Answering Democrats Part 3
Every month we will take questions from a Democrat here on HipHopRepublican.com today's question again is about Iraq.
Democrat -Millions of Iraqis dead, thousands of Americans dead, and not even in the hope of freedom, except to fee up oil profits. Let's see, was that Che? No.. Lenin?...No...Pol Pot?...No.it was, and still is George W Bush. A cold blooded mass murderer.
Answer-
1) Yes..it is true that many Americans and many more Iraqi's have died since the invasion of Iraq. The accusation however that "millions" have died is a misnomer and is inaccurate even liberal body counts groups like the British Iraq Body Count organization alleges that 24,865 civilians in Iraq died violently between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005.
It alleges that coalition forces were responsible for 37 percent of those deaths, and that insurgents were responsible for only 9.5 percent. “Criminal violence” gets 36 percent of the blame, and 11 percent goes to “unknown agents” — a category into which suicide bombers are strangely lumped. Much of the commentary explaining the deaths Iraq Body Count has been refuted. But to say American troops killed a million Iraqis since the start of the war is untrue and is a smear tactic.
The numbers published on iraqbodycount.net did not distinguish between Iraqis killed by coalition forces or by insurgents. Reliable figures for insurgent casualties are not available. The Pentagon stopped supplying figures for what it called "non-compliant Iraqi forces" in mid-summer 2003. Another problem these body count groups have is there heavy reliance on media accounts which may be inaccurate.
A Canadian paper noted that The Nation magazine not a friend of the administration estimated that survey results could indicate "U.S. ground combat forces would have been responsible for the deaths of an absolute minimum of 13,881 noncombatants" since the start of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Even if this is true which I doubt it is in now way close to a million people.
The War was About Oil
2)There are two flavors to this argument. The first was popular before the war, and held that the United States would invade Iraq and take the oil. Given that this didn't happen, and that the Americans are helping to rebuild Iraq (against insurgent attempts to thwart the process by destroying pipelines and terrorizing the population), this is no longer believed by anyone except the most hopeless anti-American conspiracy nuts.
The more reasonable version of the argument is that Americas only interest in Iraq is to see that the countrys oil reaches the international market. The problem with this theory is that the only thing keeping Iraqi oil off the market prior to the war was American-supported sanctions.
The sanctions wouldn't have been there in the first place if Americans were only interested in oil. Nor would America have gone to war over oil, since it would have been far easier to simply drop the sanctions if oil was really the issue.
As it turns out, the only people selling their souls for oil were the European opportunists, such as George Galloway (allegedly), who were paid millions in oil allotments by Saddam to moralize against the war. Fortunately for them, they aren't American, therefore no one in Europe really cares.
More information here
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/11Myths.htm
Now you mentioned Stalin, Pol Pot, Che and Lenin
3)Well the butchers who ran the Soviet Union killed between 25 million [The Black Book of Communism] and 60 million [Rudolph J. Rummel] innocent humans - men, women and little children. The monster Stalin may be the greatest mass killer of all time.
An attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a Communist peasant farming society resulted in the deaths of 25 percent of the country's population from starvation, overwork and executions. Under Pol Pot's regime, 1.5 million died in death camps and another 200,000 so-called "enemies of the state" were executed.
Serving in the post as "supreme prosecutor" on the appellate bench, Che Guevara oversaw the trials and executions of thousands, dissidents, religious minorities like the Jehovah's Witnesses and others.
~The facts show that Bush is not the mass murder of history you try to make him out to be. The most likely reason for the war was Bush believed Iraq was a threat to peace and stability. A more credible debate is how great the threat and why intellegence agincies were not able to get it right? Many liberals are blinded by the facts because they hate Bush.As long as this is there worldview is clouded by hate than facts no intelligent discussion on the war can ever be had.
posted by Libertas @ 5/11/2008 03:53:00 PM
21 Comments:
I don't understand what your point is... you claim that maybe U.S. forces are responsible for a minimum of 13,881 deaths. You offer this as a counter-argument to the claim made by the anonymous Democrat who claims that a million Iraqis died.
So are you saying that the almost 14,000 (though I believe the number to be much higher) Iraqi dead and the 5 million refugees and the uncounted maimed fall within some acceptable range? Is that a number that you can live with you amoral ass?
Your claims dismissing our oil motives are weak- you need only compare our gas prices at home with those abroad to see that we enjoy cheap gas here compared to everyone else (even oil-producing countries) and it ain't because we use less or because it's subsidized (unless you factor in military expenditures as a subsidy).
Finally, I love the way you conclude your answer by saying, "the most likely reason for the war was Bush believed Iraq was a threat to peace and stability..." which reveals that not even you know the reason for this idiotic war, but the fact that you can comfortably assert because we believed someone to be a threat we were justified in invading them. I'll point out that at this time I'm sure most of the world believes that we are a threat. Should we ever find ourselves in a position where we are no long the number-1 superpower we'll see how well the Bush Foreign Policy Doctrine applies to us when other countries use it.
Hopefully by that time we'll have had a decent leader repair our image in the world and Americans such as yourself will have looked up the word "Hubris" in the dictionary.
The circulated number of deaths in Iraq since the war commenced, has been exploited as an emotional ploy to advance a political agenda. That agenda being first that the Iraq was illegal which it was not, that the Iraq was immoral which it was not and unnecessary which I would argue has more room for debate. Whenever a death of a child or solider is taken to make moral statements about what is "within some acceptable range is inappropriate. All life is sacred that of an Iraqi child or an American solider bombed by a terriost.I do however make distinctions between an aggressor and a liberator.
The notion that an elected president of a representative Democracy woke up one morning and summoned to his the secretary of defense "Hey Don. lets kill Iraqis today and lets take there is laughable. Today in this nation oil prices are high and we have yet to take any oil from Iraq, even though doing so would improve Bush’s approval record.
First it was Americans companies looking "ironically" for water that found much the oil in the Middle East, and unlike previous colonial powers instead of confiscating the oil we choose to purchase it in effect creating a relationship with that part of the world.
The fact is oil has no particular price unless it can be used for something like a car or train. If oil was the reason we went to war with Iraq, it would seem a silly way of doing it, given that Saddam as a dictator would probably have given us cheaper oil than if it were be on a global market.
I could go on about how oil was not the main factor in going to war with Saddam; the point is oil is part of any developed economy so in war and peace it will be a component.
It is not simply that "the most likely reason for the war was Bush believed Iraq was a threat to peace and stability" it is the facts preceding the Bush Whitehouse and our history with Iraq that makes this case. In fact it was Democrats who made the best cases to a reluctant Bush senior to go to war with Iraq which he rejected.
Here is video on You Tube that makes this point visually-
Then VP hopeful Gore trashing Bush 41 on his handling of Iraq and terrorism. This is coming from the same man who now denies any link between saddam, Iraq and terrorism. Little did the country know then how ineffective Clinton and Gore would be in fighting this now non-existent relationship. Hypocrisy at it's finest ladies and gentlemen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVUO7voM-ns
Now some questions for you?
Why was the left quiet when Saddam killed millions of his own people?
How many Iraqi's were killed by terrorist? How many were killed by there own people. How many terries groups used human shields to fight against American soldiers? Why did America give Iraq back to Iraqis? Why is it that Iraq's economy is growing? Why is that the surge is helping create a safer Iraq? Why is the Iraqi army and police forces growing larger, better-trained, and more effective? How did the Iraqi Army and security forces grow from just 1 operational battalion in July 2004 to more than 120 today? Why it is today the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are trained by Iraqis, not Americans Why was Iraqi forces able to take a leading role in the successful September 2005 offensive at Tal Afar, which involved 11 Iraqi and 5Coalition battalions. Why if Iraqis hate us so much between March 2005 Iraqi and coalition forces received 483 intelligence tips from Iraqi citizens. This figure rose to 3,300 in August, and to more than 4,700 in September and continues to grow, Why if we are losing this war do 71 percent of respondents to a nationwide poll believe that the Iraqi security forces are winning the war against the insurgents, while only 9 percent believed they are losing. Why despite terrorist attacks and threats of intimidation, have 8.5 million Iraqis voted?
Is this because this nation is going in the wrong direction or is it signs that this nation may prosper just as Japan, Germany, South Korea,Phillipines and other nations America helped after war. Also Democrats have taken this nation to more wars than Republicans spreading Jeffersonian Democracy under all sorts of names. The Republican Party is not historically the party of war it is the Democrat's
Have a nice day
Richard
HipHopRepublican.com
"Why was the left quiet when Saddam killed millions of his own people?"
Partisanship is never a good prism for reality.
