{"article":{"id":113817,"heading":"A Conservative answers a Leftie","author":"Mattheus","created":"2004-07-03 18:34:06","modified":"2013-11-11 00:30:19","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:30:19","article":"

QUOTE

Well, if America didn’t do anything against the terrorist it would prove the terrorist they were right and also lose the image of a strong country.



Exactly. If you’d like proof, please take a moment to examine what we affectionately call the “90’s”. You see terrorists did their thing time after time and our response was weak, if at all. This let them know that our leadership didn’t have the spine to take on such a monumental task of committing resources to the eradication of all things terrorism. Now they do. You notice who the terrorist are hitting now, don’t you? The countries that are not the U.S. So, again, your point above is proven true, even if you didn’t mean it to be.

QUOTE

“With great power comes great responsibility” no actions would lead to irresponsibility

So America was forced to do something about it no matter what cause or cost.



Maybe you’d prefer a quote from John Kerry on the subject?

“Saddam Hussein - without doubt - had weapons of mass destruction which were exceptionally threatening to surrounding countries, in fact to the entire planet. ... Saddam Hussein had to be wrestled to the mat no matter what, even if the United Nations were lagging. If the UN didn't get the clear, urgent message, then the United States was morally obligated to go it alone to see that Saddam Hussein was finished.”

source: (Ron Fournier, \"Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans On War,\" The Associated Press, 6\/19\/03)

In case that doesn’t do it for you, how about another one:

“(I)t is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the western world to make clear that we cannot abide by any nation breaking out, so to speak, with respect to the capacity to possess and use those kinds of weapons. And so that principle is enormous...\"

source: (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2\/23\/98)



QUOTE

Everybody knows what happened on 9\/11 but do they also know why?



Radical muslims who believe killing westerners will take them heaven decided to buy plane tickets and meet allah?

QUOTE

It’s a fact that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for what happened on 9\/11 but just like libera_stud and wargasm I don’t see any connections between the two.



Again, let me just offer a quote by someone who the Left believes is telling the truth now that he’s opposing Bush. And let me also add this quote was in 1999, when he was serving under President Clinton.

“Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is \"sure\" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president \"would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility.\"



QUOTE

First of all the group that was responsible for 9\/11 are like I said a group, not a whole country.



Groups can be sponsored, aided and assisted by countries. Saddam had the means and the money to produce weapons, Al Qaeda had the means and the skill to deliver them anywhere.

QUOTE

This whole war on terror sounds stupid to me because when they talk about terrorist you mention a small group of Muslims who try give there life for something they believe in by suicide bombing (even though it isn’t right, but hey they are a victim of there own belief).



Yes, and so are the other people standing around them when they pull the trigger, or other unsuspecting passengers on the plane their landing nose first into a building. So you view terrorists and suicide bombers as victims? This is the basic premise of all things liberal. Blame the true victims and victimize the bad actor. (Don’t believe me, In education, we have a failing system in the U.S. While the Republicans want to raise standards, require responsibility and motivate, the Democrats want to lower standards, point fingers and accept mediocrity. When children do poorly on a standardized test, the kids are the victims of a racist test. When a student-athlete graduates high school with a 4th grade reading level, blame the coaching staff and \"sports institution\", not the athletic victim. When the dropout rate begins to soar, don't question the truants or their parents, they're just victims.

In business, we see this phenomenon as well. With terms like \"big business\", \"big oil\", \"big tobacco\", \"big auto\", we're able to conjure up a David vs. Goliath scenario.....with the poor working class Americans as the little guy. We treat smokers like they're victims of an unknown danger......a danger unknown to those who have lived under a rock for the last half century, maybe. Big evil fast food chains are killing people with their fatty foods.....but it's not the responsibility of the individual to limit their intake of grease, fries and junk, is it?

In social programs, we see the victim mentality. We don't require that those receiving aid and capable of working, actually do something. We just require they show need and blame their situation on others. We don't look to the best way to get them on their feet, we look for the easiest way to distribute a check

One of the most prevalent areas of victim mentality is the criminal justice system. Long gone are the days where criminals are actually held responsible. Liberals now have created a system that blames society for a serial killer, blames playground bullies for a rapist, blames minimum wage for someone going postal and blames the dead for putting themselves in the path of a killer. Instead of punishing, taking responsibility and deterring criminals, liberals excuse, reason and explain away their behavior. \"You just need to understand his mind\" or \"look at his childhood\" become the rallying cries. It's ridiculous

How about the recent tax cuts? Instead of the focus being on the true victims of an unfair progressive tax system, the focus, instead, was on the victims like our children and grandchildren \"who will have to fund this tax cut later\", or the \"poor\" who are so oppressed by the \"rich\" that they deserve lower tax rates and higher tax rebates. Create victims and you can get their votes.

