designed to convey my feelings and steer the conversation in the correct, productive direction.

I believe that there are some threads, like this one, that start questionable- but with a perceptible aura of opportunity. Some of you have used this opportunity to create a good debate. Some of you are just griping, it seems.

In any event, I do not appreciate the tone some of these posts are taking. I think I will find a positive adjustment in attitudes and a focus on respect and debate in this thread, or you all will find a padlock on it.

As a side note- I don't look kindly on people attacking someone who has consistently maintained composure and decorum throughout the attack. Yes, i'm talking about ART, but this is a universal truth as far as I am concerned.

-analog.

Publius 05-30-2004 11:47 PM

My final thoughts that I have on this post. Why is it that the "liberals" are accused of wanting to see America fail when in fact they are simply pointing out what they believe to be failures in American national/international policy. I think there is a key difference here. Pointing out (what they believe to be) failures does not equal wanting to fail (or being unpatriotic or a traitor). In fact it is quit the reverse. They are doing doing this because they want to fix these (believed) failures to make America stronger. Besides some whacko fringe groups (on both sides I might add) I cannot think of anyone in mainstream politics who seriously wants to see America fail. We (they) are all Americans, we love this country, and we simply want to see that everything that can possibly be done to make America stronger is done properly. Sure, we may disagree but that doesn't mean that one side (or the other) wants to see the whole country fail over petty politics. But unfortunatly the neo-conservative machine (neo-cons, like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Carl Rove) don't exactly paint the picture that way, and unfortunatly many people in this country are buy into what they are selling hook, line, and sinker. I'm not saying that the liberals are right (god knows they've made mistakes before) I just wish people would wake up and start paying attention to what is happening and think things through themselves once they have seen both sides of the evidence before they come to a hard and fast conclusion that the other side must be wrong and wants them to fail.

DJ Happy 05-31-2004 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
Okay, so bush never should've went after al-queida since that only endangered people's lives. I can see what you mean with the WAR ON IRAQ....but the war on terror is a little different. Why do you think they are the same...you do know that afghanistan was a productive part of the war on terror right?? I know that terrorism didn't start with 9/11, but do you really think that terrorism in those other countries started with the war on iraq??

You really need to look at the big picture. Bush needs to look at why people hate America and address those issues, not just blow them up when they do so. That path will never, ever end. He has the chance to rectify it, but his gung-ho attitude won't let him.

To give you and example, Afghanistan was productive. I happen to believe that he didn't handle that in the best way possible either, but it ended reasonably well. However, without any of the crap that America engages in so frequently with regards to international meddling, Afghanistan wouldn't exist. There would've been no problem to solve. But instead of learning from these mistakes, they just blunder on obstinately, exacerbating the problem. In my opinion, we are headed down the path to the third world war right now.

Someone told me to read John McCain's book about courage, I imagine because he wants me to understand why we need to be physically and mentally courageous in these troubled times. If you ask me, moral and ethical courage is just as important as these other two forms. Bush needs to be the bigger man. He must realise the mistakes that he's made and continues to make and force himself to find a way for peace. At the moment he just seems hell-bent on revenge. And as some skinny Indian chap once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Hwed 05-31-2004 06:33 AM

Quote:

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
The jury is still out on that. We do know that Saddam and Al Qaeda had plenty of pre-9/11 mingling.

The point is, Saddam had everything to do with the next 9/11. Preemptive action is always risky, because the benefits aren't as tangible.

This is a war on terrorism, and when it comes to terrorism, Saddam was a clear threat to the US. The man sponsored terrorists, had WMDs, used them on his own people, defied UN resolutions for over a decade while suffering severe economic sanctions brought on by his unprovoked invasion of a sovreign nation.

I realize it makes folks feel good to paint flowers on their faces and carry signs and wear communist flags and say "Peace!" But what is peace? Is it simply the absence of conflict? Lots of European countries tried that version of peace in WWII by appeasing Hitler, and Hitler ate them for lunch.

True peace is the absence of threat and the presence of justice. In Iraq, we are eliminating a threat to our country while bringing justice to theirs.

ARTelevision 05-31-2004 06:58 AM

Hwed, yes.

