During the lead up to the war, were there any unabashedly pro-war DUers?

I hadn't joined at the time the war was being debated and when it actually began. Were there DUers who were full-throated in support of the war, or was DU pretty much unified against the invasion?

I realize that DUers who opposed the war and the subsequent occupation are definitely in the majority, but I was curious if a small group argued in favor of the invasion. There seems to be almost no one whose posts seem pro-war at this point in the game, so I am curious what it was like, say, 9 months ago.

:shrug:

never "supported" the invasion..

the troops are his playthings and have no say in where he sends them.. we have ALWAYS supported them :)

It would be difficult for a DUer to support the invasion with the wealth of info we had available here

without giving the inspectors a chance to do their job and a UN mandate for war if WMD were found or a connection to Al Queda found.

rational, sensible and sane. Unlike the cabal and their flock of sheeples.

Most DUers arent COMPLETELY anti-war in ALL possible instances, ... and the doctrine of 'pre-emptive' war is unpalatable even to many conservatives ....

Many here agree that Saddam Hussein is a very bad man, and his regime brutal and nasty ...

BUT ..

Hussein was contained: .. his supposed ties to other heinous terrorist groups were revealed as tenuous at most and nonexistent at least ...

There was NO REASON to assume that the UN process, solidified and strengthened by US stridency and universal consensus, could NOT have acheived the goals of complete disamrmament of the Baathist regime in Iraq ...

Even though we know that war MAY be necessary at times, we MUST recognize that ANY use of military force must be justifiable ... the case MUST be made that such a clear and present danger exists that war cannot be avoided ...

Bush didnt make that case: .. and the weak case he DID present was faulty and deceitful ...

So, no: there were not many cheerleaders for war in DU ... but there are many here who would have been more supportive had a better consensus building process been followed, instead of the PNAC blueprint for infinite war ....

War is a LAST resort, soberly deliberated and carefully executed ...

War should NEVER be a mere instrument of political policy ... or of private gain at public expense ....

and the whole time i had the same feelings and did my own research. out of step charlie with almost everyone i knew and here was a community of like thinkers, and i stress the "thinkers" part.

Only a handful. For the most part they could be characterized by "hadn't spent enough time at DU to get well-enough informed," and/or "can't quite belive Saddam doesn't have anything / the administration has access to more info than we do."

But really, DU was FILLED with all the facts anyone needed to understand it was all a pack of lies from the administration. Everything that has since been debunked was pretty well debunked in advance. It's just that the media (mainly TV) didn't choose to report it.

Eloriel

It was all out there, some of it even in mainstream newspapers, albeit buried on page 17. I managed to find out the truth on all that has been debunked without the benefit of DU at the time.

There is a sports talk radio show in Chicago (not much progressive over the air talk here) that from time to time will play a tape of a press conference and the hosts will hit either a bell when a truth is said or a buzzer when they hear a lie. During the SOTUA, all I could think of were the buzzers going off in my head. I was actually sitting in my office, alone, screaming at the damn radio!!!

The thing about DU'ers is that we know the real scoop behind the Neo-conners's and how they had planned this for years...

DU'ers are about 5 months ahead of the media and about 5 years ahead of the Moron Americans.

There was a lot of diviseness on the issue of the vote, though. The board was divided between those that could not accept any Democrat voting for the war and others who thought that the vote was played out before the mid-terms to be used by this administration as a club in the elections to paint the Dems as "anti-American". Of course, those that were accepting of the Dems voting to support the resolution thought that it was a vote, not for war, but for allowing this President to argue his case to the UN. Unfortunately, it was the cover he needed to start a uni-lateral war. He lied about the causus bellum and for that he should be impeached and tried for treason for violating his oath of office.

They bought into the WH "they're about to attack us bullshit" and bought into the Colon Powell (they're coming to get us!!) bullshit and were in favor of the invasion.

I remember two or three who did. Haven't seen them around lately, but don't remember their handles.

but were usually tombstoned before they hit 200 posts.

I wonder where she is now, and whether she still thinks the invasion was the correct thing to do?

That was a very cagey disruptor, though.

one has returned....

The most vocal of the bunch left DU (or does not post any longer) before the slaughter began.

One is still here and the third one changed his/her nick several times after being tombstoned a couple of times.

;-)

me directly instead of hiding?

YOU, at least, seem to have gotten it....

Ummmmmm yeah..... ;-)

I was NEVER pro-war.

Havn't seen you around much since "major combat" operations ended.

Folks, TAH's homecoming calls for some fond rememberances from those wacky days when TAH was never pro-war:

My personal favorite thread was when ol' TAH tried to parse the word "taken" to defend Rummy when he got caught in the lie that Basra was "taken".

Then there were all those times when TAH would only let go of those WMD "finds" when the truth was pryed from Ari's "cold dead" fingers.

Ah, those were the never-pro-war days.

the arguing was mainly over whether you could vote for anyone who voted for the war, not over the war itself. opposition to that was pretty much solid.

I wish to hell they would come back to DU.

