red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #41
How about what they said? Or will you dismiss their own words as "taken out of context" or an exapmple of "the right wing attack machine"?
1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War
- Thread starter red states rule
- Start date
How about what they said? Or will you dismiss their own words as "taken out of context" or an exapmple of "the right wing attack machine"?
And when exactly did they say that they would like the US to lose in Iraq?
doniston
Member
- Mar 6, 2007
- 874
- 31
- 16
Do you know the difference between the word "THINKS" and "WANTS"? Why am I not surprised that you apparently don't.
I've already given my interpretation of this poll, but here is an appendix to it which might help clarify the "thinking" "wanting" confusion.
I think it is quite reasonable to say that if someone "thinks" that the world will be better off if something happens, then they "want" it to happen, especially if that someone is a liberal. (After all, it's we conservatives who are supposed to be selfish bastards who put our own self-interest above suffering humanity.)
However, like all polls, this didn't give people a chance to be nuanced or to explain their responses. So I reckon the Democratic 20% (and, do not forget, the Republican 5%), although it did contain a few conscious America-haters, if we want to use that questionable shorthand term for the Chomsky/Zinn supporters, probably had a significant number of people who were, in their own minds, in the position that a patriotic but anti-Nazi German, or a patriotic but anti-Communist Russian, was in: not hating their country (i.e. its people) but hating its government and system, and recognizing that a defeat for the country would hasten the fall of the country's rulers.
It's important for conservatives to get this right, because we are going to be debating liberals and those influenced by them, and need to understand how they really think. More importantly, we need to be able to make arguments that can influence them, or can influence those influenced by them.
And to thnk that an American defeat in Iraq would be a good thing for the world is not so much evil -- rather, it is not "evil" at all -- but deeply foolish.
It's a hang-over from the Vietnam/Nicaragua days, when the United States was fighting people who at least claimed to be on the side of human progress. They were for -- or claimed to be, and thought they were for -- making their countries modern, emancipating women, educating their young people in the ideas of science, etc. We know that socialism is a dead-end, economically, and that even those noble goals are paid for by an unacceptable loss of liberty and can be realized far better by democratic capitalism. But we didn't really disagree on the basic goals.
With the Islamists, it's completely different. Except for a bit of anti-imperialist rhetoric, they are anti-modern. Communism looks like a haven of rationality compared to the society that Al Queda wants to establish. And an open defeat for the US in Iraq will mean a victory for Al Queda. The world will definitely not be better off.
Now, we may already be defeated in Iraq and there is little we can do about it. That seemed to be the case before the "surge," but things are looking a lot better in Iraq in the last few months. We are not going to have a tolerant liberal democracy there any time soon -- there will be no Lesbian Outreach Centers opening in Basra. But we may see the emergence of a state at least as democratic as Iran, but with a more moderate and realistic Shia leadership and the eventual taming of the militias and curbing of rampant criminality.
People tend to discount the future, but the desire among ordinary people for a normal society is very powerful. Chile was a pretty horrific place right after the 1973 coup. Who would have thought that a little over thirty years later, it would have a standard of living approaching Europe's, with a woman Socialist as President? The same evolution may happen in Iraq, but it is less likely if the radical Islamists triumph there.
The stabilization of Iraq around an admittedly far-from-perfect democratic system ought to be something that liberals would celebrate. It wouldn't require them to endorse George Bush in particular or neo-con foreign policy in general. So the Democrats who understand this -- the great majority -- need to educate, in the spirit of liberal tolerance and kindness, that confused 20%.
And we conservatives will deal in the way that comes natural to us with that 5% of Republicans who thought an American defeat would be good for the world. (What shall it be, firing squads or just an extended session with cattle-prods and hot irons?)
I think it is quite reasonable to say that if someone "thinks" that the world will be better off if something happens, then they "want" it to happen, especially if that someone is a liberal. (After all, it's we conservatives who are supposed to be selfish bastards who put our own self-interest above suffering humanity.)