DJ Happy, as for "Bush needs to look at why people hate America and address those issues..."
That sort of thing is well and good. However, I don't get any indication at all that folks who think so-called "free expression" is the be all and end all of existence have any willingness at all to look at the sort of cultural rubbish we produce and consign it to the dead-letter bin.

tecoyah 05-31-2004 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed

True peace is the absence of threat and the presence of justice. In Iraq, we are eliminating a threat to our country while bringing justice to theirs.

There is so very much to take issue with in this short statement.

There was very little threat to the U.S from Iraq, at least no more so than from many other countries. As for the "Justice" we are imposing, perhaps when viewed from outside our borders, it is not quite so obvious. Justice is a relative term, relative to the observer. To most outside entities, we are not the benign hand of justice you portray, but a mix of blind aggression, and corrupt deceiver.
Before you all attempt to tear me apart as a liberal, America hater, understand these are not My views, but the observations I have made of what a large portion of the world sees.

Harshaw 05-31-2004 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
In any event, those who did not respond to the significant topic and instead, decided to turn this thread into another opportunity to bash the President, only reveal their inability to come to terms with the topic's pointed question.
Yeah, lets remember who we are bashing here people. Remember your Emily Post; It's rude to bash someone in a thread about bashing someone else.

cthulu23 05-31-2004 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
The jury is still out on that. We do know that Saddam and Al Qaeda had plenty of pre-9/11 mingling.

The point is, Saddam had everything to do with the next 9/11. Preemptive action is always risky, because the benefits aren't as tangible.

ALthough Saddam Hussein did have some loose ties with Al-Qaeda, we know that he considered Muslim fundamentailists as a threat to his stability. Does anyone else remember the message from Bin Laden that welcomed the invasion of Iraq as it was toppling a secular leader? Saying that Saddam would undoubtedly be involved the "next 9-11" smacks of wishful thinking and is not based on any fact that I am aware of.

In any case, if there were any sort of damning evidence implicating Saddam in 9-11, we would have heard of it by now....instead, we've heard statements from Rumsfeld himself admitting that no such connection can be made. While there is always a possiblilty that new evidence could emerge, I'm not holding my breath.

If you look through my earlier posts, you can see that I argue that the invasion of Iraq had very little to do with 9-11, as it has been a large point on the neocon to-do list for at least a decade.

Quote:


This is a war on terrorism, and when it comes to terrorism, Saddam was a clear threat to the US. The man sponsored terrorists, had WMDs, used them on his own people, defied UN resolutions for over a decade while suffering severe economic sanctions brought on by his unprovoked invasion of a sovreign nation.

I realize it makes folks feel good to paint flowers on their faces and carry signs and wear communist flags and say "Peace!" But what is peace? Is it simply the absence of conflict? Lots of European countries tried that version of peace in WWII by appeasing Hitler, and Hitler ate them for lunch.

True peace is the absence of threat and the presence of justice. In Iraq, we are eliminating a threat to our country while bringing justice to theirs.

Even Rumsfeld has backed off of the "imminent threat" business, as could be witnessed by his contortionist-like act on "Face the Nation." Here are some choice quotes as he tries to deny that the administration ever said that Saddam was an "imminent" threat:

Quote:

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Kind of reminiscent of the whole "definition of is" business, isn't it?

Comparing anti-war forces to the appeasers in Europe pre-WWII is misleading, as Saddam was already under sanctions and was not being given any concessions to appease him. I'll ignore your mischaracterization of all who oppose the Iraq war as communist hippies as it is beneath comment.

DJ Happy 05-31-2004 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision

DJ Happy, as for "Bush needs to look at why people hate America and address those issues..."
That sort of thing is well and good. However, I don't get any indication at all that folks who think so-called "free expression" is the be all and end all of existence have any willingness at all to look at the sort of cultural rubbish we produce and consign it to the dead-letter bin.

Again, I don't think that the Islamic fundamentalists are really that bothered about the aspects of US culture that conflicts with aspects of theirs. What they care about is the US imposing that culture upon them and meddling in their affairs for their own personal gain.

DJ Happy 05-31-2004 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed

The man sponsored terrorists, had WMDs, used them on his own people, defied UN resolutions for over a decade while suffering severe economic sanctions brought on by his unprovoked invasion of a sovreign nation.

Sponsors terrorists, has WMDs, defies UN resolutions..........are you talking about Saddam or Bush?