The answer to that is a little complex and I'll get into it later, but it needs to be noted that it was a group of Democratic Senators that drafted and tried to pass the Prevention of Genocide act of 1988 that imposed sanctions on Iraq. You'll be happy to know that Al Gore was one of those people and that was one of the times he cites in that video that he was fought "to the bitter end." Do a little research on why it never passed and you'll see why framing the reaction as a shortcoming of the "left" is a non-starter.
"Is this because this nation is going in the wrong direction or is it signs that this nation may prosper just as Japan, Germany, South Korea,Phillipines and other nations America helped after war."
This type of ahistorical nonsense is why I refuse to vote for McCain - even though I have absolutely no problem voting Republican.
The funny thing is, while the countries that you listed are diverse, compared to Iraq they could just as well be the five boroughs of New York City.
Every one of those states had 1) a history of internal peaceful stability in living memory before the wars that they were engaged in and 2) were relatively homogeneous ethnically.
Just like the government in Iran, we have US foreign policy to thank for Saddam Hussein. The country was never stable and the people never free, but the Baath party was useful enough for the CIA to orchestrate a coup to install them in power back in 1963. Once our oppressive dictator friend Reza Shah in Iran was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in 1979, we had to lean on the loyal Baath member Saddam in Iraq to essentially fight a proxy war and, like a loyal tool, that is exactly what he did.
Saddam's power in Iraq was crystallized by lots of Western dollars which were used to kill plenty of Iraqis and Iranians. And believe me, those thousands of rockets that the Reagan Administration sent the Iranians to partially fund terrorist Contras in Nicaragua weren't used to deliver milk to Iraqi citizens either. So the killing of most of those millions by Saddam was implicitly (at best) sanctioned by the US. The only time we gave them a rebuke was when they got caught red-handed gassing the Kurds and even then the only rebuke the Reagan Adminstration delivered was with respect to the fact that gas was used, not to the murders. This stuff is what Gore is so pissed about in the video that you cite. Gore has always been tough on national security, that's how he balanced draft-dodger Clinton's ticket. The problem is that Bush I was wrong to continue Reagan's policy, but he was right to not invade in the absence of a viable organic movement that would be ready to take over.
Most of those millions of people that Saddam killed were killed fighting a war that we materially supported him in executing. While it is self-defeating, it is not unreasonable for the average Iraqi (or Iranian to maybe a lesser extent) to get pissed off at the fact that much of their misery over the last thirty five years has been subsidized by the US in terms of propping up Saddam, arming Iran, and supporting sanctions that did nothing to harm the regime but plenty to harm the people. If anything, we owed it to them to clean up the mess (that why I supported the war). A large number of these people don't need Al Qaeda around to hate Americans. If you study the historical facts, and not partisan propaganda, you'll find that most "terrorism" on this planet is a direct response to occupation (or the perception of such) and the probability is that this is the case with most of the attacks in Iraq.
Even if you ignore our complicity in their problems, the fact remains that Iraq has no history of stability, and a populace that is diverse to extreme fault. It flabbergasts me that people who incessantly whine about pie in the sky government policies can support this operation, the ultimate pie in the sky, having expectations well outside of the parameters of reality.
Knowing all of this, I couldn't help but laugh at your boy on YouTube talking about all of the "good" that the US does. To be sure our country does plenty of good to counteract the bad and nobody is perfect, but the good and bad are not distributed in offsetting ways and, morally, that's the problem. If I set my neighbor's yard on fire, he's not going to care much that I bought my other neighbor a mansion.
The war in Iraq is illegal because the War resolution explicitly states that the President had to make two determinations before he took the country to war, 1) was that was for the country's national security, AND 2) THAT IRAQ HAD A HAND IN 9/11. Even the President (though the VP doesn't agree) admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so without that determination, force was not authorized!
Here is the language taken from the White House website:
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
But to answer your questions:
"Why was the left quiet when Saddam killed millions of his own people?"
Who was silent, you may not realize this but groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are all progressives. People on the Left are the reason this country has such a robust and generous foreign policy. Hell, we've just been waiting for Conservatives, who have always been the main source of xenophobic politics in this country, to catch up to us. Also, Saddam killed some of those millions before he invaded Kuwait, but he was an ally of the US before then.
"How many Iraqi's were killed by terrorist? How many were killed by there own people. How many terries groups used human shields to fight against American soldiers?"
I'll take all these questions together, because they all are on the same point. Obviously Americans can't control what Iraqis do or we would have stopped these killings, but that is why we on the Left didn't want to go into Iraq because we knew we would be in this exact spot. How did we know, we listened to Dick Cheney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgDIylwPlM
"Why did America give Iraq back to Iraqis?"
When you have veto power over who is chosen as leaders, you didn't give the country back.
"Why is it that Iraq's economy is growing?"
After years of war, I think any bit of regularization will make a broken economy grow. Why isn't electricity availability or oil production back to where it was during the Saddam years? Where is their economy today compared to where it was before the invasion?
"Why is that the surge is helping create a safer Iraq? Why is the Iraqi army and police forces growing larger, better-trained, and more effective? How did the Iraqi Army and security forces grow from just 1 operational battalion in July 2004 to more than 120 today? Why it is today the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are trained by Iraqis, not Americans Why was Iraqi forces able to take a leading role in the successful September 2005 offensive at Tal Afar, which involved 11 Iraqi and 5Coalition battalions. Why if Iraqis hate us so much between March 2005 Iraqi and coalition forces received 483 intelligence tips from Iraqi citizens. This figure rose to 3,300 in August, and to more than 4,700 in September and continues to grow, Why if we are losing this war do 71 percent of respondents to a nationwide poll believe that the Iraqi security forces are winning the war against the insurgents, while only 9 percent believed they are losing."
These are all very specious arguments. First, the surge is not working, if it was working we would be closer to being able to leave and not have the country fall into total chaos. The reduction in violence is because of 3 phenomenons. First the Sunni Awakening, which truly is just an amnesty for those who have killed Americans and putting those killers on our payroll instead of fighting them. Second, the Mahdi Army ceasefire, which was proven by the Basra offensive as the reason for less violence, because once they decided to fight all hell broke loose in the South and in Baghdad. Third, after 4 years of sectarian violence, Iraqs neighborhoods have for the most part been ethnically cleansed and the US has built stone walls separating different groups to stop further violence. None of these things has helped the overall mission of building a united democratic Iraq, so the Surge is not working.
"Why despite terrorist attacks and threats of intimidation, have 8.5 million Iraqis voted?"
Iraqis voted for sectarian parties, which has been a huge impediment to progress towards building a united democratic Iraq.
"Is this because this nation is going in the wrong direction or is it signs that this nation may prosper just as Japan, Germany, South Korea,Phillipines and other nations America helped after war."
No, in none of those countries you named was there any serious threat of civil war, before or after they lost their war. Iraq was a construction of the British Colonial Empire, and just as they did everywhere, they used a divide and conquer policy of splitting ethnic groups between countries and cobbling together different ethnic groups together and then playing one against the other sowing deep hatreds that last to this day. Iraq will never have the national unity that Japan, Germany, the Philippines or South Korea has, so there won't be the national consensus which makes our presence non-controversial. So bringing up this analogy is just spurious at best.
"Also Democrats have taken this nation to more wars than Republicans spreading Jeffersonian Democracy under all sorts of names. The Republican Party is not historically the party of war it is the Democrat's"
First, Democrats have been around a lot longer than the GOP (why they call it the Grand Old Party, I don't know) but the Democrats after Vietnam now completely understand the awesome responsibility of war. Plus the most belligerent Democrats were the Dixiecrats from the south and they all defected to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Way to take questions from a generic "Democrat". Next time make it questions which aren't based on misconceptions that are easily knocked down.
Questions like "does it really make sense to pay and arm former Sunni insurgents who have no problem killing Americans and hate the National Government when sectarian civil war is the greatest threat to a united democratic Iraq?"
"Or why is Iran the biggest beneficiary of our Iraq policy, since we overthrew their biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein; raised the price of oil so they are flushed with money to support Hamas and Hezbollah, and weakened our military, so that while we've lost 4000 of our troops and spent billions defending and supporting Iraq, our President has to sneak in and out of the country, while Iran's president is greeted like a conquering hero?"
Why is Osama Bin Laden still at large. What happened to DEAD OR ALIVE? Between the war in Iraq and our failure to capture Osama, how many terrorist recruits do you think have joined up because they think al-Qeada is winning?
These are real questions, Democrats have about the war, not cherry-picked straw men that you can knock down without even thinking about it.
Rashid-
Referring to my arguments as “partisan talking points” is laughable given that the same could equally be said of you’re responses. Instead of accusing you of using standard liberal arguments with regards to American foreign policy, I will take you’re comments on merit. However I must ask that in the future you offer me the same courtesy. First I would like to answer some of the accusations and statements you made in response to this post.