However, like all polls, this didn't give people a chance to be nuanced or to explain their responses. So I reckon the Democratic 20% (and, do not forget, the Republican 5%), although it did contain a few conscious America-haters, if we want to use that questionable shorthand term for the Chomsky/Zinn supporters, probably had a significant number of people who were, in their own minds, in the position that a patriotic but anti-Nazi German, or a patriotic but anti-Communist Russian, was in: not hating their country (i.e. its people) but hating its government and system, and recognizing that a defeat for the country would hasten the fall of the country's rulers.
It's important for conservatives to get this right, because we are going to be debating liberals and those influenced by them, and need to understand how they really think. More importantly, we need to be able to make arguments that can influence them, or can influence those influenced by them.
And to thnk that an American defeat in Iraq would be a good thing for the world is not so much evil -- rather, it is not "evil" at all -- but deeply foolish.
It's a hang-over from the Vietnam/Nicaragua days, when the United States was fighting people who at least claimed to be on the side of human progress. They were for -- or claimed to be, and thought they were for -- making their countries modern, emancipating women, educating their young people in the ideas of science, etc. We know that socialism is a dead-end, economically, and that even those noble goals are paid for by an unacceptable loss of liberty and can be realized far better by democratic capitalism. But we didn't really disagree on the basic goals.
With the Islamists, it's completely different. Except for a bit of anti-imperialist rhetoric, they are anti-modern. Communism looks like a haven of rationality compared to the society that Al Queda wants to establish. And an open defeat for the US in Iraq will mean a victory for Al Queda. The world will definitely not be better off.
Now, we may already be defeated in Iraq and there is little we can do about it. That seemed to be the case before the "surge," but things are looking a lot better in Iraq in the last few months. We are not going to have a tolerant liberal democracy there any time soon -- there will be no Lesbian Outreach Centers opening in Basra. But we may see the emergence of a state at least as democratic as Iran, but with a more moderate and realistic Shia leadership and the eventual taming of the militias and curbing of rampant criminality.
People tend to discount the future, but the desire among ordinary people for a normal society is very powerful. Chile was a pretty horrific place right after the 1973 coup. Who would have thought that a little over thirty years later, it would have a standard of living approaching Europe's, with a woman Socialist as President? The same evolution may happen in Iraq, but it is less likely if the radical Islamists triumph there.
The stabilization of Iraq around an admittedly far-from-perfect democratic system ought to be something that liberals would celebrate. It wouldn't require them to endorse George Bush in particular or neo-con foreign policy in general. So the Democrats who understand this -- the great majority -- need to educate, in the spirit of liberal tolerance and kindness, that confused 20%.
And we conservatives will deal in the way that comes natural to us with that 5% of Republicans who thought an American defeat would be good for the world. (What shall it be, firing squads or just an extended session with cattle-prods and hot irons?)
Gunny
Gold Member
The fact of the matter is pretty clear. And while all I see are certain moonbats calling names, and demands for proof of the obvious, the fact remains the left has been and is basing its political future on loss/failure in Iraq. They have spent 4 years equating loss in Iraq to Republican failure, and just completely rewriting the history of events to suit their political agenda.
GunnyL: I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I think we have to distinguish, on the left, among
--- (1) those who believe that a defeat in Iraq will be like our defeat in Vietnam, i.e. with little long-term harm done (as they see it) -- or sort of like our defeat in Somalia, a tragedy for the men involved but we are all better off out of an insoluble mess, which I think is the way lot of conservatives felt about that intervention of Bill Clinton's -- and
--- (2) those who don't care one way or the other, and don't think much about it, or about much of anything, and
--- (3) those who think it will be a big set-back for the US -- not just George Bush and the Republicans but for what they call "American imperialism" and who are positively happy about the fact.
Now I know that the boundaries between these groups are often fuzzy and shifting. And that liberal naivety sometimes allows them to be manipulated by more sinister forces.
Nonetheless, we need to distinguish between, say, outright pro-Communists like Johnetta Cole , and the people who, while not sharing their all of their beliefs, see them as just more committed versions of liberals, which they are not. Thus, while Hilary Clinton probably wanted to make Cole Secretary of Education in the first Clinton Administration, she herself was not a pro-Communist like Cole was.
