ATTN: Young Republicans

[SpidermanTuba]

When are you going to learn how to properly use the English language?

When are you going to learn how to not be a smart ass?

 

[Gunny]

Since the President decided to make the Iraq war a partisan issue.

I don't recall that HE did. I DO however recall a lot of left-wing extremists making it a partisan issue.

Kind of like your question in this thread.

 

[Annie]

I realize that my prior post was a bit inflammatory and - you must have also figured out - a little tongue in cheek.

given the fact that I am a lifelong democrat, my father was a lifelong democrat, and given the fact that both of us DID serve in an organization that was and still is dominated by republicans... it does stick in my craw a bit that young collegiate republicans do seem to find excuses for letting others go in harm's way in their stead in this war. That frustration is real, and the bile it creates is also real.

It seems to me that for the most part the military recruiting for a volunteer service has more closely reflected the US as a whole:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[Annie]

I submitt if you asked flat out do you wish we could leave Iraq it would be 100%

Its all in how you ask the question.

...

And I believe that if the question was posed as, "Would you support the idea of a graduated withdrawal from Iraq over the next two years, recognizing the violence that would follow would be much worse than occurred prior to the surge, would lead to a multi-national race to fill the vacuum that would be left, and US foreign policy would be destroyed for at least a generation?" we might find very different results. You're right, it's all in the question asked.

 

[Toro]

Thats not true, the believe in it, they just don't believe anyone of their "station" should have to stoop to it.

I didn't know most rich people were Democrats.

 

[JeffWartman]

When are you going to learn how to not be a smart ass?

Umm..my original statement was not directed towards you, and I've pretty much moderately agreed with you on this thread...so what's your problem?

 

[Semper Fi]

Here's a question for all young able bodied Republicans who have never had or are not currently serving in the military.

When are you signing up?

Already did. May 29, 2007. Shipping June 10, 2008. Any other questions?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And I believe that if the question was posed as, "Would you support the idea of a graduated withdrawal from Iraq over the next two years, recognizing the violence that would follow would be much worse than occurred prior to the surge, would lead to a multi-national race to fill the vacuum that would be left, and US foreign policy would be destroyed for at least a generation?" we might find very different results. You're right, it's all in the question asked.

Yeah, you're right, its all in the question asked. Like "Would you support an invasion of Iraq to disarm Hussein of WMD which he most certainly has and will use to murder your children at any time" or "Would you support an invasion of Iraq so that we can be bogged down for decades fighting an insurgency for the purposes of forcing our style of government on the Iraqis, while Bin Laden and AL Qaeda continue to operate in Pakistan, our supposed ally?".


Considering the President has been wrong on nearly everything involving Iraq since he took office, one could assume the decision to stay was wrong simply because the President is supporting it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Thats not true, the believe in it, they just don't believe anyone of their "station" should have to stoop to it.

That's bullshit, and you know it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's bullshit, and you know it.

Ya, I am sure, I mean we have no examples of leaders of the liberal left and the democratic party bad mouthing or looking down on Military service.

 

[jillian]

Ya, I am sure, I mean we have no examples of leaders of the liberal left and the democratic party bad mouthing or looking down on Military service.

No one looks down on military service... that's a fantasy of the extreme right so they can feel self-satisfied.

It's the idiots who mishanded the PLANNING of this operation... you know, Rummy, Bush, Cheney... and their last few hangers on who are the problem.

And they're fair game for the criticism, IMO.

And now your boys want to give weapons to the Saudis who are training the loonies in their madrassas.

 

[RightWingSpirit]

Democrats don't believe in the military.

Dems believe in violating kids and allowing illegals to come here and enjoy the advantages some citizens do not even have.

 

[Shogun]

Dems believe in violating kids and allowing illegals to come here and enjoy the advantages some citizens do not even have.

im a dem and I dont believe in either of those things.

I guess that makes you wrong.

 

[RightWingSpirit]

im a dem and I dont believe in either of those things.

I guess that makes you wrong.

whose ass did you fall out of?

 

[maineman]

whose ass did you fall out of?

can we expect any intelligence coming from you anytime soon?

 

[Doug]

(1) There is undoubtedly a difference between Left and Right on the question of the military. However, it is more complicated than various partisan charges of "hypocrisy", "cowardice", "class hatred", "class privilege", or even "treason", can encompass.

(2) As a bit of background, keep in mind that there a spread of opinion on both the Left and the Right.

There are people on the Left who positively hate the American political/economic system and the state which defends that system, and who draw, towards the military -- the core of the state -- the appropriate and logical conclusions. Conservatives sometimes call these folks the "hate America" Left, and this is not wrong, but the phrase is easily misinterpreted and often misused. (There have been Far Leftists who literally hated the American people -- or its white component -- but the Far Left generally, in fact, does not hate ordinary Americans. They hate the system America is the most prototypical example of, and main defender in the world of.)

Moving towards the center from these people, are various sorts of pacifists, semi-pacifists, left-liberals, Nation magazine liberals, old fashioned patriotic Democratic Party liberals, and even pro-war liberal hawks.