You say that invading Iraq has removed a threat to the US. I say you couldn't be further from the truth. Invading Iraq has created more of a threat to the US than ever existed before.

Finally, his invasion of Kuwait wasn't unprovoked. It was a slightly extreme reaction, but it wasn't unprovoked. There are two sides to every story - I don't think you've listened to the other one in this regard.

Hwed 05-31-2004 08:37 AM

Quote:

ALthough Saddam Hussein did have some loose ties with Al-Qaeda, we know that he considered Muslim fundamentailists as a threat to his stability.
More of a threat than the United States? Clearly not, in hindsight. :)

As you said, he had ties with Al Qaeda. Now that those ties are proven, they become "loose ties" as the liberals keep running the goal-posts down the field. :)



Quote:

Saying that Saddam would undoubtedly be involved the "next 9-11" smacks of wishful thinking and is not based on any fact that I am aware of.
Would you rather wait for the mushroom cloud so we have something to point at? Either way, you'd have blamed Bush, if not for doing too much, for doing too little. As I said, the benefits of preemption aren't something you can't point at, because you're preventing something terrible, not responding to it.

As for WMDs, here's what we've found so far:

Biologics:

Brucella
Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever

Chemical:

Ricin
Sarin
Aflatoxin

Not to mention plans for nuclear weapons, attempts at buying nuclear materials, long-range missiles in violation of UN sanctions that clearly weren't working to begin with, except to line the pockets of corrupt Russian and French politicians.

Now if Saddam wasn't a threat, and had no intention of developing WMDs, why do you think he endured twelve years of harmful economic sanctions while sneaking around with all of the above?

DJ Happy 05-31-2004 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed

Would you rather wait for the mushroom cloud so we have something to point at?

Good point. Maybe Bush should just nuke the rest of the world right now to make sure that no-one can attack the US ever again.

Hwed 05-31-2004 08:43 AM

Quote:

Finally, his invasion of Kuwait wasn't unprovoked. It was a slightly extreme reaction, but it wasn't unprovoked.
Oh, I'm sorry. You're quite right. Kuwait, a sovreign nation, had the audacity to produce more oil than OPEC allowed, and they insulted Saddam's honor.

So am I hearing you right? The overproduction of oil and some uncivil comments are justification for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Well then, you surely don't see a problem with the US invasion of Iraq, given twelve years of defying the agreements of the ceasefire back in the early 90's. :)

DJ Happy 05-31-2004 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
Oh, I'm sorry. You're quite right. Kuwait, a sovreign nation, had the audacity to produce more oil than OPEC allowed, and they insulted Saddam's honor.

So am I hearing you right? The overproduction of oil and some uncivil comments are justification for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Well then, you surely don't see a problem with the US invasion of Iraq, given twelve years of defying the agreements of the ceasefire back in the early 90's. :)

Again, that's not the whole story. It's also not the point in this discussion. I mentioned it because you seem to twist facts to suit your opinion.

I never mentioned anything about the attack being justified, so I don't know where you got your last paragraph from (although I can guess).

cthulu23 05-31-2004 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Hwed, yes.

DJ Happy, as for "Bush needs to look at why people hate America and address those issues..."
That sort of thing is well and good. However, I don't get any indication at all that folks who think so-called "free expression" is the be all and end all of existence have any willingness at all to look at the sort of cultural rubbish we produce and consign it to the dead-letter bin.

Cultural rubbish meaning what? I would bet that our individual definitions of what constitutes "cultural rubbish" vary greatly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that we must look to characteristics of our own culture as causes for terrorist aggression. Ignoring for the moment that Bin Laden named the American military presence in the Middle East as the primary motivation for his "jihad," Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell made that same cultural claim shortly after 9-11:

Quote:

Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve....I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
This was such a popular opinion that both Falwell and Robertson issued public apologies. Attempts by liberals to assign blame via foreign policy critiques were given just as warm a reception.