--- (1) those who believe that a defeat in Iraq will be like our defeat in Vietnam, i.e. with little long-term harm done (as they see it) -- or sort of like our defeat in Somalia, a tragedy for the men involved but we are all better off out of an insoluble mess, which I think is the way lot of conservatives felt about that intervention of Bill Clinton's -- and
--- (2) those who don't care one way or the other, and don't think much about it, or about much of anything, and
--- (3) those who think it will be a big set-back for the US -- not just George Bush and the Republicans but for what they call "American imperialism" and who are positively happy about the fact.
Now I know that the boundaries between these groups are often fuzzy and shifting. And that liberal naivety sometimes allows them to be manipulated by more sinister forces.
Nonetheless, we need to distinguish between, say, outright pro-Communists like Johnetta Cole , and the people who, while not sharing their all of their beliefs, see them as just more committed versions of liberals, which they are not. Thus, while Hilary Clinton probably wanted to make Cole Secretary of Education in the first Clinton Administration, she herself was not a pro-Communist like Cole was.
Gunny
Gold Member
While I give you the differences exist, they don't at the polls. As was proven last year, consrevatives will not vote for Republicans who aren't doing what they were sent to do while Democrats just pull that "D" handle, period.
Look at their two top Presidential candidates. Two completely incompetent people who I wouldn't trust as hall monitor, much less President of the US. I'd rather have Bush do a 3rd term than either of those two buffoons in office, and it isn't like he's done a whole lot to please me. Hell, I'd rather BILL Clinton do a 3rd term than either of those two and he damned sure didn't do a whole lot to please me.
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,387
- 1,830
RSR, most of the people associated with those websites are just ordinary citizens who don't agree with the war, and would like to see the senseless death be ceased. It's not like they're the American Enterprise Institute, or the Project for a New American Century, full of people (neo-con republicans) who make real policy decisions in this country, and seem to have put THEIR party over their own country.
I'm not a democrat, i'm not liberal, hell, i'm really not ANYTHING specifically...but i agree with them.
Millions of innocent civilians are going to die if we keep waging wars against nations pre-emptively...all because a couple thousand innocent civilians were killed here. That's not to take anything away from the horror of that day, and you can spin that statement as being insensitive towards the victims if you want to, but it doesn't really seem to make any sense to me.
We are bankrupting this nation, and killing what will eventually amount to millions of people, because we're scared that SOMEHOW, SOMEDAY, a couple ARABS are going to blow something up somewhere in America, or some American interest somewhere.
Why don't we focus all that money, man-power, and energy on our OWN soil?
Probably because the multi-national corporations that pay for our politicians to make the decisions to go to war would lose BILLIONS.
How's that for moonbat?
- Banned
- #49
I know a lot of democrats, and I don't know ONE who thinks anything would be better if America lost in Iraq.
RSR loves to denigrate the polling methodology when the results don't fit with HIS preconceived notion, why not allow me to turn the tables and denigrate this poll and suggest that I do not believe that result?
RSR loves to denigrate the polling methodology when the results don't fit with HIS preconceived notion, why not allow me to turn the tables and denigrate this poll and suggest that I do not believe that result?
I don't know about "Democrats" -- it's hard to believe that people who want to win votes would actually admit to such a feeling, even if they have it -- but here are some people, not all on the Left either, who are not shy about their hope that we will lose in Iraq:
Columbia Professor.
Counterpunch Magazine.
Anarchists.
Libertarian.
However, I suspect that for most of the Democratic Left, Victor Davis Hanson's analysis is right.
Columbia Professor.
Counterpunch Magazine.
Anarchists.
Libertarian.
However, I suspect that for most of the Democratic Left, Victor Davis Hanson's analysis is right.
steeliniraq
Member
OK I dont see how wanting to lose in Iraq and running away from Iraq is any different. By saying we should pull out now you might not be saying it is better for the US to lose but you arent saying it is better for the US to win also!!! Take a long hard look at our military. 90% of our military still believes in what they are doing there! Unlike Vietnam we continue to go back over and over. We lose our families, friends, youth, but we continue to fight. If the Soldiers and Marines on the ground are this dedicated why isnt the US population? The people of the World laugh at the US not because of Iraq. They laugh because we cant sit down and even try. We wont commit to anything and they know if they kill one Soldier or one Marine the people of the US will start to cave. Kill two.....