The First Response: US Foreign Policy
Before I get into the other stuff I wanted to left you know first I do not subscribe to the “My Country, right or wrong slogan, but I do take issue when people fault this nation while routinely excusing other nations for doing the same things. While it is true that America has invoked
Democratic ideals while supporting dictators like the Sha of Iran you miss one important understanding. America like every other nation acts on behalf of its people. Any nation that ignores its own self interest to cater to the worlds every need puts the welfare of its own people at risk. Liberals attack America for pursing our own interest while demanding that we pay attention to other nation’s interest…this is crazy.
Foreign policy is not a philosophy class where the choice is between good and evil. But between the choice of a bad guy and a worse guy. A perfect example of this is our alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler. After the war with Hitler we saw Communism as a threat and had to form alliances with the Taliban and other groups in South America because we were fighting a larger battle. The relationships we had with dictators were within this context. Ironically it was Jimmy Carter who decided to do away with this plan and refused to support the Shah of Iran, in fact he supported his ouster. The result was the Ayatollah Khomeini. Foreign policy is not a game and as such takes practical moral reasoning not nostalgic heroism.
The Second response: The Genocide Act of 1998,
When referring to the “silence” of liberals I am not speaking of the Kurdish genocide. The attack on the Kurds was genocide not simply meditated acts of murder. The point I was referring to was the killing of his”own people”.
The millions slaughtered since Saddam became dictator have been primarily directed at people who are not Kurdish. The Kurdish genocide was unique in that it targeted a known ethnic group for extermination. Saddam killed more of his own people for political and religious reasons than ethnicity. Saddam killing his own people predated both the Iranian war and the Kurdish uprising. The Shiite Arab group “Edrisi" found 18 million files related to former Iraqi prisoners, 35,000 of which, for a fact were known to have been executed Iraqis. The group also claims that Saddam’s regime murdered as many as 6 million Iraqi dissidents Iraq.
Since Saddam was overthrown 400 mass grave sites have been found according to US AID they have counted so far the remains of 400,000 bodies. US AID says “If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.
The Sunni Arabs also victims of Saddam's were also a target, and just to note tthese murders were not in Iran these acts were local. It is to this I am referring to when I speak of liberal silence. The silence of inaction is to me just as evil as not going to war with Iraq.
It is true that the Genocide Act of 1998 had more Democrat sponsors than Republicans and yes Al Gore was a co sponsor. However its is also true that the Senate bill which had 7 sponsors. Of which seven three were Republican’s Sen.Christopher Bond, Sen. Helms, Jesse of North Carolina and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana.
I think it would be hard to argue that it was a Democrat bill. It was a bipartisan bill given the number of Republicans in the senate at this time. In the Senate there were 55 Democrats compared to 45 Republican’s. In the House there were 177 Republicans and 258 Democrats.
The sanctions bill while wining Senate approval in just 24 hours stalled in the more partisan House. Also a few Republicans were more concerned with economic issues those sanctions. A few American business sold products in Iraq and the sanctions would have caused the loss of thousands of jobs. In truth the only Republican who took opposition to the bill was Congressman Bill Frentzel.Frentzel was not opposed to the merits of the bill but the bills results.
You are absolutely correct in saying that Al Gore and Democrats were more hawkish on Iraq than Bush senior and the Republican Party at this time history. Let us not also forget about another bill The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. My frustration is when Democrats change there rhetoric to win elections. They knew how terrible Saddam was and instead of supporting Bush they claim amnesia. Al Gore is attacking Iraqs credit worthiness, and the terroist attack based in Iraq
against Isreals Ambassador. This speech is primarrly a speech about Iraq and Saddam’s promotion of terrioism and his pursit of nucelar weapons. This is not the same Al Gore that
we know today in effect he has flip flopped. Check out this Video of Bill Cinton talking about
developing nuclear weapons Clinton to Saddam: You cannot defy the will of the world
The second response: Iraq’s diversity and history
You make the claim that “While the countries that you listed are diverse compared to Iraq they could just as well be the five boroughs of New York City.
Every one of those states had
1) A history of internal peaceful stability in living memory before the wars that they were engaged in and
2) were relatively homogeneous ethnically.
Reply- I live in Manhattan and can agree with you to a point those nations mentioned like Japan are homogeneous. However I take issue with you’re saying that Iraq unlike these nations have not had any relative internal peace. In fact time wise it has had a much longer period given that Iraq is older than all of these nations. Some of Iraq’s most stable existences had been under the occupation of foreign powers. Before Iraq was the Iraq of today it was ancient Mesopotamia where modern civilization started. Iraq has one of the longest histories on the planet if any nation. Also Iraq/Mesopotamia has always had a diverse population due to its many invasions and border neighbors. To the north is Iran to its south is Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and then it finds itself between Syria and Iran.
The most successful historically speaking “occupation” of Iraq was that of Islam itself, which fundamentally changed every aspect of ancient Iraq. It was in the seventh century that Islamist occupiers spread into to what is now Iraq. This occupation of Iraq was led by Khalid ibn al-Walid. Walid came into Iraq with an army consisting of 18,000 killing many. After this he then created an Islamic Caliphate. After the Caliphate green zone was up an running the prophet Mohammed's son-in-law became the fourth caliph.
This occupation lasted for five centuries. After this period of relative peace Iraq was occupied again this time by Asian horse riders called the Mongol’s under Ghengis Khan. Ghengis Khan killed over from 200,000 to a million Iraqis. In 1831 the Ottoman Empire took control of Iraq
and ruled it until WW1. When the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers and
lost Iraq became the responsibility of Britain. During all these occupations Iraqis never saw fit to attack there occupiers by blowing themselves up. It would seem that this is a new phenomenon.
Iraq has a long history that predates the US and simply saying that US foreign policy is to thank for Saddam Hussein” shows a lack of knowledge about history and the predicament America found herself after the 1st and 2nd Wars. What is unique about America’s occupation if Iraq
Is our willingness to afterwards spend billions returning power to its people and building
Its infrastructure. No nation that ever conquered Iraq did this much for Iraq and to dismiss this
shows a prejudice and against this double standard.
The Cancerian-
Where in Amnesty International’s charter does its say says we are progressives, anyone can claim this word historically it was an umbrella term use for a whole host of things. In the United States it was a political response to the vast changes brought on by the industrial revolution.
The early progressives were not liberals nor where they conservatives in truth they were populist much like Ron Paul. The best person to ever advance the progressive movement was Theodore Roosevelt. In the black community
Booker T Washington a hero to black conservatives was a progressive.
My point is the term is used loosely and today has lost it meaning. One reason is that liberals have called everything they feel is right progressive. That’s progressive ooh yes this is progressive and that’s progressives. If the word means everything than it means nothing.
Sorry to disappoint again “Its is America’s economic power and its constitution that gives this country such a robust and generous foreign policy.
Conservatives are xenophobic that’s news to me have you picked up the Wall Street Journal or the National Review ever? It was a Democrat President who put hundreds of Japanese Americans in camps?
It’s the union left that has been the most xenophobic historically and I would not call them conservatives. Umm the left did not want to go into Iraq, was it not Bill Clinton who bombed Iraq and then stated “we would never allow Iraq to gains weapons of mass destruction???? Oh and here is that great “progressive” statements from him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XQmYr2qBOA
Democrats after Vietnam now completely understand the awesome responsibility of war…this is so funny given that went in Bosnia, Hate and
And Iraq. And you really have not been in power for to long since the 60’s so
that’s not much to go on…lol
Umm yes we did have veto power
but then as I stated they had
an election?
Do you remember those purple fingers? These myths you state as facts show that you watch a lot of television.
The MSM has firmly elevated these views you spew to fact status and sadly many of us now believe them.
The Heritage Foundation has answered most of you’re questions because I have to go. But by Friday the end of the week I will have answered all you’re questions...bye...bye
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm932.cfm
With all due respect, what's laughable is that my pointing out partisanship while addressing a clearly partisan comment on a post titled "Answering Democrats" is somehow being spun as unreasonable.
Regardless, I'm not here to antagonize you, I'm here for some tough discussion which is something that most pansy liberals are scared to engage in. I'll try not to be so acute in the future.
My "liberal arguments" regarding US foreign policy are not arguments at all. They are facts. In 1953 the CIA installed the Shah of Iran with Operation AJAX. In 1963 the CIA installed the Baath party in Iraq via a coup and helped them regain control in 1968. When the Iranians got sick of the Shah in 1978 they revolted. We didn't immediately get involved, but we eventually got on Saddam's side because the Iranians were whipping up on him something serious and since the Iranians were calling us "The Great Satan" for intervening in their affairs and forcing a revolution, them conquering Iraq wouldn't be a good look for us.