Don

found their way to the wrong board to start with. :evilgrin:

I never NOT forgave them. All of them were allowing themselves to be misled -- well, except for those who had found their way to the wrong board to start with.

Eloriel

Shows how tolerant you are of other opinions.

so as to include people amongst us who are intolerant?

Rhetorical question, food for thought...

this board should be free for all. Yes it should be far left.

Glad they are gone, wish the ones who stayed would leave too.

I don't like how the American public was misled into going along with it. I would have liked a more multilateral, honest approach.

I still feel force was necessary against Iraq. I simply opposed the unilateral and rushed way we went about it.

National security threat(false) or humanitarian reasons(real but not as severe as elsewhere)?

Africa is a continent in need

That blew any pretense of humanity out of the water.

Pleased?

Exit strategy?

LOL!

I never felt Bush could carry it out successfully.

But we're not supposed to name names here, right?

Anyway, one of them I have seen around lately and the other I haven't. However, of late it has gotten much less common for people to give the crowd in power the benefit of the doubt.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

A handful actually had principles although I disagreed with them. Most were either disruptors or gullible. I might go on record as saying I am not against war under any circumstances, i am simply and WAS simply against taking a contained threat and turning it into a mess as has happened.

to justify mass murder and immoral invasions.

seems like there's a class of people that don't object to mass murder of innocent civilians as long as those civilians aren't americans. :(

...and I haven't seen him since.

Maybe here under another nickname? I think we have lots of folks here...from another life!

And asked him if he was the same Mobuto that used to post at DU and he answered affirmative. I got the impression that his pro-war stance and the fact that he was proven completely and utterly wrong made him afraid to come back to DU.

that his pro stance was wrong? Lots of folks still rationalize the misadventure in Iraq.

Viewpoints on the war.

It was in a war thread that I ran into him and it seemed he had had seen the error of his ways.

he was really, really convinced of need - much harder to reconsider one's view when one is a) that convinced and b) has to keep arguing it (as he did over and over again here) which tends to further entrench the view. If Moboto - is rethinking - doesn't that suggest that there are likely a whole lot more people doing so?

If you see him again - tell him hi - and tell him that he would probably be welcomed - and even embraced - if he wrote to us about what changed/shifted his position (we are all human, and we all can learn from each other - including revising this view).

I admire those who argued pro-war on principle and stuck to it. They're wrong, but what the heck :D

NT

I can see two possible positions:

1. You support a war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein (+add reasons here).
2. You support this war on Iraq. i.e. the one that was actually carried out.

Speaking personally, I never actually opposed the first position (took no stand either way), but I opposed the second (attended demonstrations and the like).

There's still a couple more bad guys to go, as a matter of fact. Syria and the PA need to shut down Hamas, Hezbollah, et.al. or face the music.

There's an interesting report today that Israel will take out an Iranian reactor if the Iranians get too close to a nuke. I hope they do. Consider it assertive non-proliferation.

I really don't get this, you don't live in Israel but you want to go to war with the entire middle east over some hyped-up bullshit country with a fake economy and a repugnant apartheid system :shrug:

... murderers. I also believe in honoring our commitments, of which the security of Israel is one.

Last but not least, the cancer of Arab terrorism has been building for 30 years. It has gotten out of hand because it was too long ignored, due to Cold War considerations and oil diplomacy. The issue is not joined, and it needs to be finished.

Governments that harbor, finance, and encourage terrorists must be held accountable.

Financed them against the US (the Lavon Affair) and at our direction with things so nasty even the CIA didn't want a hand in regarding Central America.

By your own rationale Israel and the US should receive some of this chemotherapy you are so happy to dispence from a keyboard.

Which is why support for Israeli expansion, militarism and occupation should be ended, and U.S. policy reversed. All three undermine the security of the people of Israel.

The other parts of your post are beyond comment.

There, I settled that.

Have a nice weekend.:)

Which is why support for Israeli expansion, militarism and occupation should be ended, and U.S. policy reversed. All three undermine the security of the people of Israel.

The other parts of your post are beyond comment.

but knew from other sources that the reasons for a preemptive stike were being hyped and based on lies. Didn't see anybody who really believed Iraq was a threat to US that actually knew the facts.

Outside of DU is another story of course. My family thought I was a nutcase conspiracy theorist because I said Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 911. I have always been vocal about bush being a liar and a crook so they've never taken me too seriously anyway. I severed contact with some acquaintances who questioned my patriotism because I would not support bush in a time of war, as they are incapable of distinquishing the difference between support for my country and troops and the crook running my country.

Funny - they got awfully quiet about the time all the news came out about the lies in the SOTU address, acknowledgements that no WMD's have been found, and that there was no imminent threat after all.:D

Too bad people had to die before they came to their senses. :-(

Too many people have to die to pay the blood price of those oilfields.

They are still dying today.

I would a thousand times rather have been wrong, than find my worst fears realized: that America is an imperialistic bloodthirsty war machine driven by a lying imbecile and fueled by the sweat of ignorant and gullible citizens. No vindication is worth this.