- Banned
- #52
Like I have said over and over and over again. I have no doubt that the military of the united states can kick any and every ass in the middle east and can accomplish every single military objective put before it.
Creating a stable government in Iraq is not a military objective. Getting sunnis and shiites to forget about a millenium long feud is not a military objective. Getting sunnis and shiites and kurds who were thrust together in this artificially constructed " country" called Iraq to be able to live together without sectarian violence sweeping over the land is not a military objective.
And those non-military objectives are what REALLY needs to happen before our excursion into Iraq can ever really be called a "victory".
Maineman is correct that building a relatively stable society in Iraq which can progress towards becoming a normal liberal democracy is not a "military objective".
Whether or not it is realistic, it is, for want of a better term, a "geo-strategic objective," just as restoring civil society in Germany and Japan was, just as preventing Western Europe from going Communist was, and just as defending the regimes of South Korea and Taiwan were. (Note that the latter took some forty years to evolve from rather unpleasant dictatorships to pretty good democracies. Note also that economic prosperity seemed to play a key role. Note also that the American military guarantee of their integrity against determined enemies was also critical.)
The Cold War was not just the occasional military confrontation. And the war we are in is not just a military confrontation.
Invading Iraq was a bad idea. Invading it in the way we did, with little thought for the "day after" was a terrible idea, criminally incompetent.
But we are there. There actually seems to be a chance of a stable system emerging. The country may fracture. But ... the Kurds have a powerful motive to remain part of a larger state, and not to try to set up on their own: it's called Turkey. The Sunnis have a powerful motive to accommodate to being a powerful minority in a Shia-majority state: it's called a rational appreciation of the balance of forces. The Shias have a powerful motivation to hold everyone together: it's called oil money.
Now, rationality is seldom the sole arbiter of human affairs. And there are plenty of fruitcakes in all three communities who would like to pull down the whole temple. So it may not work.
But now is not the time to quit. Let's give it a couple of more years. We might see something surprising. And if we do, it will change everything, profoundly.
And hey, President Hillary can take credit for it!
Whether or not it is realistic, it is, for want of a better term, a "geo-strategic objective," just as restoring civil society in Germany and Japan was, just as preventing Western Europe from going Communist was, and just as defending the regimes of South Korea and Taiwan were. (Note that the latter took some forty years to evolve from rather unpleasant dictatorships to pretty good democracies. Note also that economic prosperity seemed to play a key role. Note also that the American military guarantee of their integrity against determined enemies was also critical.)
The Cold War was not just the occasional military confrontation. And the war we are in is not just a military confrontation.
Invading Iraq was a bad idea. Invading it in the way we did, with little thought for the "day after" was a terrible idea, criminally incompetent.
But we are there. There actually seems to be a chance of a stable system emerging. The country may fracture. But ... the Kurds have a powerful motive to remain part of a larger state, and not to try to set up on their own: it's called Turkey. The Sunnis have a powerful motive to accommodate to being a powerful minority in a Shia-majority state: it's called a rational appreciation of the balance of forces. The Shias have a powerful motivation to hold everyone together: it's called oil money.
Now, rationality is seldom the sole arbiter of human affairs. And there are plenty of fruitcakes in all three communities who would like to pull down the whole temple. So it may not work.
But now is not the time to quit. Let's give it a couple of more years. We might see something surprising. And if we do, it will change everything, profoundly.
And hey, President Hillary can take credit for it!
actsnoblemartin
I love Andrea & April
DanChisholm
Rookie
- Oct 10, 2007
- 7
- 1
- 1
Democrats often baffle me.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
OK guys over 50, are you getting your annual blood work done with PSA tests?
- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 2
-
America Is Dividing Into Red and Blue Economic Blocs, and Red America Is Winning- Started by Edgetho
- Replies: 0
-
-
“The Sixties Scoop: Canada’s Stolen Generation—and the Racism That Still Lives On”- Started by Papageorgio
- Replies: 2