Once again, those atrocities that you refer to mainly happened during the Iran Iraq war and they were widely known at the time. Saddam killed "his own people" because they (the Kurds and Shias) had an interest in his defeat and were colluding with the Iranians who were putting up a much harder fight than anyone could have imagined. That war went from 1980 to 1988 and the Reagan Administration didn't rebuke anything that was done over there until Hajabla in 1988 and even then they were bending over backwards to blame it on Iran.
That infamous picture of Saddam shaking Rummy's hand was taken in 1983 and Saddam was "killing his own people" and most likely gassing Iranians then. My calling Saddam a tool earlier was just me having fun, but the whole point of this meeting was to make sure that Saddam didn't lose the war and, as a result, he was provided with plenty of US-made tools over the next few years to make his killing more efficient. Let's also not forget the directly US-instigated Kurd / Shia uprising after Desert Storm that led to a mass slaughter.
It's imprudent to ignore the fact that the escalation of this whole situation was largely due to the fact that we installed an oppressive dictator in Iran. It's also not helpful to jump on Democrats for not acting when the Reagan administration was selling helicopters, providing intelligence, and sending chemical and biological weapons directly to Saddam knowing full well what he was up to. Given the Iran Contra fiasco that was going on at this exact same time, it's clear that the Reagan Administration was on considerably lower moral ground than the Democratic Congress. There is plenty of blame to go around here (the Baath party was installed by a Democrat administration - shortly after the Bay of Pigs at that) and trying to pin it on one party is petty and counterproductive.
As for The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the big difference between that and Operation Iraqi Freedom was tactical if they were similar strategically. Frankly, US support for sanctions on Iraq pretty much made the idea of empowering groups in Iraq to the point of revolution a non-starter, but anybody that had studied Iraq for more than 20 minutes (I think Bush 41 was one of these people) knew one thing, and that brings me to this:
"However I take issue with you’re saying that Iraq unlike these nations have not had any relative internal peace. In fact time wise it has had a much longer period given that Iraq is older than all of these nations."
Ok, I see the problem. You are conflating the ill-conceived political entity of Iraq - which was created as a British Mandate in 1920 (still the area itself hasn't really been stable for 500 years) - with the actual land that Iraq occupies. Iraq is very much like many places Africa in that its borders put groups of people that have no business sharing political destiny in a situation where they have to do just that.
Over the 100 years that Iraq has been around, bloodshed is the one constant and no small amount has been because of Kurd and Shia resentment and wanting independence. The period during this time that could be considered stable was when the Baath party was in power and slaughtering all opponents. It seems that when you have a nation of bitterly divided groups forced to live together, the best way to keep "peace" is by the liberal application of violence. This is why it was so risky to remove Saddam, especially when he was not an eminent threat.
But, even if we ignore that, the fact is that in the huge number of governments that have ruled Iraq, none have resembled Democracies. Democracy isn't a hat, it's a nice suit. It has to be consciously selected based on the sensibilities of the wearer and properly tailored. This takes a long time and, more importantly, it takes a group of people that 1) all want the same thing to happen and 2) have the will to make it happen. This is absolutely not the case in Iraq. Iraq was broken when it became a British mandate and we're trying to assemble pieces that have never fit together into a democracy.
It's possible, but it's also possible that some stranger could hand me a check for 20 million dollars tomorrow. This is yet another instance of our government trying to sell us a noble - yet realistically patently ridiculous - idea.
Man, I really thought you would at least give me a decent response, but I see you just like to rant. I've always believed you use reason and knowledge to combat ignorance, so I'll give you the political education you seem to be lacking.
"Where in Amnesty International’s charter does its say says we are progressives, anyone can claim this word historically it was an umbrella term use for a whole host of things. In the United States it was a political response to the vast changes brought on by the industrial revolution.
The early progressives were not liberals nor where they conservatives in truth they were populist much like Ron Paul. The best person to ever advance the progressive movement was Theodore Roosevelt. In the black community
Booker T Washington a hero to black conservatives was a progressive.
My point is the term is used loosely and today has lost it meaning. One reason is that liberals have called everything they feel is right progressive. That’s progressive ooh yes this is progressive and that’s progressives. If the word means everything than it means nothing."
Since you don't trust the MSM, here is something from the Heritage Foundation on American Progressivism.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp12.cfm
Progressivism is what the American Left historically has been all about going back to Thomas Jefferson ("I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...). That's not a quote from a conservative.
Progressivism is the left-wing counterpart to libertarianism, so Ron Paul is not a progressive. Libertarianism seeks to limit government as they see government as the greatest threat to human freedom, progressives seek to expand government because we believe government is where freedom is best safeguarded through the democratic process. Progressives wish to use our united strength to deal with problems facing society, and government is the only institution of which all Americans are a party, so it has the broadest ability to affect change. Progressivism has a long history with concrete principle, just because you are ignorant to it, does not mean that it does not exist, even those right-wing nutjobs at the Heritage Foundation know about it.
"“Its is America’s economic power and its constitution that gives this country such a robust and generous foreign policy."
This is just absurd. What does this have to do with which political movement has ADVOCATED a robust and generous foreign policy. Here is your conservative/libertarian take on a robust and generous foreign policy:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6185
"It was a Democrat President who put hundreds of Japanese Americans in camps? It’s the union left that has been the most xenophobic historically and I would not call them conservatives."
Can't argue with you there, these are all horrible things perpetrated by people on the left. But you confuse protectionism for xenophobia. These unnecessary and dispicible acts to protect the homeland and American jobs aren't xenophobic, xenophobia has to do with Americans only concerning themselves with Americans, and using the two oceans to keep the insanity of the world at arms length. And that has been a conservative principle, like how Bush campaigned against nation-building.
"Umm the left did not want to go into Iraq, was it not Bill Clinton who bombed Iraq and then stated “we would never allow Iraq to gains weapons of mass destruction???? Oh and here is that great “progressive” statements from him"
First thing, I wouldn't claim Bill Clinton as a progressive, he is from the Democratic Leadership Council part of the Party and they are public enemy #1 to progressives. Look at how many primary battles are taking place this year in the Democratic Primaries, we are kicking these bums out, because they are the ones who have stopped us from ending this stupid war in Iraq. Clinton championed what was called "convergence," he took conservative ideas and just softened them so as to get them enacted and him elected. Initiatives like welfare reform, NAFTA, Don't ask don't tell, Defense of Marriage Act, expanding the death penalty and other draconian law enforcement bills, Communications Decency Act, and expanding media ownership rights; all very conservative ideas championed by the GOP.
"Democrats after Vietnam now completely understand the awesome responsibility of war…this is so funny given that went in Bosnia, Hate and Iraq. And you really have not been in power for to long since the 60’s so that’s not much to go on…lol"
Let me ask you, in all of those military deployments, how many Americans died? None in Bosnia or Iraq, because Clinton kept it only to airpower. And Haiti was a humanitarian mission, not a war. But if you want to count those, how about Reagan in Grenada or Panama, Americans actually died in these minor conflicts. I know you like to argue with the conventional wisdom but can you really deny that the peace movement is a decidedly left-wing movement after Vietnam.
"Umm yes we did have veto power but then as I stated they had an election? Do you remember those purple fingers? These myths you state as facts show that you watch a lot of television."
Well obvious you don't watch enough news or you would understand the chronology that we're talking about. The purple finger elections were party elections, not representative elections. The Iraqi people voted for sectarian parties like the Supreme Islamic Council For Revolution In Iraq which supported sectarian leaders. It then took months after the election for leaders to be decided upon, of which the US had veto power for who ever was picked. Maliki was chosen because he came from a smaller Shi'ite party, Dawa; and so he did not have any ties to any militia. But the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, was instrumental in those deliberations. If you think the US would have allowed the Iraqis to choose an anti-American prime minister, then you are more naive than I thought.
"http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm932.cfm"
This is the funniest bit of nonsense that you have put forth. The first myth it tries to dispel is: "The U.S. is making no progress in defeating the insurgency in Iraq." Did you notice the date on that page, "December 2, 2005" right before the deadliest year of the entire war, that's great progress there. Did you notice there is no mention of the surge on this page, because it was before the surge. These Bush apologists who supported the President like all GOPers have been saying from the beginning that everything is going swell, when it was definitely and verifiably not going well. And now we're supposed to believe that "oh they were wrong then," but now they have a clearer crystal ball than those of us who were against the war from the start because of the very problems we stated which have arisen. Iraq has weakened our military, allowed al-Qeada to regroup and destroyed America's standing in the world, these are all facts that can't be argued with because they have been stated by our own government, military and intelligence services. It is a blunder with no good end, and the next president (Barack Obama...YEA!) will have to clean up and make the hard decisions.
I'm sure you'll have another rant for me, but please try to back up the things you say this time, so to help you, I'll restate my questions which you haven't answered.
1. Why is the war in Iraq not illegal when the war resolution said the President had to certify that Saddam had a part in 9/11 before force could be authorized, but the President himself says, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM (At about the 1:15 mark.)