Bittersweet is a much better adjective. I feel the same way and I stand corrected.

It made me sick. Now some of them pretend they were not warmongering. Sad it truly is.

There were some ugly exchanges here. Some DUers claimed that they did not care how many Iraqi's had to die.

That was, and still is, a major humanitarian crisis.
Revisionist historians?
Mass graves were NEVER mentioned as a reason to go to war before the way.

Especially since I called bullshit on your "precious war" comment directed towards me yesterday, and you were completely unable to back it up.

DTH

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is that any way to talk? People that you don't agree with (and me specifically) are not "even human beings?" How very ... um, ... "liberal" and "progressive" of you.

People I don't agree with are fine. People who do not value the lives of people of other cultures as much as their own disgust me. If you were the person who posted that they did not care what the cost in Iraqi lives you deserve pariah status here or anywhere else people who stand against racism gather. If it was not you don’t worry yourself.

at least have the courtesy to not completely misrepresent their views or project other's racism on to them. You show me a single post of mine where I referred to ay-rabs (or to Iraqis in a derrogatory manner, for that matter) or where I advocated annexing Iraq (or annexing anything). In point of fact, in the few posts that I wrote about supporting the war, I was VERY specific as to my reasons. Feel free to do a search.

Now, either back up your slander or apologize, because there is a line of civility that DU rules dictate and you have pole-vaulted over it.

It was done with humor intended, but I can see that it was also offensive to you. While I disagree completely with your position, I understand that you have what you think are reasons for it, and a majority of Americans will likely still see it your way.

However, I think it is disingenuous for you (or anyone) to call what was planned, and is currently underway, anything other than an annexation. Perhaps you would have liked to see the post-invasion develop in another manner, most of us here certainly would, but I think you can see that anything resembling an independent democratic regime in Iraq is completely outside the scope of what the current administration cares to undertake. They can't even manage it in the USA.

?

nt

But there were many who got suckered into the "support the troops" pitch.

and still think we did a good thing.

now, I think it was for the wrong reasons, and sold to the American public in an over-hyped way, but I'm completely for removing dictatorships around the world that do what Saddam's regime did, and that put people on a course for freedom and representative government.

Many claim it wasn't for us to do, that may be. Many claim that one American kid dying for the Iraqi population is too much. But I disagree.

I believe that America should be "world cop" when it can, and should stamp out evil people, when it can.

I'm glad Clinton went into Bosnia when he did, not because of a any political reasons, but from a purely humanitarian viewpoint. I wish the US would have made a stronger showing in Liberia. I wish the US would have intervened in the Congo. I wish the US would pull its troops out of regions that they are not needed, and deploy them to regions where they can do the most good, or bring them home.

I wish Bush I would have gone into Baghdad when he could have, it would have prevented many a Iraqi slaughter.

This view is probably the equivalent of a ban :) But so be it, I'll stand up for the poor, the oppressed, and for removing ruthless dictators and leaders wherever they may be found, with the next big removal happening in 2004 when we elect a Democrat to the White House. I just hope the person we put in their remembers the liberal ideals of freedom, of democracy, and of the US having the capability to do good for the world, and not just for Halliburon...

that was ever the consideration...

So, howz about them WMDs that Saddam and Osama were driving around with hot air balloon trucks?

the consideration and explanation given were not valid, but I stand behind where the Iraq people are headed now versus where they were under Saddam.

What do you think of china?

Appears to me they are headed for an ayatollah fundi regime with all the blood and guts that entails, (after they finish kicking the infidels out).

Worth it, ya think?

and the majority of the people there want to elect an Islamic oriented society, that is fine, they are now free to do so. As long as they have freedom rather than Saddam, I say they are better off, yes..

we cancelled their elections. we appointed their governing council, which is only advisory anyway. nope, no democracy there.

what is your point? the representative government is starting in Iraq, at the local level first (where we all know politics originates :)) and will be moving to the national stage soon. I believe that we are on the right track in Iraq, regardless of how we got there.

options are freedom. A fundamentalist theocracy by the majority is no better than the secular dictatorship headed by a small elite minority.

I agree there were humanitarian arguments to be made for this war (and I think the TNR made decent ones), but ultimately I just never could see why Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat or why his past atrocities were grounds for a war at this time. I understand that there shouldn't be a limit on the time after crimes against humanity are committed (as Saddam was clearly responsible for) but looking at the situation from an absolutely objective viewpoint, there were many more places where worse atrocities were taking place -- mostly in Africa. Liberia and the Congo come to mind.

During this whole period of invading Iraq, this administration has actually avoided more serious questions of nuclear proliferation such as the transfer between Pakistan and North Korea. And it is absolutely impossible to believe the nation is capable of maintaning the intelligence capability to fight real threats of terrorism and to fight the various groups in Iraq at this time.

What should have been clear to the "liberal hawks" and others that were not necessary freeple, was that this reconstruction effort was also bound to fail, since we had already had an example of the amount of commitment (or lack there of) this administration had shown in Afghanistan.

