"Next question, please."
.
Is this a trick question ?
Outstanding Article.
Well the original goal after the getting rid of Saddam was to build a stable, secular democracy which would lay the groundwork to overthrow the various Middle East Dictatorships.
Since it looks like Iraq just isn’t going to be stable in the next 15 years and it’s going to be more an ally of Iraq than the US and it’s not going to be an example of a democracy to the Muslims, we are looking to minimize our failure.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
This is a great article. It explains what is taking place with liberals in our nation better than I have seen it expressed elsewhere. I would encourage folks to read this article.
Thanks K-oneTexas. This was a good one.
Outstanding article!
This is an easy one and requires only a one word answer. That word is “Yes”.
They felt the same way about the Soviet Union and Vietnam. The left never look happy when the US wins. It is only when the US is wasting resources pumping billions of dollars of welfare into terrorist supporting countries that they seem content.
Why so many words for a one word answer? YES
You can tell the writer is a lawyer.
I’m afraid this author may be thinking too hard - - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Misery enjoys company and hates to see happiness. The rats want America defeated because they do not like America. They do not like America because they are bitter malcontents who are sick in the head and believe that life has been “unfair” to them and they need somebody to “apologize”.
The Dems know their (perceived) weaknesses, and foreign policy is a huge one. They want to steer the public's attention away from any discussion in that area, and toward their (perceived) strengths - basically handouts and services from government to the masses. "It's the economy, stupid" doesn't work when there are more important issues like National Security at stake. Do you think Clinton would have won in '92 if Gulf War I had still been ongoing? Bush won the war too soon, and debate shifted to domestic issues.
The Dems basically want the war to be over, so the sheeple will vote for the candidate who promises the most creature comforts like national health care. Winning or losing isn't really that important, as long as they can spin the result - it's either WE won the war (America), WE got us out of that quagmire (the Democrats) or THEY LOST (the Republicans). Either way, they want it off the front page before election day.
In a word, YES.
.
What is good for the Democrats is bad for the country and what is bad for the country is good for the Democrats. It’s as simple as that.
The author believes that the anti-war Democrats are just fools. I disagree. Many are just fools, but many others (Reid, Pelosi, Murtha) are evil. There are still others (Rosie O’Donnell) who are both.
saving
They don’t so much want the US to fail as George Bush to fail. If the US has to go down with him, well, that’s an acceptable price to pay.
First, when we ask the question we should specify which Democrats, because it isn't all of them. Moreover, opposition to the war was slow in nascence and became stronger only as (1) the intervention began to become less dynamic, and (2) certain keepers of popular culture began to relive the same emotional pungency they reveled in during the later stages of the Vietnam war. And so when we say "Democrats" here we really mean that portion of the party that sees the war in terms of partisan politics and has arrogated to itself the label "anti-war."
I think that the population in question can be divided into three broad categories by motivation, and obviously there is a great deal of crossover. Those categories are those who view the war (1) in terms of domestic (U.S.) political dynamics, (2) in terms of a belief in the illegitimacy of nationalist ends in international relations, and (3) in simple terms of a stubborn refusal to admit an exception to the broad principle that committing violence is to be avoided at all, or nearly all, costs.
The first category subsumes those for whom Iraq is a distant place which has no effect on their daily lives except insofar as it may be used as a lever to place their tribe into political office and displace the other. These people are the ones insisting most furiously (and antihistorically) that Iraq had no WMD and hence constituted no threat to the U.S. It was all just a ploy for domestic power, you see, and backlash against it is nothing more than an equally legitimate thrust for power. These are the Reids, the Pelosis, most of whom couldn't have found Iraq on a map before it became a club to use against the Other Side.
It is the second category that the author is really addressing here. There is a political paradigm I rather loosely term internationalism that is to a great degree an outgrowth of a popularized and diluted version of a belief in international socialism. One of its main tenets is that nationalism is an antiquated construct that is to be transcended by an extranational approach to relations between people, that international relations are to be decided solely by negotiation and consensus, and that efforts against this trend are atavistic desires for a return to a more brutal world. In this paradigm there is no room for a hegemon, and if one appears it is more vital to oppose it than to examine if perhaps its nationalistic ends aren't, in the long run, better for the world. They aren't better for the paradigm, and that's what counts.
This does require a rejection of Judaeo-Christian values and not a few of the old Greek and Roman ones that preceded, all of this in an effort for transcendence to A Better World that exists in the imagination of every utopian. This is, above all, a utopian credo. It is not restricted to Democrats although in the United States that is principally where it resides. It exists in every Western country that boasts an university. I think it is what the author was grasping for with the term "Liberal Mind."
This is a profound cultural and intellectual movement with a wide canon of literature to support it. To oppose it is to be accused of a preference for bestial violence, as if that were the only alternative to its historical inevitability. It is for that reason that its adherents sneeringly refer to its opponents as "conservatives" whether they are actually proposing conserving anything or merely marching off in a different cultural direction. The internationalists won't have it because they can't afford to.
Lastly, there is the vague and often admirable detestation for violence in the abstract. If it is wrong, it is wrong always and for everyone, and there is no difference between those who employ it in offense or in self-defense. The real world is not, however, amenable to such primitive generalizations, but it takes a good deal of mental discipline not to fall back on their simplicity out of pure exhaustion.
All of this is simply intended to illustrate why certain people respond to "why do you oppose the Iraq intervention" with the simple rejoinder "because it's wrong." Well, why is it wrong? I think in many people's views this is why. All IMHO and subject to furious debate as usual.
Happy New Year, everyone!