So we have to be careful about whom we are talking when we use the blanket term "liberal". (It is also the case that liberals are peculiarly susceptible to being led by the better-organized, more seriously-committed Far Left. So even though the Far Left actually despises liberals, and does not constitute a large percentage of the American population -- or even of the whole Left -- it can exert influence far in excess of its numbers.)

(3) We also have to distinguish liberal/Left hatred of war in the abstract, from their attitude towards the American military. In general, the Left, which believes that man can achieve unlimited perfection given the right nurturing environment (to be provided by the state), sees war either as an unnecessary, irrational evil, preventable if we all just got around a table and talked; or as something undertaken by greedy ruling classes, fought by poor people to benefit rich people.

(4)On the Right, there has been a strain, especially among the ruling aristocracy, which positively glorified war. This is why Churchill lamented that war, "which used to be cruel and magnificent" had become in the 20th Century "cruel and squalid". No true Right-winger can deny that his heart lifts when he sees movies of jingling cavalry and marching infantry.

At the same time, we must not overlook the "anti-war Right" -- those Old Right paleocons and ultra-libertarians who eschew American empire-building (as they see it), especially if it is in part motivated by a concern for the welfare of the you-know-who's. Some of them tend to see the military as just another nationalized industry, and share the same attitude towards the world that pacifists do: everything would be fine if we just tended to our own affairs.

But the main attitude of the modern Right is that conflict, and with it the possibility of war, is unavoidable in human affairs, given the nature of man. And that the United States must be stronger than its opponents.

This attitude remains true for conservatives, regardless of their opinion about the wisdom of trying to build a new Switzerland on the Tigris.

NEXT: Who serves? Who Should Serve? Does the "Yellow Elephant" argument have merit?

 

[CSM]

(1) There is undoubtedly a difference between Left and Right on the question of the military. However, it is more complicated than various partisan charges of "hypocrisy", "cowardice", "class hatred", "class privilege", or even "treason", can encompass.

Well said.

(2) As a bit of background, keep in mind that there a spread of opinion on both the Left and the Right.

There are people on the Left who positively hate the American political/economic system and the state which defends that system, and who draw, towards the military -- the core of the state -- the appropriate and logical conclusions. Conservatives sometimes call these folks the "hate America" Left, and this is not wrong, but the phrase is easily misinterpreted and often misused. (There have been Far Leftists who literally hated the American people -- or its white component -- but the Far Left generally, in fact, does not hate ordinary Americans. They hate the system America is the most prototypical example of, and main defender in the world of.)

Moving towards the center from these people, are various sorts of pacifists, semi-pacifists, left-liberals, Nation magazine liberals, old fashioned patriotic Democratic Party liberals, and even pro-war liberal hawks.

So we have to be careful about whom we are talking when we use the blanket term "liberal". (It is also the case that liberals are peculiarly susceptible to being led by the better-organized, more seriously-committed Far Left. So even though the Far Left actually despises liberals, and does not constitute a large percentage of the American population -- or even of the whole Left -- it can exert influence far in excess of its numbers.)

I would add that the situation is not static either. People being what they are, they tend to wander across the spectrum (to a certain degree). There are no clear lines defining which category a person falls into.

(3) We also have to distinguish liberal/Left hatred of war in the abstract, from their attitude towards the American military. In general, the Left, which believes that man can achieve unlimited perfection given the right nurturing environment (to be provided by the state), sees war either as an unnecessary, irrational evil, preventable if we all just got around a table and talked; or as something undertaken by greedy ruling classes, fought by poor people to benefit rich people.

Utopian ideals only work in a Utopian world (IMO). That is not to say that man should not strive for the environment you describe (isn't that what most religious dogma is all about?) but it is also clear to me that such an environment is probably not achievable as long as mankind carries the less desirable characteristics we know so well.

(4)On the Right, there has been a strain, especially among the ruling aristocracy, which positively glorified war. This is why Churchill lamented that war, "which used to be cruel and magnificent" had become in the 20th Century "cruel and squalid". No true Right-winger can deny that his heart lifts when he sees movies of jingling cavalry and marching infantry.

Historically, this may be true. I can see where some may hold some vestige of pride in military strength (especially those who have never "seen the elephant"). Any true right winger that has actually seen that marching infantry in action has an entirely different view ... of that I am certain!

At the same time, we must not overlook the "anti-war Right" -- those Old Right paleocons and ultra-libertarians who eschew American empire-building (as they see it), especially if it is in part motivated by a concern for the welfare of the you-know-who's. Some of them tend to see the military as just another nationalized industry, and share the same attitude towards the world that pacifists do: everything would be fine if we just tended to our own affairs.

I suppose that, in general, this is true. I think though that neither the pacifists nor the anti-war right really mean what they say. "Tending to our own affairs" can mean anything from true isolation to global engagement. I have heard arguments for both.

But the main attitude of the modern Right is that conflict, and with it the possibility of war, is unavoidable in human affairs, given the nature of man. And that the United States must be stronger than its opponents.