I myself at one point was conflicted about whether or not I supported this war, since it was clear that Saddam was truely monstrous. I also think it would have been great if Bush I had finished the job then or atleast had not cynically left the shiites and others to get slaughtered after urging revolt....Yet, there was plenty of evidence to indicate the administration was manipulating intelligence(to say the least), was presenting bogus intgelligence reports, and was going to war in the interests of a few powerful and greedy people.

Other part of the equation is to control the oil.

And what about the poor and oppressed in this country? The busholinis are bankrupting this country with a staggering debt that will be paid by Americans who are children today, as well as their children and probably their children. The Bush regime is digging this country into a hole that will take generations to recover from. Of course, those in control and their friends are lining their pockets handsomely.

To pay for this Iraq fiasco, the regime is cutting money from schools, healthcare programs, etc., etc. Part of their plan is to gut the social net. Social Security and Medicare will probably be long gone by the time you and I are ready to retire. They are cutting battle pay for the troops at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan, and government employees will not receive the measly 2 percent raise they were given -- it has been cut to something around 1 percent.

The neocons occupying the White House don't have an altruistic bone in their bodies. Don't kid yourself.

the current occupants of the White House being "altruistic" in the least, but that doesn't change the fact that the Iraqi people are better off then they were before

On the poor and oppressed in this country, I agree many changes are required here, especially w.r.t. worker protection, welfare, race relations, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean that the Iraqis aren't better off, they are.

I feel that we can pay for all the above programs and Iraq (and other world oppression removal) by increasing our tax rates on the > $200,000/year income group, and by removing all tax loopholes that exist.

I don't see this as "help the world" or "help ourselves", I want our government to do both.

than before the pre-emptive invasion? Has it escaped my attention that electrical service and water distribution have been restored to the same levels that existed in early March of this year? Is there still a lot of shooting going on or has that also stopped?

The current regime isn't going to tax the rich and remove tax loopholes. The bushies are interested only in feathering their own nests. They don't want to do "good" for the world or this country. And they certainly can't afford to do both.

On edit:

Please check out this link. Think these Iraqis think they are "better off"? Oops, they're dead.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

is always better than oppression in my view. These people have a future to look forward to, not fear. They are not to pre-war levels, but are rapidly approaching it, and will surpass it, IMO. They now have the freedom to do what they will. It will take time, but I believe it a worthy effort.

read this and then tell me if you still feel that way...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/5013439.htm

I am sure most Iraqis are not feeling "better off" right now, especially in Baghdad.

still feel that way. In the short run, Iraq is less secure than under Saddam, but that is rapidly improving. I don't equate security with freedom, that is why I'm against the Patriot Act and any other freedom-robbing instrument this administration is doing. Free people are more free to do wrong, that is the price of a free society. Your posted article points that out, and remember that Saddam released ALL prisoners right before the war, not exactly conducive to a peaceful place after his removal...

are you a faux news watcher because they are the only ones left spewing that line of bull. Any links to reputable sources for that gem?

fox very much, i like PBS and BBC news..

but we are training the Iraqi police, we are establishing the beginnings of their representative government, and we are working on apprehending those militant leftovers from Saddam's regime and the other groups that have flooded into Iraq to fight us.

i recognize what we are doing, recognize that it is difficult, and that it will take time. i recognize that it will not be solved overnight, and it will take much time and patience.

if you were against the war, like most were here, you don't want to see one more second spent in Iraq. but i believe that the direction that the Iraqis are headed is a good one, and much better than under Saddam.

Well, are they?

Well, are they?

...there was no imminent threat. the Un wanted 8 more weeks of inspections, i have no doubt that with enough pressure there is a good chance the world community could have brought about regime change without bloodshed. if they could not have then at least there would have been a true coalition and they would all be in there now assisting iraq in building a true democracy.

due to the cabal's mission creep, they are now claiming this war was about bad sadaam and bringing "freedom" to the iraqi's. well, sadaam is gone, yet they refuse to allow the UN any authority or control of iraq in exchange for their assistance. if they were not hypocrites and truly just wanted what was best for the iraqis why would this be??

nuff said

there was no imminent threat, I agree, that is not my point or my view.

i also do not think that this administration just wants what is best for the Iraqis.

i stand behind my belief that the people in Iraq are better off, and have a better future ahead of them without Saddam. you all to this point have done nothing to refute that belief.

Have you ever been involved or are you planning on becoming involved in the job of removing ruthless dictators? Or is the actual business of ruthless dictator removal something you prefer to discuss over a cup of tea in the abstract in your spare time?

Don

Must be one of those "theoretical" things.....funny how the PNACers like Wolfowitz and Perle are all back tracking and saying we have to leave asap....things weren't "handled correctly" distancing themselves from the maggots they pushed into this invasion.

And, little billy kristol...he's been awfully quiet lately

a few nights ago. He was perturbed that * was not making Iraq his top priority. He feels that we should do whatever it takes to "win" the war in Iraq, more money, more troops...

Little billy gives me the chills. :scared:

in 04, does that help? I'm not part of the military, and havent' served, are you attempting to claim that my view is somehow less because I haven't served in the military? is that the logic you are applying to this debate?