Finally, let's look at America's standing in the world court. We have the liberals calling our war in Iraq \"illegal and unjust\".....making Saddam out to be the victim. We destroy the Taliban, an evil regime in Afghanistan, and it's \"you've just blown the country back to the stone ages\".....untrue, but still, the Taliban were just victims of our \"empire building\". We capture al Qaeda members and hold them for questioning and the Left screams abuse, cruel and unusual, and barbaric treatment.....just more victims. Our interests are bombed all over the world, and yet somehow, it's the bombers who were justified because they're victims of our foreign policy. Terrorists kill 3,000 of our own, tear down several skyscrapers, destroy 4 airplanes and slow our economy.....but they're the victims because we don't do more for their cause.

All in all, it's become a political strategy. If you can create enough victims in the world, you can swoop in as \"defender of their cause\" and gain their votes. It has been a brilliant strategy in the political arena, because representatives do just that, \"represent\". The democrats have held a monopoly on victimization for quite some time and they've become arrogant about it, which is costing them dearly now. You see, they've carved up so many victim groups that the interests among each group conflicts with the needs of another and the democrats are finding their \"hero\" resources running thin trying to support so many vast wants and needs. They've fractured society into so many fragments, it's impossible for them to swoop in and save the day when their actions help one group, but hurt another

QUOTE

Ask yourself: why do they do that? Hmmmm maybe they’re unsatisfied..And maybe.. I could be wrong but maybe their government is corrupted??



Or maybe they’re psychotic criminals. Perhaps they’re mentally deficient. Are you saying a corrupt government is justification for killing INNOCENT people? I sure hope you don’t live near me. We have a very corrupt city council, I’d hate to be taking a bus with someone who is justified in splattering my brains on the sidewalk because of it.

QUOTE

Rebels become terrorists when they don’t get heard.



Actually, psychotics become terrorists when they don’t have power. Would you prefer to just give them the power so they won’t blow you up? Or is it better for civilized society to clean up these psychopaths? Remember, they kill mothers and their babies. At what point does that rise to the level of “legitimately reforming government”?

QUOTE

And for those who think rebels are evil too well. Mohammed, Jesus and Moses were holy but they were also rebels



Jesus taught people to love on another. He didn’t advocate killing infidels. He said the way to Heaven was through Him. Belief and faith, not exploding vests.



QUOTE

and America today wouldn’t have existed if there weren’t any rebels who were brave enough to fight the British armies.



Do you not even see the distinction? ARMIES, they fought ARMIES. You didn’t see our founding fathers killing mothers and babies to win their freedom, they killed advancing ARMIES.

QUOTE

I don’t understand why you conservatives think America is so innocent about 9\/11.



I think 3,000 INNOCENT people were murdered. Maybe I’m just silly that way.

QUOTE

America supported Afghanistan (Osame Bin Laden) when they needed their help and do you really think America wasn’t aware that Osama was a smart, but a crazy psycho with evil ideas.



We supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviet invasion. When you get older you’ll come to learn that foreign policy is built on a set of priorities. First you take on the biggest danger, then the rest in succession. In the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan decided it was time to end the Cold War and eliminate the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. At that point in history, the spread of Communism was the biggest threat to our nation. When the Communists invaded Afghanistan, we had to make the difficult decision to support the resistance movement. The same is true with our support of Iraq against Iran, the bigger evil of the two. These are difficult choices that come with being one of the most powerful and free nations in the world. We also supported Stalin in the beginning because it was in our best interest. Can you, or anyone, tell me who will be the nation’s greatest threat 20 years from now?

QUOTE

Yes they did but hey… we had a Cold War with Russia so we cooperated with any country we could no matter what evil man ruled that country.



And now Russia is an ally. See how that works? Just like we’re working with Pakistan now. They’re barbarians, but we need their help to rid the world of radical Islamic fundamentalists. Just because you can’t deal with every single threat in the here and now doesn’t mean you shouldn’t deal with them at all.

QUOTE

So when the news tells you WE are at in war with Iraq\/terrorist\/evil it’s actually just America cleaning up their own mess.



Who better to clean up a mess?