My point here is that the American public has shown great wisdom in resisting calls to place blame on our fellow Americans for the actions of madmen, regardless of whether these calls originate from the left or from the right. I would hope that we could maintain that composure.

cthulu23 05-31-2004 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
More of a threat than the United States? Clearly not, in hindsight. :)

As you said, he had ties with Al Qaeda. Now that those ties are proven, they become "loose ties" as the liberals keep running the goal-posts down the field. :)

Would you rather wait for the mushroom cloud so we have something to point at? Either way, you'd have blamed Bush, if not for doing too much, for doing too little. As I said, the benefits of preemption aren't something you can't point at, because you're preventing something terrible, not responding to it.

I don't think that you can fairly estimate exactly what I would or wouldn't have blamed Bush for. Back to the matter at hand, there are many examples given by Colin Powell prior to 9-11 that claimed that Saddam was contained and not a threat:

Quote:

Pasted from: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0217-12.htm

“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”

Moreover, during a meeting with Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, in February 2001 on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies “have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions.”

Saddam’s “forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago,” Powell said during the meeting with Fischer, a transcript of which can be found at http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/p...y/me0222a.html

“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war.”

Powell added that Iraq is “not threatening America.”
There are also quotes by George Tenet and Condaleeza Rice that downplay Saddam's threat...the tune changed, of course, after 9-11.

Quote:


As for WMDs, here's what we've found so far:

Biologics:

Brucella
Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever

Chemical:

Ricin
Sarin
Aflatoxin

Not to mention plans for nuclear weapons, attempts at buying nuclear materials, long-range missiles in violation of UN sanctions that clearly weren't working to begin with, except to line the pockets of corrupt Russian and French politicians.

Now if Saddam wasn't a threat, and had no intention of developing WMDs, why do you think he endured twelve years of harmful economic sanctions while sneaking around with all of the above?

Saddam was a secular thug, not a religous fanatic. His main interest was staying in power no matter the cost, and, as such, was a much greater threat to his own people than to any other nation. But don't take my word for it, just reread the Colin Powell quotes above.

If you are interested in what the real motive of the invasion was, simply read up on the Wolfowitz Doctrine. You may agree with Wolfowitz's reasons for invading Iraq, but they have nothing to do with the arguments that our government used to sell the war to us.

roachboy 05-31-2004 10:53 AM

there is no way that the "wolfowitz doctrine"---which you can derive from the mission statement of the project for a new american century--could have been sold to the americans---it provides no specific motives for war at any particular time. if the bush people followed its logic, they had no choice but to lie about the specifics....the problem with hussein was not that he was a thug--the americans have backed worse thugs than he for years, particularly under the logic of the cold war--but rather than hussein was not playing by the american's rules any more (he became inconvient)--this was doubled by the symbolic problems raised for the neocons by the outcome of the first gulf war--that international institutions, symbolized by the un--overrode nation-states and the (neoconservative "mayberry machiavellian") understanding of national interests--a problem that for them has been exacerbated by the development of globalizing capitalism---the logic of this interpretation can go on at length, but you can probably derive the moves and conclusions.

the point, with reference to this thread, is that the colonial war in iraq is carried out in terms of a very particular vision of america, its nature, its interests, its role, etc.. that it circulates in the context of conservative ideology in general domestically enables these assumptions to blur into the claims to a monopoly on americanness that nitwits on the order of limbaugh have been trafficking in for a decade--a move that links back to the jurassic mists of the history of american conservativism. the bush administration operates with a very particular, theologically based vision of this fiction called america---it does not cross with the country in general. it is entirely possible and legitimate, as others on this thread have pointed out, to oppose the bushvision of america, its wolfowitz-inspired "logic" for international affairs---and not find oneself being any less american for it. only those who work from inside conservative ideology would understand things in those terms---and i find this strange--because using the term "america" as conservatives do is an obvious tactic for shutting down debate amongst members of an informed citizenry--which is of a piece with shutting down even the shallow version of democracy that functions in the states---even as that same ideology legitimates the colonial war in iraq by claiming it is in part about the export of democracy.

sadly, the neocons have turned out to be better students of gramsci and the notion of war of position than have people on the left, such as it is---they have understood that if you control the frame of reference, the terms of debate, you control the logic within which conversations can happen. the problem with arguments that happen between conservatives and their many opponents is one of frame of reference--for the right, the terms of the now-dominant discourse are abosulte--they have no interest in relativizing those terms--they think through them--because it is a matter of faith--while people outside that frame of reference tend to relativize that framework and in doing so use terms and modes of arguments that simply fly past the modes of thinking particular to conservative operatives.

personally, i oppose bushwar and bushworld entirely. i am not happy to watch it fail because the failure of these people generates consequences that the rest of us have to endure. on the other hand, each step that conservativism in its present form takes toward the ash-heap of history is fine with me. the war in iraq is simply the most extreme and absurd manifestation of that vision.

irseg 05-31-2004 01:10 PM

I didn't read thru the whole thread so my apologies if it's been said already, but...