...of your dream of removing ruthless dictators, but yet don't want to participate in such a courageous endeavor yourself, I certainly do view your opinion with more suspect and of less value than others that have served. You are not putting it all on the line as those sent to do the actual job of removing dictators do. If everything turns to manure, you can simply say, "oops, made a little mistake here" and that is that. But the men and women who are dying and losing their limbs do not have that same luxury. Good luck with your Congressional run, but don't quit your day job.

Don

and you are entitled to it, but I do not hold it against someone that wasn't in the military. I did not consider the military a valid career choice for me, it didn't fit, in your view that disqualifies me for putting the military in harms way? Yet most recent Presidents didn't serve in the military, including Clinton, that doesn't make him less able to do the job.

your view is your opinion, but I believe your view is wrong. one does not need to have a military service past to serve this country.

It appears you have good intentions, but lack insight into the specifics.

> I believe that America should be "world cop" when it can,

The entire notion of a "cop" is based in acknowledged enforcement of applicable law for the common good. What we have done in Iraq and elsewhere is certainly niether upholding law, nor for the common good, nor do we have a mandate from the world to do any such thing. That turns us into a bully, not a cop, and invites assymetric response from those we opress.

Indeed, the USA is practically the lone holdout against establishing the international criminal court system, as it would be equally applicable in its laws to USA actions and our government sees that as potentially ruinous to the ability to intervene at the beck and call of corporate interest. That is not the role of a good policeman, but of a mafia thug.

> and should stamp out evil people, when it can

Who defines evil? Is Ken Lay evil? He's hardly been stamped out by America, after ruining at least two state economies.

Is Dick Cheney evil? His (evil?) company, Halliburton, receives $1.7 Billion in contracts for logistical support of the Iraq operation. This ensures he receives his annual stipend, in the million$, on schedule. How will America "stamp him out"?

Was Katherine Harris evil? Most here would say she is, but maybe she was simply a tool of corrupt nepotism. Either way, both she and her former boss have been richly rewarded for their actions.

When America can't even "stamp out evil" in its own garden of democracy, our actions abroad stink of hypocrisy and small-mindedness.

> I'm glad Clinton went into Bosnia when he did,

Whatever else one may say about this, and there is much disagreement still about the particulars of how it was carried out, it was done WITH THE SUPPORT AND BACKING OF THE UN, not against the advice and wishes of our closest allies.

> I wish the US would have made a stronger showing in Liberia

You wish the Liberian intervention was something other than tokenism? I agree, but unfortunately our military was already overcommitted in its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

> I wish Bush I would have gone into Baghdad when he could have,
> it would have prevented many a Iraqi slaughter.

Actually, it wouldn't have prevented a slaughter, it would have unleashed the scenario we're seeing unfold now. Remember how you wanted the humanitarian intervention in Bosnia? We intervened because of the social disintegration in post-Tito Yugoslavia. The same thing will happen in Iraq if we leave now. A strong totalitarian leader was the only thing keeping the various ethnicities from one-another's throats.

Furthermore, the UN directive was to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, not to remove Saddam Hussein from Baghdad. Bush 1 may have been "evil" by my reckoning, but at least he knew how to read a UN resolution.

> I'll stand up for the poor, the oppressed, and for removing
> ruthless dictators and leaders wherever they may be found

Be very careful. You may think your idealistic views are noble, but other people are defining "ruthless dictator" as far as foreign policy goes.

> with the next big removal happening in 2004 when we elect a
> Democrat to the White House

We tried that in 2000.

Don't trust an evil oligarchy with the definition of evil!

fine, lets address specifics:

you say:

The entire notion of a "cop" is based in acknowledged enforcement of applicable law for the common good. What we have done in Iraq and elsewhere is certainly niether upholding law, nor for the common good, nor do we have a mandate from the world to do any such thing.

my reply:

it is for the common good, the common Iraqi is much better off free than under an oppressive regime. that is my point.

as for mandate, i could care less if the US has a 'mandate' from the rest of the world, i'm interested in helping oppressed people become free.


you say:

Who defines evil? Is Ken Lay evil? He's hardly been stamped out by America, after ruining at least two state economies.

my reply:

Ken Lay is a criminal, and should be held accountable, yes. Oppression is very easy to see, certain the liberal in you recognizes that? that is the philosophy behind affirmative action, worker laws and unions, and a variety of other ideals we stand for. I believe your hatred for Bush blinds you to the fact that we have removed oppression from the people of Iraq, and that is a good thing

you say:

Whatever else one may say about this, and there is much disagreement still about the particulars of how it was carried out, it was done WITH THE SUPPORT AND BACKING OF THE UN, not against the advice and wishes of our closest allies.

my reply:

the support and backing of the UN is irrelevant in my view when oppression is lifted and freedom given to a people. i don't need the backing of the UN to want equal protection in the US, workers rights and protection and corporate control and oversight. The UN does not define my belief, and certainly is not a litmus test on whether something is "right" or not.

