Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[Sava]

It speaks volumes of the pro-war stance when all they can do is lump everyone together as "leftists" and attack them, rather than debating the issue at hand. That type of behavior signals a weak argument.

[monkspider]

I think Bush would have been more successful if he tried to sell it as old-fashioned imperialism.

[chequita guevara]

Sava, Berman's article is an intra-left argument. I would note that the "soft"-left has always made similar arguments justifying a nation's war, all the way back to WWI. I wonder if I should examine it in this context.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by monkspider
I think Bush would have been more successful if he tried to sell it as old-fashioned imperialism.

Given the opposition to the war before it began, I think not. With even greater opposition, a few more Democrats might have dusted off their backbones and relearned how to use them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ohhh for the days of Bipartisanship.

They never existed. "Bipartisanship" never exist when both parties are actually about equal in power, with one having an edge.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ohhh for the days of Bipartisanship.

Are you old enough to remember actual bipartisanship? It hasn't existed since Reagan came to power.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No to mention an election year.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Are you old enough to remember actual bipartisanship? It hasn't existed since Reagan came to power.

Are you saying there was Bipartisanship in Reagan's admin or previous admin's?

And I'ld wager I'm more of a geezer than you Che so your point is valid I may not actually remember it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sava, Berman's article is an intra-left argument. I would note that the "soft"-left has always made similar arguments justifying a nation's war, all the way back to WWI. I wonder if I should examine it in this context.

actually my point was that we shouldn't lump everyone into a group like "left" or "right" just because of their views on one particular issue. If there were ONLY TWO POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES in the entire universe, then I could understand the linear model. But there is a vast range of ideologies. Everyone who believes there is a "left" or "right" is criminally stupid.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Are you old enough to remember actual bipartisanship? It hasn't existed since Reagan came to power.

wrong... bipartisanship exists today... just look at when a vote comes up if Congress should raise their pay!

if terrorists nuked washington and killed most of Congress and just about all of the executive branch, it might not be such a bad thing for humanity.

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by GePap


Aren't the two biggest political parties in indonesia leaning towards islamicism?

The President Megawati is a nationalist like her father Sukarno.

In the legislative assembly, the total number of seats held by Islamic parties constitutes a majority. However, that majority is held by about six or seven different parties.

[Jon Miller]

bipartanship, in our current system

is where republicans and democrats unite with the corporations to screw over the citizen and voter

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
bipartanship, in our current system

is where republicans and democrats unite with the corporations to screw over the citizen and voter

Jon Miller

Sad but true.

[Berzerker]

This war just isn't about fighting for justice and democracy. The problems in Iraq are due to capitalism.

You're right, Saddam was a benevolent ruler trying to save the Iraqi people from the evils of capitalism.

As for the article, I'm quite happy to see Saddam go, but we better not make the same mistake we made in Afghanistan - liberate Iraqis only to walk away as another dictatorship sympathetic of terrorist organisations assumes power. But was the invasion justified? Forget about Bush and the falsehoods we were handed, was it justified? Only if compelling others to risk their lives for "my" security is justified. It ain't...

Does it matter if the people in the military volunteered? Did they volunteer to fight wars all over the place whenever some politician gets a burr under his saddle or to defend this country from attack? I think the latter, but before sending them off to such wars they should have the option of sitting it out without repercussions. If I sign up to defend my country, I'm not signing up to defend Iraqis...

And then there's the hypocrisy - we invade little podunk countries while N Korea is an even worse dictatorship working on nukes. The response to this hypocrisy from supporters of the Iraqi invasion is that we have to look at each situation based on it's merits. Okay, what's different? Oh yeah, N Korea could put up a stronger deterrant and China - another dictatorship - won't like it. So it's body count, not how awful the dictators are. Okay, then say so, but don't give us all that crappola about how evil Saddam was. It's strange to hear people like Sean Hannity accuse opponents of the Iraqi invasion of being Saddam's appeasers while he argues against an invasion of N Korea et al.

But since the Dems and Repubs agree that the military exists to project power around the globe, I can think of worse things and few better things than getting rid of Saddam. Now, the left also believes that the miltary exists "to do good" in the world, so why they are upset would be perplexing if not for the obvious answer - Bush did it, not them.

[Ramo]

My understanding is that Cheney likes Chalabi, and that Alawi has been supported mainly by the CIA.

Chalabi is more Rummy's (and especially Wolfy's) man. Cheney is much closer to the CIA.