I think liberals are anxious to see the US fail because of their extreme hatred of GWB. They hope anything he does will fail, regardless of the consquences. If it means we lose American lives, oh well. At least Dubya's plan didn't work out and it made him look bad. :rolleyes:

I seriously wonder how some liberals would react if GWB were to express his opposition to stomping on puppies.

cthulu23 05-31-2004 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irseg
I didn't read thru the whole thread so my apologies if it's been said already, but...

I think liberals are anxious to see the US fail because of their extreme hatred of GWB. They hope anything he does will fail, regardless of the consquences. If it means we lose American lives, oh well. At least Dubya's plan didn't work out and it made him look bad. :rolleyes:

I seriously wonder how some liberals would react if GWB were to express his opposition to stomping on puppies.

HAHAHA! Man, you should read over the old posts as a lot has been said on the subject. My take: reducing your opponents to caricatures is harmful to the political dialogue and processes of this country. Also, the entire "traitor liberal" meme is a dangerous idea that seems to be taking hold, a la this thread. It only takes a casual student of history to see the dark repercussions that are created when one begins to demonize their enemy.

I don't see how you can say that the political opponents of Dubya don't care for the lives of soldiers...if anything, IMHO those opposed to the war consider the sacrifice of soldier's lives as needless and obscene.

I don't hate Dubya, but I do not like him, either, nor should I be forced to like him. It may make it easier for one to justify their beliefs if they think of their enemies as raving, irrational hate mongers, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Edited for grammar

smooth 05-31-2004 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irseg
I think liberals are anxious to see the US fail because of their extreme hatred of GWB.
Why can't you understand that I don't even think about George Bush?

I don't hate him. I wouldn't even know he existed if it wasn't for the fact that he is the president. I didn't know or care about him when he was in Texas.


I also don't get this constant linkage between George Bush and the interests of the US. Having grown up in this nation, and my family having lived here since the beginning of the US coming into existence, I have at least as much claim to holding the ideals this nation stands for as the next person. Why is Bush's, or some conservative's, idea of what this nation stands for more important than mine? I can quite accurately say that Bush wants the US to fail, using such absurd reasoning as I see in this thread. But we both live here, so neither makes much sense to claim unless one of us is then going to argue that one or the other is irrational. I guess I just want my lifestyle to end. Yep, that must be it. I wish civilization as I know it, and have known it to exist for nearly 30 years, would just end. I must hate George Bush so much that I want my lights to shut off. I don't want potable water. This man I never knew, never will meet, and who's life history and path will never cross with mine, raises my ire so much that I just wish the sun would stop shining. Yeah, you sure got "us" liberals figured out.

Even if I hated George Bush, I must then hate the US?

I wonder what the motivation of the rest of the world is. The entire world, and US liberals, must hate George Bush. They must hate this man so much that they want the US to fail. Although, what they want it to fail at, or what "it" (as if that were the entire nation all in one descriptor) is, is never really explicit.

To us, and a huge portion of the world, George Bush and "the US" is already failing. That's the reason underlying such criticism. No matter how much one hated someone else or wanted someone else to fail, it wouldn't occur unless the person or agency actually failed. I can sit in my house and hate and criticize all day long. But that isn't going to make George Bush fail unless he is a failure.


Maybe a more accurate description is that supporters are so enamored with George Bush that they can't recognize when the things he and his administration set out to do fail.

tecoyah 05-31-2004 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth

Maybe a more accurate description is that supporters are so enamored with George Bush that they can't recognize when the things he and his administration set out to do fail.