you say

You wish the Liberian intervention was something other than tokenism? I agree, but unfortunately our military was already overcommitted in its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

my reply:

wrong, we had 2000 troops off the coast on ships, they did nothing. we should have led that effort, we didn't. afghanistan and iraq were non-issues with liberia.

you say
Be very careful. You may think your idealistic views are noble, but other people are defining "ruthless dictator" as far as foreign policy goes.

my reply:

i look at each situation on its own and make my own determination. it is my belief that we should elect a president and representatives that are truly interested in what I believe, and in helping the oppressed both at home and abroard, and helping the PEOPLE, not the governments, not the corporations or the highest 1%ers. How one can't have this as the liberal goal is beyond me, but as I said earlier, I believe many are blinded by hate for Bush and the Republicans so much that they can't see the good that is occuring.

All right, let's.

> (The invasion of Iraq) is for the common good, the common Iraqi is
> much better off free than under an oppressive regime. that is my
> point.

What makes you think they are free? Social chaos is not real freedom, except for the best-armed. The Iraqis may be "free" of Saddam's centralized oppressive regime, but now they are subject to the whims of local crime bosses and power-hungry warlords. The common Iraqi is living in as much fear today as before, but with fewer rules and norms.

> I believe your hatred for Bush blinds you to the fact that we have
> removed oppression from the people of Iraq,

I believe your belief that we have removed oppression from the Iraqis is naive at best. True social progress comes from within a nation and its willing people, it is not imposed by invading armies.

> as for mandate, i could care less if the US has a 'mandate' from
> the rest of the world,

Your assertion was that the USA should police the nations of the world. What does that analogy imply? We implicitly agree to have police enforce the laws enacted by election or elected representatives. Police have leeway to act as they do precisely because they have a mandate from the people to do so. They have certain obligations concommittal with the job, as well as a responsibility to carry out their actions in a just manner.

When a person who has not been so entrusted attempts to enforce the law, as in making a citizen's arrest, they face a host of potential pitfalls in the form of civil suits because they risk violating the very ethical code they proposed to support through their actions.

> i'm interested in helping oppressed people become free.

Unfortunately, niether oppression nor freedom are so clearcut that wholesale interventionism can be trusted to accomplish either the removal of the former or the establishment of the latter.

> the support and backing of the UN is irrelevant in my view when
> oppression is lifted and freedom given to a people

That's nice. Now, since we're talking specifics, in which of these sites of recent intervention was oppression lifted and freedom provided as a direct result of US military action?

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

> The UN does not define my belief, and certainly is not a litmus
> test on whether something is "right" or not

It is certainly not a litmus of anything other than the general acceptability of a certain action to the other nations of the world. Some would say that's important when dealing in international affairs. Apparently you, and the current administration, do not.

If you think I'm doing something oppressive in my home, you can call the cops and file a complaint. But if you bust down the door yourself and charge in with your shotgun blazing, don't be surprised when the liability falls on you for damages caused regardless of your evidence. And you'd probably hope you have the same protection within your own home.

When would it be acceptible to you for, say, China to carpet bomb the USA because they allege our government abuses human rights, oppresses workers, and pampers corporate interests? They could certainly cite credible evidence of all three, along with acknowledged stockpiles of and programs to create weapons of mass destruction, as well as harboring terrorists. By your standards, they'd be completely justified, by designating themselves as world policeman, to do exactly that.

Re. Liberia,

> we had 2000 troops off the coast on ships, they did nothing.

And how would you have kept their deployment from becoming a Mogadishu redux? 2000 troops is squat, when you consider that many are dedicated to command structure, logistical support, and equipment maintenance. The Liberian rebels, who call themselves "Movement for Democracy in Liberia", massacred another 1000 people this past week in one stupid incident. With 10000, there might have been adequate support to make a difference. Impact would require a much greater committment than 2000.

> I believe many are blinded by hate for Bush and the Republicans so
> much that they can't see the good that is occuring.

Have you watched the C-Span documentary of what's happening in Iraq lately? Where the hell do you get your belief that "good is occurring" for anyone but Halliburton?

the UN did not support clinton's bosnia intervention.

you are confusing the UN with NATO.

NATO military intervention was actually opposed by some members of the UN at the time, who saw it as undermining a "peace at any cost" policy of the UN.

However, having the support of NATO is an order of magnitude difference from a "coalition of the willing" comprised of duped Britain and reluctant Spain.

But they keep their mouths shut in fear of being censored.

They are sticking their heads back up again.

and war mongerers.

No offense to you DealsGapRider, and you have the right to post whatever you wish to post. But for the finger pointing here, what good come out of that? I don't see any. Someone gets to say I was right and you were wrong. Do some enjoy doing that? If so why? What does one gain? Perhaps I am missing something here?

Don

I wasn't trying to stir anything up. I was genuinely curious whether there were DUers who took an aggressively pro-war stance because I don't think I've seen a single one since I joined. I don't see what's wrong with the question.

as a relative newbie myself who held isolated beliefs amongst hawks during the run up to war, and feeling the sense of community here on DU i have enjoyed this thread/

There have been plenty of those here recently.