2. During the Reagan years, why was Saddam a US ally when we knew he was a butcher that was killing his own people and using chemical weapons against the Iranians, though now we count those things as his transgressions?
3. If Dick Cheney knew what was going to happen after the US overthrew Saddam, why wasn't there a better plan in place to deal with the post-war reconstruction?
4. Why isn't electricity availability or oil production back to where it was during the Saddam years? Where is their economy today compared to where it was before the invasion?
5. How does Iraqis electing sectarian parties help bring the country together to being a united, democratic Iraq?
6. Does it really make sense to pay and arm former Sunni insurgents who have no problem killing Americans and hate the National Government when sectarian civil war is the greatest threat to a united democratic Iraq?
7. why is Iran the biggest beneficiary of our Iraq policy, since we overthrew their biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein; raised the price of oil so they are flushed with money to support Hamas and Hezbollah, and weakened our military, so that while we've lost 4000 of our troops and spent billions defending and supporting Iraq, our President has to sneak in and out of the country, while Iran's president is greeted like a conquering hero?
8. Why is Osama Bin Laden still at large. What happened to DEAD OR ALIVE? Between the war in Iraq and our failure to capture Osama, how many terrorist recruits do you think have joined up because they think al-Qeada is winning?
Caperion-
Do yourself a favor and stop being an intellectual slouch and do you’re homework.
You are entitled to you're own opinion but not you're own facts.The argument that today's brand of progressives has anything to do with today's Democrats isn't a very tight one. Progressives back in the in the turn of the century were were of both parties. Some were socially conservative populist and some were not it was a very diverse group they were Democrats and Republican’s.
Have you ever heard of the Bull-Moose Republicans? Have you not heard of William Jennings Bryan the famous lawyer that led the fight for progressive causes throughout much of the turn of the century. Oh ..and by the way was also an Evangelical who led the "progressive"... fight against evolution, ever hear of the Scopes Trial???
People like Bryan were anti war yet they supported locking people up over having a beer. Not only are you ignorant about the history of progressives but you fail to articulate the diverse views of Libertarianism.
There are many schools of thoughts in both camps and sometimes these two meet. You said that "Libertarianism seeks to limit government as they see government as the greatest threat to human freedom, progressives seek to expand government because we believe government is where freedom is best safeguarded through the democratic process" again this shows a lack of understanding.
When I mentioned Ron Paul I was referring to this particular strain of progressives..the populist progressive. Ron Paul is a populist Republican not a Libertarian. In fact he is a perfect example of what I was trying to get across to you. John McCain and Mike Huckabee also come from the progressive Republican tradition this is why one supports global warming initiatives and the other expanding social programs.
My point is not everything politically speaking is black or white. There are mid west Democrats today that would look conservative to s New England Republican. Why is this? Well first the Republican Party historically was an Episcopalian upstate party. Many of the progressive actions were done under Senators and mayors from the north east.
The abolition of slavery being number one Fredrick Douglas was a Republican; the Founder of the NAACP was a Republican. the song Lift Every Voice and Sing, it honors a black Republican, James Weldon Johnson. The Ku Klux Klan not exactly what I would call progressive were comprised exclusively of Democrats until the mid-1900s. Almost all prominent African-Americans were Republican until the 1940s. And slavery was specifically a repugnant institution of the Democratic Party. The poll tax was a Democratic institution ...Jim Crow laws were instituted by Democrats.
You said that "Libertarianism seeks to limit government as they see government as the greatest threat to human freedom, progressives seek to expand government because we believe government is where freedom is best safeguarded through the democratic process" again this shows a lack of understanding....
The Republican Party has done some of the most progressive things this nation
have ever experiences...one we fought a war that Democrats said was illegal. The Civil War a war that ended the barbaric practice of Slavery.... It's amazing that you have become so vehement against the Republican Party that you never state publicly ... how important the Republican Party has been to African-Americans ... The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in order to abolish slavery, and no Republican had ever been a slaveholder since becoming a Republican.
The Republicans in Congress also enacted the nation's first-ever Civil Rights Act, extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, colors, and creeds and providing equal rights of access to all public accommodations. However the Supreme Court struck down the legislation eight years later. It wouldn't be until 1964 that this act would be reborn.
Republicans also fought for women's rights, with Susan B. Anthony bragging that she voted the straight Republican ticket when she voted illegally in 1872. It was a
Republican Senator Aaron Sargent who wrote the women's suffrage amendment in 1878 but it could not get passed in Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later.
Every African-American in Congress was a Republican through 1935.
1954 marked the beginning of the modern Civil Rights movement with the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court Decision. The decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, 3-term Republican Governor of California and appointee of Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Republican President Eisenhower then passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. This was followed by the 1960 Civil Rights Act authored by Republican Everett Dirksen. And, Republicans overwhelmingly supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The 1964 Civil Rights Act only became law after Republican votes broke a Democrat filibuster that sought to never allow the act to be voted on.
In 1965, a Republican appointed judge Frank Johnson over ruled the then Democrat Governor George Wallace allowing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s protest march from Selma to Montgomery to proceed. So the idea that Republicans have just been sitting idly by why Democrats led the charge is a myth...it just makes and a gross butchery of the historical record. How many Republican's were killed in the south registering black Democrats to vote?
Now with regards you’re stupidity on economics and its relation to liberty you had the nerve to ask. What does the american econmy have to do with which political movement has ADVOCATED a robust and generous foreign policy.
First the economy of a state has a direct relation to the liberty and freedom of that state. A dictator who controls all aspects of ingenuity will get a nation that has less freedom. The freedom for parties to form must be with a context that allows this formation in the first place. Had Martin Luther King marched in Nazi Germany he would have died the same day, but Nazi Germany is not American. While we have had many problems relating to creating a free and just society our constitution not any party dictates this. No party or movement in this country has shaped this nation more that the American Revolution. By the way the definition of true conservatism is to “conserve the ideals of that revolution”. Liberals keep seeking a revolution but the problem is we had had one, its over. The closet thing to a revolution to liberals was the cil rights movements and labor. Secondly real rebels rarely support centralized state control of anything. Most people who love freedom liberal or conservative know that any government that can give you everything you want can also take everything you have. I would not call this being progressive. There is nothing remotely progressive about any movement that advocates the central government taking over all forms of civic life. This is called socialism not progressivsm. Too much government control over most things particularly in the area of markets and banks lead to recessions and depressions, none of which are good for liberty. Also not everyone is good, so government is only good as the men running it meaning things go back and forth rarely in a straight line. It is the conservative view of human nature that is different from liberal thought.We do not give men the position or the power liberals ordain to men.
With regards the free market, a producer only accumulates capital to the degree to which he pleases consumers. In a a very real sense, the free market consumer is the boss; and when the boss is not pleased, his servant, the producer, is soon relieved of his position as a captain of industry.Nothing on the free market can save a producer who does not direct his capital into uses which the consumer values and desires.There is nothing immoral about this principle the need for government to regulate every aspect of this is unnecessary. In fact many of you're so called "progressive causes" i were funded by rich capitalist Republican’s. One interesting note today California made a ban on gay marriage illegal. Did you know that the j9th circuit is made up of mostly Republican Judges. The chief justice who ruled in support of the ban was a Republican. My point is not to debate the merits of gay marriage but to point out to you this seemingly contradictory things. Here we see Libertarian Republicans supporting a cause a liberal Progressives agree with? The notion that the two never meet is ridiculous they do meet and have trhought the years. You're definition contrasting the two is good in theory but in reality this is not the case.
-This is a reply to Part 1 of this question I will reply to other other hal tommorrow.
Richard
HipHopRepublican.com
Just as I thought, instead of engaging in a debate you decide to go on a rant about the history of progressivism. I can't and won't argue with anything you said, because it is all historically accurate, but I never said all progressives were Dems or anything so foolish. My point was that progressives advocate for bigger government and the modern Republican Party has a platform of smaller government while the modern Democratic Party has a platform of bigger government, thus progressives tend to be Democrats or at least Left-leaning. Only a fool believes politics is black and white and I used Clinton as an example of a Democrat who isn't very progressive. But I guess you just felt like you had to justify yourself by giving a history lecture.