Damn....wish I had said that.

yatzr 05-31-2004 03:10 PM

Now lets be serious. We are human. Don't try to say you've never enjoyed seeing G.W. fail. Unfortunately, when G.W. fails, that means some part of the US fails. I know you don't go out and hope that all our troops get shot. I know that you really want america to be a success, but you can't say that you've never had a grin on your face (or at least on the inside) when one of bush's plans blew up in his face. Lots of people are eager for Bush to fail (which i think should be the actual topic since nobody is really eager for the US to fail). It happened when Clinton was president too. It happens for all presidents. The fact that when the president fails some part of the US fails is just an unfortunate side effect of what everybody really wants.

cthulu23 05-31-2004 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
Now lets be serious. We are human. Don't try to say you've never enjoyed seeing G.W. fail. Unfortunately, when G.W. fails, that means some part of the US fails. I know you don't go out and hope that all our troops get shot. I know that you really want america to be a success, but you can't say that you've never had a grin on your face (or at least on the inside) when one of bush's plans blew up in his face. Lots of people are eager for Bush to fail (which i think should be the actual topic since nobody is really eager for the US to fail). It happened when Clinton was president too. It happens for all presidents. The fact that when the president fails some part of the US fails is just an unfortunate side effect of what everybody really wants.
Although I may enjoy the occasional Bush malapropism, there isn't anything funny about military failure. I don't want him elected, but I don't want the body count increased either. If we could somehow pull out of Iraq tomorrow while leaving a stable, democratic government, I would be fully supportive. It might play in Bush's favor, but some things take precedence over politics. I'd still work like hell to see that he isn't reelected, though.

smooth 05-31-2004 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
Now lets be serious. We are human. Don't try to say you've never enjoyed seeing G.W. fail. Unfortunately, when G.W. fails, that means some part of the US fails. I know you don't go out and hope that all our troops get shot. I know that you really want america to be a success, but you can't say that you've never had a grin on your face (or at least on the inside) when one of bush's plans blew up in his face. Lots of people are eager for Bush to fail (which i think should be the actual topic since nobody is really eager for the US to fail). It happened when Clinton was president too. It happens for all presidents. The fact that when the president fails some part of the US fails is just an unfortunate side effect of what everybody really wants.
No, I don't get a grin on my face when anyone fails.

It's disturbing me that, although you build this caricature of liberals in your mind, you still project your viewpoint onto that shadow.

Think back to all the commie, peacenik, hippy, tree-hugging, sandal wearing, pot smoking, organic food eating, vegan diet, vegetarians, hybrid driving, bicycle pedaling, people you slam under the huge liberal umbrella. None of those people would grin when someone else fails--they'd feal sorry for the person.

Somehow, "bleeding heart liberals" morph into war-mongering, vehement, hateful people when the neo-cons control and subvert the discourse. I would venture to say that the people who enjoy and engage in warfare are more likely to grin and mock when people fail--not the people who can't stomach confrontation even to the point of "appeasing" evil dictators.

analog 05-31-2004 05:23 PM

A marked improvement. See what a little steering and motivation can do? Congrats, and thank you- keep it up :)

yatzr 05-31-2004 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthulu23
there isn't anything funny about military failure. I don't want him elected, but I don't want the body count increased either.
I know it's not funny. That's the point I'm making. People don't really want the US to fail, but many people do want to see the president fail. I'm not saying that all liberals (or even most) want to see the president fail, but some do.
It's like saying "do you want us to lose in iraq" vs. "do you want GW's plan to fail". The first one is impossible to say yes to while the second isn't because it focuses on the person they don't like. They can both be considered the same thing though.

smooth 05-31-2004 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
I know it's not funny. That's the point I'm making. People don't really want the US to fail, but many people do want to see the president fail. I'm not saying that all liberals (or even most) want to see the president fail, but some do.
It's like saying "do you want us to lose in iraq" vs. "do you want GW's plan to fail". The first one is impossible to say yes to while the second isn't because it focuses on the person they don't like. They can both be considered the same thing though.

Except that liberals don't want our president's plan to fail, we just see aspects of it that are failing.

Instead of acknowledging the criticism, or ignoring it if one doesn't care to hear it, we get lambasted for hating someone we don't even know and will never meet.

We care about the direction our country is heading, too.

Wax_off 05-31-2004 09:02 PM

Despite the thread's topic being blatant trolling, I'll answer. (BTW I agree with a previous poster that it is an equally valid question to ask, "Why does GWB want the US to fail?")