First it was people coming here trying to tell us what to think. That didn't work. This is step 2 when the subject is a little resistant... Inquire about the subject, find out what makes hin/her tick so that you know what buttons to push or, in this case, what positions to craft. This technique works especially well when the subject is either fearful, angry, or distraught.

PsyOps 102

This is another marketing recon

Staffers and campaign writers somewhere will soon be busily churning out position papers generalized enough so that people will be able to read just enough into those positions to project their own desires to fill the gaps. Presto. Instant candidate.


Did you notice the sudden explosion of polls at DU? And 99% of them being run by posters we know nothing about. Hmmmmmm

Don, make sure the candy's in the original wrapper. The words seem so appropriate these days.

----

I was sittin' home on the West End
watchin' cable TV with a female friend
We were watchin' the news, the world's in a mess
the poor and the hungry, a world in distress
Herpes, AIDS, the Middle East at full throttle
better check that sausage, before you put it in the waffle
And while you're at it - check what's in the batter
make sure that candy's in the Original Wrapper
Hey, pitcher, better check that batter
make sure that candy's in the Original Wrapper
Reagan says abortion's murder
while he's looking at Cardinal O'Connor
Look at Jerry Falwell Louis Farrakhan
both talk religion and the brotherhood of man
They both sound like they belong in Teheran
watch out, they're goin' full throttle
Better check that sausage, before you stick it in the waffle
and while you're at it better check, what's in the batter
make sure that candy's in the Original Wrapper
Hey, pitcher, better check that batter
make sure that candy's in the Original Wrapper
White against white, Black against Jew
it seems like it's 1942
The baby sits in front of MTV
watching violent fantasies
While Dad guzzles beer with his favorite sport
only to find his heroes are all coked up
It's classic, original, the same old story
the politics of hate in a new surrounding
Hate if it's good and hate if it's bad
and if this all don't make you mad
I'll keep yours and I'll keep mine
nothing sacred and nothing divine
Father, bless me, we're at full throttle
better check that sausage, before you put it in the waffle
And while you're at it better check that batter
make sure the candy's in the Original Wrapper
Hey, pitcher, better check that batter
make sure that candy's in the Original Wrapper, hey, hey
I was born in the United States
I grew up hard but I grew up straight
I saw a lack of morals and a lack of concern
a feeling that there's nowhere to turn
Yippies, Hippies and upwardly mobile Yuppies
don't treat me like I'm some dumb lackey
'Cause the murderer lives while the victims die
I'd much rather see it an eye for an eye
A heart for a heart, a brain for a brain
and if this all makes you feel a little insane
Kick up your heels, turn the music up loud
pick up your guitar and look out at the crowd
And say, "Don't mean to come on sanctimonious
but life's got me nervous and little pugnacious
Lugubrious so I give a salutation
and rock on out to beat really stupid
Ohh poop ah doo and how do you do
hip hop gonna bop till I drop."
Watch out world, comin' at you full throttle
better check that sausage, before you put it in the waffle
And while you're at it better check that batter
make sure the candy's in the Original Wrapper
Hey, hey, pitcher, better check that batter
make sure the candy's in the Original Wrapper
Hey, pitcher, better check that batter
make sure the candy's in the Original Wrapper, hey, hey, hey

Lou Reed - The Original Wrapper

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:)

The Daily Meme, August 19, 2003

(Cross-posted at The Clark Sphere)

Dean Lies and Rocks, Kerry Suffers and Slows, Clark Rises

<snipping TONS of good stuff DUers should read, especially Kerry and Dean supporters>

The Clark is actually possible meme – pushed by Calpundit, Yglesias, and Josh Marshall – overtook the Clark is running for VP meme. Clark is actually preferable is over on at Tapped and Political Aims, and among insiders who are parked in front of Kerry or uncommitted and scared of Dean. The resulting Deaniac hostility to Clark is manifested in their insistence that Clark doesn’t stand for anything, Clark’s wife doesn’t want him to run, and Democrats don’t like Generals. All of these memes are poor strategy memes to push if you wanted to defeat Clark. One, he obviously stands for a lot, and so saying that he doesn’t stand for anything just lowers the bar for him to hurdle. Two, the easy way to overcome the wife doesn’t want him to run meme is to, well, run. Three, Democrats do like military people, support our troops and all that. But beyond that, Michael Moore’s endorsement of Clark destroyed the military men are bad meme and made Clark the respectable non-joke non-weird non-creepy Kucinich. There are FOUR threads of Clark at Democraticunderground on Clark. Indeed, Clark is taking support from Dean’s left. Clark will make it safe to vote Democratic on national security is also growing. His slashing criticism of Tom Delay on Wolf Blitzer’s program resonated throughout the web; Clark is a fighter is overtaking Clark has no experience as a candidate. Beyond that, the Kentucky governor’s race, which is being nationalized and run as an explicit test of Bush’s leadership, as well as slipping support for Bush in South Carolina, has changed the Bush is vulnerable meme to an even stronger Congress might be in play for the Democrats meme. This is a staggering meme that will require a huge factoid, because redistricting is so obviously and severely against the Democrats for this election. The follow-up question of who has coattails hasn’t been answered, but Clark is a good bet to take this one because of really low unfavorables nationally.