Now you are correct that progressivism and libertarianism are two sides of the same populist coin. Progressivism and libertarianism are principled political perspective which both seek to give the power to the people, one by taking it away from the government and the other by strengthening the people's control over government. But Ron Paul is a self-described libertarian, who believes in as minimalist a government as explicitly described in the Constitution. Which definitely isn't what progressives advocate for as that was what they fought against as stated in that Heritage Foundation article. John McCain has some libertarian inklings but he is actually more of a western social and fiscal conservative who is more comfortable with regulation due to the need to regulate water and fertile land out west. Mike Huckabee does have some progressive inklings, mostly stemming from the progressivism in Christian Doctrine to care for your neighbor as well as the poor and needy in his evangelical background which also bleeds into being the moral police. Now I know none of these people are 100% consistent on every issue, but their political perspective favors less government, where progressivism has a clear bigger government bent. I would say in some ways its more progressive to be against equal rights for homosexuals (except for the progressive ideal of democracy which should discourage most forms of discrimination [except against the rich or powerful]) and more libertarian to be for civil marriage, simply by emphasizing which group of "the people" you wish to empower, homosexuals or those wishing to set a moral standard. I myself, though being an avid supporter of marijuana legalization am just as strongly against the legalization of any physically addictive substance including caffeine and cigarettes.
As for the parties, I like how you like to hit people over the head with all the great things the Republican Party did and the horrible things the Democratic Party did before the civil rights movement. I like it because it so conveniently overlooks the fact that the civil rights movement was the break that the racist southern Dixiecrats had with the party over the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And the fact that after that, most black people became Democrats, though the shift started after the New Deal. Or how those same Dixiecrats went right over to the Republican Party and were welcomed with open arms. How Nixon and Reagan used the southern strategy appealing to racists throughout the south in order to change your Episcopal Northeastern and mid-Western party into its biggest strongholds being in the deep south. Just as you like to say all that slavery and Jim Crow stuff was before you were born, all that good GOP stuff was done before I was born, so the GOP I know is the one of Reagan and Bush I & II, and they do not support my interest!
I still don't understand what economics has to do with POLITICAL ADVOCACY for greater foreign aid? I don't know where or why you bring in markets or capitalism because I am a firm believer in free enterprise and private property. I just believe in a well-regulated economy with high taxes for corporations and high income earners (this is a whole separate discussion that I know you have a lot to say about, but we should stick to the topic at hand for now). Even the forefathers gave the federal government the charge of regulating interstate commerce. I am by no means a totalitarian (which is the correct term for someone who believes government should control all aspects of a society), but I do believe government should have a regulatory role in most aspects of life to maintain democratically or scientifically determined societal standards as well as individual's rights.
But you still haven't answered my questions and we've veered way off of a discussion about Iraq, so I'll restate my questions, so you don't conveniently forget to answer them in your rush get out your next rant in response to my reason.
1. Why is the war in Iraq not illegal when the war resolution said the President had to certify that Saddam had a part in 9/11 before force could be authorized, but the President himself says, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM (At about the 1:15 mark.)
2. During the Reagan years, why was Saddam a US ally when we knew he was a butcher that was killing his own people and using chemical weapons against the Iranians, though now we count those things as his transgressions?
3. If Dick Cheney knew what was going to happen after the US overthrew Saddam, why wasn't there a better plan in place to deal with the post-war reconstruction?
4. Why isn't electricity availability or oil production back to where it was during the Saddam years? Where is their economy today compared to where it was before the invasion?
5. How does Iraqis electing sectarian parties help bring the country together to being a united, democratic Iraq?
6. Does it really make sense to pay and arm former Sunni insurgents who have no problem killing Americans and hate the National Government when sectarian civil war is the greatest threat to a united democratic Iraq?
7. why is Iran the biggest beneficiary of our Iraq policy, since we overthrew their biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein; raised the price of oil so they are flushed with money to support Hamas and Hezbollah, and weakened our military, so that while we've lost 4000 of our troops and spent billions defending and supporting Iraq, our President has to sneak in and out of the country, while Iran's president is greeted like a conquering hero?
8. Why is Osama Bin Laden still at large. What happened to DEAD OR ALIVE? Between the war in Iraq and our failure to capture Osama, how many terrorist recruits do you think have joined up because they think al-Qeada is winning?
Rashid,
My problem primarily with your arguments is that that you do not provide a historical context to events. Its like saying hey did you know America gave weapons to Stalin, and that Stalin killed million of his own people. The problem is that if you fail to provide some context people will think that you “sanctioned” this killing. The problem is that people should know that we gave weapons to the Soviets because we were fighting a much bigger threat Hitler’s army. When you provide some context the American decisions are not as brutal.
Here are some answers to some of your questions, I am writing a much longer response also. Feel free to ask as many questions as you want, I will answer as honestly as I can every single one of them.
Peace
Richard
HpHipRepublican.com
Is most terrorism a result of occupation?
The term terrorism is some what controversial in that historicaly it has never been internationally agreed upon. But what can be said is that statses can sponsor terriosm against its own people. The southern states in the United State uses terror tactist on newly freed slaves, in South American both right and left terriost groups attak there own brother.
But the classic definition are those acts which are intended to create fear or used for an ideological struggle like Islamic fundementalism. Terriost who have a ideoligical struggle do not need to be occupied to attack something. They attack Arab states and any interest that seperates the House of Allah from the House of Satan. There are however what I would call “ resistance movements” within nations that are credible. Some may call these movements terrioist groups as the British called th forer coloniist. But if a resitance movement is in the direction of a freer society, open markets, democrasy I would condider that group to be a legitimate freedom fighter. In contracts Osam Bin Laden does not want to bring freedom he wants a Caliphate.
Also with regards Arab and Palestinian terrorism against Israel these existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the Six Day War of June 1967, and even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948. Also there are different tyoes of terrorism eco terriosm, state sponsors of terrorism and political terriosm. Political terriosm is used a lot like in Zimbabwe to keep some one like Mugabe in power. It’s a form of terror to keep people from the polls much like the Democrat south did to African Americans after reconstruction.
Iran Contra-
Despiet the liberal spin on Iran Contra the initial reasons was to improve U.S.-Iranian relations.This was the world after Carter allowed the Iranian people to be taken over my religious fundementalist. . The complete chaos that followed pushed America to seeking to work with moderate Iranians inside Iran. They hoped by doing this there would be some check on the religious nuts who had taken over the nation. Also it was a way for America to release American hostages who had been taken by Hezzbolah. The problem occurred when some members of Regans administartion with out Regans knowlegde sold weapons to the Iranians in order to release of the hostages.
Did we sell Iraq weapons to kill Iranians?
The thing you need to note is that Iran Contra was going on as Iraq and Iran were fighting each other so in truth we gave weapons to both nations. The decision by saddam to enter Iran was not because he was coached by the United States.
The invasion occurred because Saddam became fearful of Iran. He knew that the Iranians had big goals. Also they had for years had border disputes. Another problem for Sadam was his persecution and disrcimination of the Shia poulations in his country could back fire now that Iran a fundementalist Shitte theocrasy was in power. He knew that Iran would fund Shia uprisings all over Iraq. This is why he went in not because of pressure from the US. In fact in the UN the US along with many nations told Saddam not to invade.
Where Did Saddam Get His Chemical Weapons?
First liberals to say we gave Iraq weaops then in the same breath Iraq did not have weapons is silly ….which one is it? Anyway a fellow blogger and friend ha sanswered this question in detail. You can go to the blog to see what the answer to this question is.
-Here are some answers to some of your questions, I am writing a much longer response also. Feel free to ask as many questions as you want, I will answer as honestly as I can every single one of them.
First off, don't take the fact that I think Operation Iraqi Freedom is an example of government intransigence of the highest order as me being a liberal. I'm not a partisan and I feel no need to bend over backwards in efforts to excuse the myopia of any political party. None of them have done anything to earn unwavering loyalty. If you require a label to classify me then libertarian would be the most accurate, though as you get to know me that one doesn't do the job adequately either.
Now I'll address the issues that you brought up:
Historical Context
I provided more than enough context, but I will rehash it here again in a distilled fashion as it apparently wasn't clear:
1) Since the border of "Iraq" was drawn in 1920 it has essentially been one long bloodbath. The Sunnis gained favor with the British early on while the Shia and Kurds have been staging resistance after resistance until the Baath party came in and terrorized them into complacency.
2) US complicity in overthrowing a fledgling Democratic government in Iran to install a dictator pretty much meant that he would be seen as a symbol of Western hegemony. Therefore, his government and its overthrow would be a rallying point against the West. It was. It also was the beginning of the undermining of any credibility that we had in support for Democracy in the Middle East.
3) Thanks to #1, there are a lot of people in Iraq that are ethnically much more loyal to Iran than Iraq.
4) Thanks to #2 and #3, the new Iranian government was increasingly belligerent when they took over. I'm sure that this worried Saddam, but Iran as he saw what everyone else saw, a ragtag group of rebels that had no idea how to run or defend a country (it's funny that you mention border disputes in light of #1). There were numerous geostrategic reasons to invade Iran: security was one, vulnerability was another. Unfortunately for him (and for us), he made a gross miscalculation.