Anyway... I don't want to US to fail. Nor do I want GWB to fail.

But he has. He has failed the American people and the best thing for us at this point is to get GWB out of office. It is my right to say that as an American citizen, and not at all "unpatriotic." In fact it is my duty to advocate and vote for what I think is best for the country.

That is my current opinion based on almost four years of observation, seeing that the bad VASTLY overwhelms the good in this administration. At this point it would take something truly incredible for me to change my mind.

yatzr 05-31-2004 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Except that liberals don't want our president's plan to fail, we just see aspects of it that are failing.

Instead of acknowledging the criticism, or ignoring it if one doesn't care to hear it, we get lambasted for hating someone we don't even know and will never meet.

We care about the direction our country is heading, too.

so are you saying that there isn't a single liberal that doesn't want to actually see GW fail?

I said that some (not all or even most) feel this way. I think it would be pretty naive to think otherwise. Much how if kerry won the election there would be plenty of conservatives that would want to see him fail (no more than those who want to see GW fail though :)). It happens because we're human. We don't think of it as wanting the US to fail, but that's basically (although rather indirectly) what it is.

edit: I guess when i say this, I'm thinking about the people who hated bush since day 1, not necessarily those who are recently dissapointed with him. Many of those people wanted to be able to give a big "I told you so" to everyone and they wanted GW to fail. It'll be the same if kerry gets elected. Many people who already hate him would love for him to fuck up so they can give a big "I told you so" to everyone else. Sad, but true.

smooth 05-31-2004 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
so are you saying that there isn't a single liberal that doesn't want to actually see GW fail?

I said that some (not all or even most) feel this way. I think it would be pretty naive to think otherwise. Much how if kerry won the election there would be plenty of conservatives that would want to see him fail (no more than those who want to see GW fail though :)). It happens because we're human. We don't think of it as wanting the US to fail, but that's basically (although rather indirectly) what it is.

I'm saying that every liberal that has wasted time posting in this thread has denied hating George Bush personally.

If you want to keep making accusations about people neither of us have met, and asking me to speak for them, I don't really have much more information for you.

In the context of this thread, where conservative posters are essentially bashing the liberal posters or at least stating derogatory things about their political ideology, what is your point in asking me if I know of a single liberal who hates George Bush?

Whether you think it's human nature or not, and despite your prediction if a democrat was in power, once people who share internet space with you almost on a daily basis claim that they feel offended and request you to stop, I think it would behoove you to let off the rhetoric for the sake of harmony on the community.

Wax_off 05-31-2004 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
We don't think of [wanting GWB to fail] as wanting the US to fail, but that's basically (although rather indirectly) what it is.


Ummm... I think you need to back that assertion up a bit. Wanting the president to fail (not saying I want that) is the same as wanting the country to fail??? Huh???

The more I look at that the less sense it makes.

Zeld2.0 05-31-2004 10:15 PM

I'd like to take this time to say that the president does not equal the country. If you want a president to get kicked out, that doesn't mean you hate the country. If you want to see GWB fail to return, that's not hating the country or wanting it to fail. Hell, you're doing what politics is about - get the guy you want in, get the guy you don't want out.

Not supporting the president does not mean you are not supporting the country. It might seem so but it ain't.

smooth 05-31-2004 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I also don't get this constant linkage between George Bush and the interests of the US.

tecoyah 06-01-2004 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
so are you saying that there isn't a single liberal that doesn't want to actually see GW fail?

So...are you saying there is not a single conservative, who wants to see GW fail? I mean...come on. Why even bother to pick an Ideology for a statement like that.

yatzr 06-01-2004 07:39 PM

maybe i just suck at pointing out the obvious. Lets go back to the beginning. The year is 2000. Bush and Gore are going at it. I hear a lot of mean things about Bush (Gore too, but that's not the point). I hear some people saying that Bush is going to run the country into the ground. I even hear other people saying they'll leave the country if Bush is elected.

2001. Bush was elected. Those people saying all those mean things are pissed. Now: do you think they would like bush to be the best president ever...or....do you think they'd like to see him screw up? I hear a lot of them today saying "I told you so" which leads me to believe they wanted him to screw up all along. For them that's better than him being an awesome president and other people shoving a big "I told you so" in their face isn't it? Maybe I'm just less optimistic about the mindsets of the general public.