I fall into this category most of the time. I am not so certain I am part of the "modern Right" as I suspect there are far more facets to the right than this particular one.

This attitude remains true for conservatives, regardless of their opinion about the wisdom of trying to build a new Switzerland on the Tigris.

I am not certain this is true, despite your assertions. I am certainly somewhere on the right side of the spectrum described in (1) and (2) and am what some would consider a conservative but I hardly subscribe to the philosophy you lay out above. None of the conservatives I know believe that either.

NEXT: Who serves? Who Should Serve? Does the "Yellow Elephant" argument have merit?

Great post...food for thought indeed! My replies should be considered "initial reaction" more than anything else.

 

[RightWingSpirit]

can we expect any intelligence coming from you anytime soon?

yes and I would bury you, if not verbally, then physically.

If your ego is so fragile that you don't like difference of opinion, then ignore me.

 

[RightWingSpirit]

(3) We also have to distinguish liberal/Left hatred of war in the abstract, from their attitude towards the American military. In general, the Left, which believes that man can achieve unlimited perfection given the right nurturing environment (to be provided by the state), sees war either as an unnecessary, irrational evil, preventable if we all just got around a table and talked; or as something undertaken by greedy ruling classes, fought by poor people to benefit rich people.

the far left want to surrender a country they claim to love.
Sounds like the French.

 

[Doug]

CSM: Your comments are most interesting. I didn't follow your last statement about "most conservatives" not following the philosophy laid out above. Note that I was talking about different strands of thought within conservatism. Only my last paragraph really applied to mainstream conservatism: namely, that conflict is a natural aspect of human affairs and that we must remain ready to fight one if we have to.

More about the Left:

It is wrong to charge the whole Left with cowardice. Would that it were true! No one who fought the communist NVA in Vietnam would say that these men, however bad their cause, were cowards. Courage is a neutral virtue. It can be found in many places, not just among the good guys.

There is certainly a pacifist strain among the Left, and there are also non-pacifist Leftists who are content, for the moment, to mimic pacifism and encourage a kind of quasi-pacifism in America. But the people who lead the various anti-war organizations in the US are, by and large, anything but pacfists.

The anti-Vietnam War movement in America was largely built by the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, and where the SWP was not the leadership, then usually another variety of communist was.

The anti-war movement in the US today is assembled in three groupings: Not In Our Name, A.N.S.W.E.R., and the Coalition for Peace and Justice. The first group is an RCP front, the second is run by the Trotskyist Workers World Party (who love North Korea) and the latter is influenced by the remnants of the old Communist Party. None of these groups are pacifist.

These people do not oppose war, they oppose the American side in wars.

And there is no reason to think that they would not fight courageously in any revolutionary upheaval here. In fact, since leftists are more internationally-minded than conservatives, they were in the past more likely than conservatives to go off to fight for their cause in other countries.

Several thousand American Leftists went to Spain in the late 1930s to fight for the Republican side there against the Franco forces. Few American Rightists acted in a similar way for their side.

WWII saw nearly total support from American liberals, and from the whole Left after the Soviet Union was attacked by Hitler. (Before then, during the Hitler -Stalin pact, the Communist Party and its many fellow travellers condemned the war against Hitler as just a quarrel among imperialists. They changed their tune instantly when the Socialist Motherland was invaded.) In fact, opposition to war preparation at that time came mainly from the isolationist Right.

Although many liberals had illusions in Communism before WWII, after that war the aggressive nature of the Soviet Union, as shown by its establishment of Communism in Eastern Europe, and the obvious Soviet-puppet-like character of the American Communist Party, caused most of them to have a rapid change of heart. The phenomenon of the anti-Communist liberal was born.

So for about 20 years after 1945, we had a United Front of liberals and conservatives in the United States, against Communism. (This was also the period of the nearly unchallenged intellectual reign of liberalism.)

This broke down under the impact of Vietnam, and then the liberal movement was colonized and transformed by the New Left. Liberals drifted towards becoming, not pacifists so much as isolationists.

They tended to doubt the reality of the Soviet threat, especially after the Sino-Soviet split, and more and more began to embrace the "revisionist" thesis about American foreign policy, seeing America as mainly responsible, or at least co-responsible, for an unnecessary Cold War, and also seeing America as acting as a pro-corporation suppressor of praiseworthy indigenous revolutions in the Third World.

At this point, however, we must make an important distinction: we all know that how people talk among themselves, when they are with friends and can let their hair down, may be different from what they say in public.

Conservatives, among themselves, are not enthusiastic supporters of the welfare state. You won't hear many of them praising President Roosevelt for establishing Social Security, for example. But let a conservative run for public office, and see what he says about the Social Security system.

This is how politics is, in a country where 50% of the people are neither liberal nor conservative, and where most of them believe strongly in the Social Security system.

They also believe in a strong national defense.

So liberals "at home" speak (and probably even think) differently about the military than they do when they run for office. The national Democratic Party is far less "liberal" on national defense than, say, The Nation magazine. This is no more hypocritical than conservatives on Social Security. It's the way grown-ups play politics.

Next: Who should serve, etc.