I’m going to spend a bit of time on Clark’s appearance on Late Edition; he slammed Tom Delay, but he slammed him good and hard, hinting at the strategy he’ll pursue. One, it’s not just him against Bush. It’s him against an entire way of doing politics, which includes the entire GOP leadership and even some Democrats. Tom Delay accused Clark of having an ulterior motive of a Presidential run for promoting ideals that sounded good. Clark is pushing the meme that Clark believes in ideals and so he’s running for President, thus explicitly tying service to ideals and to his run for President. Republicans have had a field day trashing Democrats for being ‘just politicians’ and obvious careerists, but Clark is making it clear that this is not about a career move, but about the fact that a candidate should be spurred by his ideals, and that a political agenda is the right thing to have. He’s also made it very clear that while he is explicit about what he believes, Delay is actually the partisan and secretive politician. This is a new attack; it’s an embrace of idealism and a pushback of the burden of proof onto those who mock it as ‘just politics’. Clark will use this same strategy to ward off attacks on his patriotism. You are not unpatriotic because you criticize, you criticize because you are patriotic.


RISING MEMES

It’s a two man race between Dean and Clark.
The economy is reviving, so Bush will be reelected (this one isn’t necessarily true, but it’ll rise anyway).
Economy is reviving, but Bush doesn't deserve credit
Dean would make a great VP
Clark is the Democratic white knight (Clark’s entrance will be timed with press from very influential pubs that think this.)
The Democrats don't need a white knight because the economy is now the issue, not national security (This would be a good counter-meme)


Memes from Two Weeks Ago

Clark is running for VP - dying
Bush is unbeatable - dying
Condi will take the fall, not Tenet - what?
Dean cannot win the nomination - dead
Bush is vulnerable - gaining


Memes from Last Week

The Democratic insiders are against Dean
Anybody but Dean (ABD)
Bush is vulnerable
Dean is getting better at campaigning
Mean Dean
Dean Double Standard
Dean is not McGovern
Dean is not electable
Dean Mob/Dean Freep
The Dean and Lieberman Are Cooperating meme

Failed Meme of the Week: The Democrats are anti-Catholic:

Republicans are just being themselves
Republicans are the party of faith and values meme.
Republicans Turn into 'Rightists'
Condi will take the fall
Bush is vulnerable
Those cute Bush-haters are symmetrical to the cute Clinton-haters:

http://stoller.blogspot.com/2003_08_17_stoller_archive.html

...or what planet you're from. I was asking about DUers attitudes on the war, not Clark and Dean. :wtf:

Oh, and ET called. He wants his spaceship back.

Still am, in fact. Why? For the same reasons as ever...Saddam was even more "evil" than Bush. Look up the history of the Medan. Look up the draining of the Iraqi swamps. Look up the opression of the Kurdish Workers Party. Look up the long history of brutalization and rape against the Iraqi people by the Hussein family, the Ba'ath Party, and the military.

I personally know too many Iraqi immigrants and have heard too many horror stories from them to support the Iraqi regime AT ALL. As much as we may despise Bush, Saddam made him look like a saint.

Now, I DO NOT think we did it the right way. We should have built a coalition and went in there for humanitarian reasons...the way Clinton did in Serbia. I also think that we should have gone in, set up a government, and got out within months. I oppose the way Bush did it, and I oppose the way he's handling Iraq today, but I supported the invasion and the goal of toppling Hussein.

And yes, I got flamed bigtime for my views...but that's OK, a diversity of opinion is the main strength of the Democratic Party :-)

YES kill them all for what they did to us on Sept 11th
They are all terra ists
They had those illegal weapons my president was talking about
This was revenge, and Iran is next
I love paying taxes so they can go to Iraq

And if anyone believes this

I HAVE A RANCH IN CRAWFORD TEXAS FOR SALE





DEFEAT BUSH IN 2004

JOHN KERRY PRESIDENT 2004

In the long run I think it will probaly be best for most of the Iraqis.

Also while I supported the use of force, I thought those against it had some valid positions.

--I simply refrained from posting on the subject.

Feelings were running too high and all the anti-/pro- threads were deteriorating almost instantaneously. Discourse and dialectic were impossible in such an atmosphere. I'm NOT complaining, mind you; simply stating what looked emperically verifiable.

I would have been sorely disappointed if feelings WEREN'T running high. This is life-or-death stuff. It's the kind of thing we're SUPPOSED to get passionate about.

I did try to run a pro-war thread in June when a pro-war lib/lefty, Paul Berman, was on C-Span booknotes.

Frankly though, now the anti-/pro- arguments are again pointless, though for a very different reason. We all have to live in the world that has been made. There is a profound difference between discussing the FUTURE in light of a mistaken policy in the PAST and discussing whether or not what happened in the past should have happened.