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I also don't get this constant linkage between George Bush and the interests of the US.
This part's just for you smooth. I know it can be tough to see how the president and the US might be linked. For starters...why has GW failed so far? Is it because his daughters are kinda skanky?? Is it because he crashed his bike?? Or maybe...just maybe...is it because he did something that hurt the US? Isn't that really what the president failing is? So would it not be safe to say that when the president fails, the US is hurt? So then, if that is in fact true, (I think my logic is okay on this) wanting the president to fail can be considered the same as wanting the US to be hurt.

last
Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
So...are you saying there is not a single conservative, who wants to see GW fail? I mean...come on. Why even bother to pick an Ideology for a statement like that.
Hmmm, yep, I suppose that could be deduced from my statement. I thought it was obvious but apparently not obvious enough that there are in fact liberals that would like to see the president fail and they are the majority of those who do want to see the president fail. I don't remember ever saying there weren't any conservatives who wanted to see the president fail...this thread is only about liberals :).

Zeld2.0 06-01-2004 07:46 PM

Where is this majority yatzr?

Can you prove that?

What is "obvious" to you does not mean its the truth or how most people feel. Sure, you can paint the brush on everyone to be the same, but the fact is, it's not. Its your perception.

I think those who label themselves liberal (and get labeled) would probably know how they are feeling, and not those who find it obvious.

But anyways, one could ask this question - "Why are Conservatives so eager for Clinton to fail?"

There were quite a bunch wanting him to fail

Those who say "support the president" now weren't saying that same thing a few years ago.

smooth 06-01-2004 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yatzr
This part's just for you smooth. I know it can be tough to see how the president and the US might be linked. For starters...why has GW failed so far? Is it because his daughters are kinda skanky?? Is it because he crashed his bike?? Or maybe...just maybe...is it because he did something that hurt the US? Isn't that really what the president failing is? So would it not be safe to say that when the president fails, the US is hurt? So then, if that is in fact true, (I think my logic is okay on this) wanting the president to fail can be considered the same as wanting the US to be hurt.
I'll make this more clear for you since you didn't get it the first time I wrote it.

The president doesn't have any more of a legitimate claim to knowing what's best for the country than any other citizen. That is, just because I disagree with his ideas doesn't mean I don't know/want what's best for my country.

If I disagree with an elected official, it doesn't make me traitorous or desirous to see my own country look bad in the eyes of other people in the world.

You didn't even pay attention to much of what I wrote.

This thread was specifically directed at liberal members of the TFP. Not one conservative has come forward and stated that they don't share this apparent animosity toward the liberal posters.

Your posts condoned and perpetuated this shameful stance against other members of our online community. Meanwhile, while liberals are constantly warned via PM's that their comments are taken as personal attacks, this thread is allowed and championed because various people are using vague references to some amorphous group.

They can then step back and claim to not be speaking to anyone in particular--and somehow this makes their statements acceptable. I haven't seen any other thread where an entire group of members of this board have been harassed for their viewpoints. This is even more insidious than just "squelching" political dissent, something I view as inappropriate behavior to begin with. This attack is against what are otherwise fellow members of a board Halx and others have spent huge amounts of time to develop friendship ties with.

I don't particularly mind if you continue to ignore my wishes. I can't control what you decide to do with your time. I can leave this thread at any time just like I'd leave your presence if we met in a social setting. But you haven't made a very good impression on me in terms of your personality, and I don't particularly have any desire to meet you in real life if this is how you act out there, too. I can respect someone else's ideology, but I choose not to interact with people who tell me how I think and feel--regardless of what I explicitly claim to be true for me. It doesn't really affect either of us in terms of our otherwise normal lives. I just thought you had a right to know how I feel about the personality you projected onto the forum.

analog 06-01-2004 09:55 PM

I waited so smooth could have a rebuttal to yatzr for his post, but now it's closed.

This thread started out as a troll but developed into a good debate, albeit a heated one. Most of you stayed on course, you were warned and straightened out a bit, but now it's back to hell again.

Sometimes obvious trolls such as this are allowed to stay open based on the way the thread was started. If it looks like there could be a good debate if the troll aspect is set aside, then it is sometimes left to see what happens with it.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360