That miscalculation was why we had to bail him out. We had an enemy of our own creation in Iran and if they had taken over Iraq it would have been even more disastrous for our standing in the Middle East.
Now I'm happy to talk about why the US overthrew the budding Democratic government of Iran (a mix of Oil, Soviets, and Money) but for the sake of explaining our ties with Iraq and Saddam, I think this is sufficient.
Occupation and Terrorism
To my knowledge, there has been exactly one empirical study done on this issue. The study was by Robert Pape at the University of Chicago and recounted in a book called The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. If you know of any other empirical, non-anecdotal, assessments of the phenomenon I'd be interested in checking them out.
You should take a deeper look at "Islamic fundamentalism" if you think that their actions are unprovoked. My extensive study of the phenomenon directly contradicts your characterization. Perhaps if you can name a few "Islamist" groups that are fighting unprovoked wars simply to expand Islam we could come closer together on this point.
Even still, I think the criteria that you present to qualify resistance movements is problematic. You're essentially saying that terrorists are those that don't fight for western values.
Iran Contra
Iran Contra was to establish relations with renegade groups in Iran that could be used to overthrow the revolutionary government. It was also to fund an criminal secret war in Nicaragua using a group of people that were easily described as terrorists.
The Shah if Iran had dug his grave well before Carter took over and was actually starting to piss off Western leaders as well at the time. He was an oppressive tyrant by every reasonable stretch of the definition and was overthrown the correct way - by a local movement prepared to absorb the costs and the responsibility of running the country with credibility amongst the population.
Chemical Weapons
You present a false dichotomy. The truth is that we sold him weapons and they were useless. Biological weapons - and chemical ones to a lesser extent - are different from conventional weapons in that they have a much shorter shelf life span. Anything that we sold Saddam in the 80s was useless in 2003 and there was very little evidence that their capacity to produce such weapons 1) in any real quantity and 2) with any real effectiveness was viable.
This post has been removed by the author.
-Historical Context
Answer- Yes ..you are correct Iraq was drawn up by Britain and yes because of the various reasons you listed there has been tension. But again you fail to present a historical context. Why did England need to carve Iraq up? Did England just wake up and go take over Iraq? The reason was simple Iraq today was ounce occupied and controlled by The Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire choose to side with Germany and its allies during World War 1. A result of this lost LED had to dissolve all of its former occupied territories.
What we call today "Iraq" essentially had no government the Ottoman Empire was no more and would soon be a secular state called Turkey.
As a result of this vacuum the League of Nations passed a resolution Article 22 giving Britain the land that had previously belonged to the now defunct Ottoman Empire. Many areas that has previously been under The Ottoman Empire including Palestine now came under the British control. The consequences of the Ottoman Empires losing was huge it not only created a vacuum in creating we call today "Iraq" but nations we call Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. For centuries the Ottoman Empire had occupied these areas and ruled without mercy .
This place we call Iraq has along complex history that did not start with America. Britain also unlike previous occupiers gave Iraq its Independence in 1932. Only after Iraq threw it support to Hitler did the British get involved again. The problem for the new leaders of Iraq was they had never ruled before, this made it very attractive to coups and attempts by disgruntled groups to over throw it…one of these successes was the Baath Party better know as the Arab Socialist Baath Party.
The movement got its intellectual start on Europe and was molded by European professors who opposed there nations interference in Arab lands. This not the CIA led to the advancement all over the middle east of what would be called the Arab nationalist movement. In Iraq Baathist began killing and torturing any one who they felt were a threat to the party and power. They did not need America or the CIA to do this in fact Saddam became so powerful because he was so brutal and any suggestions of help from America would have made him a target and not to be trusted.
Secondly is this the same University of Chicago who has Gary Becker on staff, a professor who stated that terrorism was a result of poverty? This paper was ddebunked on its face.
Of course there are many papers on terrorism and there causes...I assume they all think theres to be the definitve paper. Anyway Robert Pape was an adviser to Ron Paul he has a history of being anti war on many issues. But to think he is the definitive book on the causes of terrorism is ridiculous.
First start with Allison G. Smith -The Implicit Motives of Terrorist Groups: How Needs for Affiliation and Power Translate in to Death and Destruction, also Jeff Victoroff "The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches, who is at Southern California,Precision and Purpose: Debating Robert A. Pape's Bombing to Win, by Jonathan Frankel ,Terrorism and National Liberation. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Question of Terrorism, http://professor-murmann.info/tilly/2004_Terror.pdf, Marc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks, published by the University of Pennsylvania Security, visit www.fpri.org/research/terrorism, There are many many more definitive studies.
Actually I have taken a very good look at "Islamic fundamentalist" and the more I learn about it the more I detest it. Like other forms of fundamentalist there are varying stains of the ideology. The fundamentalist can have a number of reasons for killing a number of people.He can seek jihad because he perceives his religion to be defamed, or because of a perceived occupation like in the Philippines, or because he wants to bring back the Chalipate like Al Queda. The problem is that the person or state who is supposed to be charged of all these accusations rarely gets to defend themselves.In the the fundamentalist mind he is always right because he has Allah and his Prophet on his side.
I never said they do not feel provoked but feeling provoked is not a means to kill people. Did the the Danish filmmaker Theo van Gogh occupy any ones land? Why are Arab Islamist groups in Arab lands seeking to overthrow them.These countries got there independence years ago. What about Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines how is that seeking to end an occupation?What occupation did Daniel Pearle of Wall Street Journal promote before getting his head chopped off?
Here is a list of Islamic groups that according to feel provoked..forgive me for assuming threes more to this story then feelings of occupation.
Abu Sayyaf, Philippines
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egypt (also known as The Islamic Group)
Al-Qaeda, worldwide
Ansar al-Islam, Iraq
Armed Islamic Group (GIA), Algeria
Army of Ansar al-Sunna, Iraq
AZF, France
East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), China
Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egypt
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egypt
Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C), Turkey
Hamas, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen al-Alami, Pakistan
Hezbollah, Lebanon
Islamic Movement of Central Asia, Central Asia
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
Jaish-e-Mohammed, Pakistan and Kashmir
Jemaah Islamiyah, Indonesia
Lashkar-e-Toiba, Pakistan and Kashmir
Lashkar i Jhangvi, Pakistan
Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Philippines
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Morocco and Europe
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Tawhid and Jihad (Al-Qaeda in the Land between the Two Rivers (Iraq)), Iraq
And by the way we in the West "the inventors of the light bulb" also feel threatened.. I am provoked when I see women having there feet being beaten in the streets of Afghanistan. I am provoked when I see Iranians killing gay people. I am provoked when I see Christians in Egypt being beaten. So what do I do now that I am provoked? Should I get a vest filled with nails and go blow myself up?Why has not the Christians in Egypt who experience prejudice by Muslims and who observed Egypt's occupation by Islam not blown themselves up? What did India do and why is India being bombed my Islamist? India never occupied anyone the Muslim's just wanted there own state with Muslims.what we know call Pakistan. The peaceful Buddhist who have there religious icons destroyed by the Taliban also feel provoked. So what if radical Islam is provoked they are not the only ones. I guess since we feel provoked we would be in the right to fight back starting Mecca knowing We feel provoked also Rashid and some of us can not take it any more..so what gives?
We to have feelings and just because some one feels they have a reason does not mean the world must stop and obey the demand. The Taliban may have felt provoked being that we interfered with there stoning of women and killing young men who did not have a beard. Based on facts I am essentially saying that terrorists are those that against whatever they perceive to be a threat ...warranted or not. They could feel the fact that we in the US eat barbecue ribs as a threat..the point is unless they take over I'm gonna have my baby back ribs...period!!! I will not give up my rights because an Islamist is provoked, I will try to understand him and then proceed to live my life as a Westerner.
This post has been removed by the author.
Iran Contra
I am not going to debate Iran-Contra becase I think we both agree that things occurred leading up to the Shah's overthrow. My concern is that we should have helped him in light of the alternative. Our suspicions of Iran since the Islamic states rise to power
have been proven correct.
Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic Iran has killed more people than the Shah ever did, taken more rights then the Sha ever did. Yes, the United States supported
Iraq heavily after Iran was taken over because we sae Iran as a bigger threat and we still do. Our occupation of Iraq makes it harder for Iran to do anything unless we know about it. We should have supported the Sha and helped him develop his country democrat, infact we know hsitrocaly that is what he wanted to to.
To counter The Islamic Republic's threat that in later years would give close to 60-100 million per year in financial assistance to terrisots groups like Hezbollah who in turn give this to other shady groups. Much of the instability in the Middle East is because of Iran meddling in other Arab nations affairs.
A perfect example of this is Lebanon where Iran is seeking to topple an elect government. It along with Syria has murdered Lebanon’s leaders. Iran wants to take over the Arab word and American "the great Satan" stands in its way. If it were not for the US, religious fundamentalist would have already taken over Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. There is no evidence that Iran will take over Iraq unless Obama ramma and the Dam’s remove us. Then yes I will admit the Iraq war was lost and what a damn shame. Because Democrats want to be cool and anti war, Iran comes and takes over Iraq...yeah sounds like change to me but in the wrong direction.
Also with a nuke Iran will be able to take over the Middle East allot easier because when nations are less willing to confront. Knowing this they know there only counter is Israel who has tons of nukes ready for the day Iran strikes. If liberals dislike war, an are opposed to war then removing troops from Iraq without looking at the geopolitical consequences will create hell on earth. If Iran strikes Israel... believe me all fucking, hell will break loose.
To the one who goes by "Cancerian"..
First you’re the one who brought up Jefferson to make you’re case, I was just following
You are logic to its obvious conclusion. First, the progressive movement was not about bigger government but accountable government. They opposed waste and corruption
in government.The movement did encourage people in such areas as public safety
to bring concerns they had to the government to solve them. The reason I mentioned Booker T Washington was he was a strong supporter of blacks doing things for themselves with out much government help. Yet he is considered an early mover in the progressive movement.
Secondly to say that the Republican platform today is opposed to big government is misreading the parties platform. Republican’s believe in limited government that is those things you can do for yourself...you do! However, there are times when government must do things...and that can in itself be alot.
The reason I mention the things the party has done precisely for the reason that not that many people know. It is a historical crime that Democrats get away with this nostalgic idea that they gave blacks there freedom by signing a paper.I think its only fair that when the DNC and the NAACP get votes for the Dem's people should know that some of the NAACP’s first founders were Republican’s. I am simply pointing out the. The Democrats record of racism and murder of African Americans is long and it its bloody. The book “Wrong on Race” WHICH YOU CAN PURCHASE HERE.. explains it all.
Now with regards the issue about gay marriage is pretty complex being that it’s hard to find a right to gay marriage in the constitution. I believe gay people should marry personally but I cannot argue that the constitution allows this. A civil right struggle to me is having access to civil society. In this case I would interpret that to mean the courts to argue the case for or against gay marriage.
Part of having a movement is there will always be counter movements arguing for or against . Progressives like to shut up mostly religious groups by calling them hateful. I think democracy is served well with a good debate and people swinging it out. When I hear progressives scream at religious people for not supporting abortion or gay marriage as fascist I wonder what they would say about there early members many of who were “socially conservatives” progressives. Many of the early women rights’ activist were opposed to abortion and this was years before the moral majority.
I feel the need to explain to you why conservatives and liberals differ. The reason for this is I think we are using the same language but it has different meanings. I know you hate a long history lesson but please try to listen. The history of the Republican Party and Democrat Party show that both have expanded government. Republican’s are for limited government. Thoreau said, "That government is best that governs least." IF you think about that, you will see that every day our government strays farther away from "the best" government it could be, by virtue of governing more and more.
If you look at the Constitution, our founding fathers were all about freedom. That means the least possible government intervention (oppression) in our lives. IN ADDITION, they were about states' rights. As they saw it, the federal government was going to do precious little. The federal government was put in place to provide for a common defense (our military) and facilitate interstate commerce. How is that for limited?
This is the point some people believe that by limiting government you empower people more to do those things government present does. The debate is how far and how wide would this go. Also just because some says there progressive and comes up with a policy plan does not mean it’s enlightened. The problem with soc called progressives is that there ideas are quite old. The answer is always the same let the government do and to that the right in America says wait a minute maybe we as citizens could so some of these things.
I will grant you this that conservatism is primarily a defensive ideology. The question
Next, should be defending what? What is a conservative defending?The conservative seeks to hold fast to the “tried and true” whereas other movements seek to overthrow anything they deem to be the newest truth often times without much debate. American conservatism is different from say British conservatism because in the United States we seek to conserve our Revolution not some monarch.
So in a since the conservative is a liberal in that it fights for classical liberalism. Another difference is liberals emphasize the equality of outcomes while conservatives emphasize the equability of rights. What leads liberals and conservatives to differ on our priorities? Conservatives tend to emphasize economic growth where as liberals emphasize economic redistribution. Conservatives talk of love of country liberal’s love of humanity. The reasons for this lie with Rousseau’s ideas that humans are intrinsically good on the other hand think men have two principles in them good evil so conservatives want to build public policy around a view that helps bring out men’s best self versus his base impulses.
We seek to conserve the ideals of our revolution from Britain. Karl Marx said States can never change course they have to deal with what the card they were dealt, Karl Marx never visited America. America is dynamic because of its economy. The book The Wealth of Nations by the eeconomist Adam Smith was published ironically in the same year we were found 1776. The book revolutionized this nation by giving our economy unlike others a fresh start. America success in the world and its championing human rights globally has been because we have the resources to back it up.
This is the point some people believe that by limiting government you empower people more to do those things government presently does. The debate is how far and how wide would this go. Also just because some says there progressive and comes up with a policy plan does not mean it is enlightened. The problem with soc called progressives is that there ideas are quite old. The answer is always the same let the government do and to that the right in America says wait a minute maybe we as citizens could so some of these things.
I makes these point to say this if you want more freedom try lesser goverment and if you have a progressive idea you fund it or get people to help you do it. Let the market decide how progressive it is. By runing to the goverment to subsadize these ideas you destroy competeion and create a more divisive nation. I will be responding to the other parts later but I am glad you came to this blog.
A great reference on the Iraq War-
Was the Iraq war illegal?..No
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm567.cfm
1. DID President Bush and his advisers come into office intent
on launching a war in Iraq?
IN FACT:
The question of how to deal with Iraq was a key national security issue inherited from the Clinton administration.
"At the Deputies level, we grappled for months with whether regime change in Iraq was a necessary goal of U.S. policy - and, if so, whether it might be achievable without war."
read more . . .
2. DID U.S. officials manipulate intelligence to induce the President to overthrow Saddam and to persuade the public to support the war?
IN FACT:
The Pentagon-CIA dispute over the Iraq-al Qaida relationship began with the criticism that the CIA was politicizing its own intelligence reporting.
"That intelligence was consistent with assessments from the Administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and from foreign intelligence organizations and UN inspectors."
read more . . .
3. WAS the goal of regime change in Iraq simply a cover for pursuing political reform in the Middle East?
IN FACT:
The Pentagon "neocons" continually urged the President to tone down his democracy rhetoric.
"My own view was very clear: a U.S. president could not properly decide to go to war just to spread democracy, in the absence of a threat requiring self-defense."
read more . . .
4. DID Administration officials believe that the war in Iraq would be easy?
IN FACT:
The most powerful analysis of the downsides of going to war in Iraq came not from the State Department or the CIA. It came from Donald Rumsfeld.
"The [Defense Department's] list was more wide-ranging and hard-hitting than any warning I saw from State or the CIA-even though their leaders are widely viewed as the Administration's voices of caution on the war."
read more . . .
5. DID the State Department have a plan for postwar Iraq that was discarded by Defense officials?
IN FACT: The work of the State Department's Future of Iraq project was not a plan.
IN FACT: The key policy recommendations of the Future of Iraq report were opposed not by Defense officials but by Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.
IN FACT: State Department - not Defense - officials advocated a multiyear U.S. occupation of Iraq.
"The story is false: untrue in all respects."
read more . . .
6. DID the Administration fail to develop plans for post-war Iraq?
IN FACT:
Post-war planning was the focus of a massive amount of work by various government agencies.
"The Administration's planning dealt with war preparations, war fighting, and postwar reconstruction."
read more . . .
7. DID the Defense Department plan to "anoint" Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile, as the leader of liberated Iraq?
IN FACT:
The officials in charge of political reconstruction in Iraq were never asked or ordered by anyone, directly or indirectly, to favor any particular leader.
"However often the story is repeated, it was and remains incorrect."
read more . . .
8. IS IT TRUE that "no WMD was found" in Iraq?
IN FACT:
The Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam Hussein retained both the intention and the capability to revive bio-chemical weapons programs after sanctions were ended.
"The CIA's unsupportable statements about Iraqi stockpiles and WMD activity did not justify critics in making unsupportable pronouncements of their own, to the effect that Saddam had no WMD ambitions or capabilities."
read more . . .
9. WAS the war in Iraq fought only to remove WMD stockpiles?
IN FACT:
Saddam's pattern of aggression, defiance, and ties to terrorists were a major concern, made all the more serious by his programs of WMD development.
"We worried that, in his effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East, Saddam would aim to deter outside intervention by developing his conventional and WMD capabilities, along with the prohibited long-range missiles (or, possibly, terrorist alliances) to deliver them."
read more . . .
SEE ALSO: Media Myths and Facts on http://www.dougfeith.com/.
http://www.waranddecision.com/
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home