QUOTE

I think this whole war thing in Iraq is just a way for America to vent its frustration because they couldn’t find Osama Bin Laden.



You’re entitled to your opinion. However, are you absolutely certain he’s not dead? By the way, this war with Iraq….wasn’t started in 2003, it was started in 1991. You see after Iraq invaded Kuwait, we went in and stopped them. When we had pushed Saddam’s troops back across the border, we allowed the U.N. to negotiate a cease-fire with Saddam. The foundation of that cease-fire was that Saddam would allow unfettered inspections and comply with the U.N.’s resolutions calling for complete disarmament. After 17 resolutions and Saddam’s continuous ignoring of the guidelines in those resolutions, after 12 years of continually shooting at our jets enforcing the U.N.’s no-fly zones (acts of war), the U.N. issued, as they called it, “a final resolution” ordering Saddam to comply or “face serious consequences”. He failed to comply, so the cease-fire ended.

QUOTE

You can measure how powerful America is by how easily they moved there troops from Afghanistan to Iraq within less than a year and have the whole world watching but couldn’t\/ didn’t do anything about it. Plus if America can’t back up their reasons they’re quick to change their reasons why. First it was a war against terror then suddenly Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda ..if that doesn’t make any sense then they say Saddam has WMD ..that turned out to be false, too! And now you say that America is helping the Iraqi people??? Bringing them love and freedom??? Say what!? Since when did the American people care about Muslims?! After all, ALL MUSLIMS are responsible for 9\/11, right?



Wrong. You watch too much CNN. There were a multitude of reasons for our actions in Iraq. The first, as I mentioned above, was the end of the cease-fire. Second was the fact, as those in the Clinton administration even stated, Saddam had WMD programs. For example

President Bill Clinton said:

”The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”

Secretary of State Madeline Albright stood by her President saying:

”There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Defense Secretary William Cohen added:

”The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration.”

”On the subject of UN inspections National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said:

It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment. It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity.”

Senator Tom Daschle agreed with the President noting:

”Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”

Senator John Kerry said:

”For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description. France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach.”

President Clinton added these prophetic words of wisdom as he warned:

” The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people

QUOTE

If you hear a gang-banger say: “ride with us or collide with us” you think it’s stupid, but when Bush say: “you either with us or against us” you think he’s “The Man”…well.. I don’t see the difference because they both mean the same.. only Bush has “legitimate” reasons, right?? Oh, and he’s rich!



A gang-banger is a criminal, so if you’re with him, you’re a criminal. To say nothing of the complete irrelevancy of this statement.

And Bush is rich? So what? According to John Kerry, most Americans are rich (see his comments about tax cuts being only for the rich, then check your paycheck and tax return – guess what, you got a tax cut, so you’re now rich!) To say nothing of Kerry’s extreme wealth.

QUOTE

Conservatives keep telling me that I am one-sided, but I just look at everything from different perspective before I judge anybody or anything because every story has two sides. In this story I stay neutral.



Doesn’t look that way, but again, everyone’s entitled to their own opinions, right or wrong. Most of what you’ve written seems to be talking points and cursory observances, so I’ll take a big leap and say you haven’t done much research – which would explain some of the things you’ve written.

QUOTE

Do you conservatives know what conservative means? It means to preserve how things are now. So how can you make progress if you stay conservative, if you keep things the way they are. And why do conservatives call democrats (or if you don’t belief in this system at all like me) “trolls” if they have critique on the authority?

\"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and the sciences.\"

-- Mao Tse-Tung, 1957

It meant that people were totally free of being critical about the authority. Mao would read all the critique about the way he ruled so that he could work out the flaws. (Eventually he prohibited because people gave too much critique. Mao had his own ideas and to much power)

So conservatives, when you have people who think differently about certain things and criticize these things it doesn’t mean they are against YOU personally, they just think things would be better if …..

They aren’t stubborn, most liberals DO listen to what conservatives say, but do have their comments on some points and if you say that we’re hard headed then it is you who isn’t listening.



Conservatism is a network of commonly accepted attitudes, beliefs and practices that evolves through strengthening of things that work and rejection of things that lead to conflict and failure. In addition, conservatism is not rejection of all change as such, but of intentional change of a peculiarly sweeping sort characteristic of the period beginning with the French Revolution and guided by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophies such as liberalism and Marxism. It is recognition that the world is not our creation, and that there are permanent things that we must simply accept. For example, the family as an institution has changed from time to time in conjunction with other social changes. However, the current left\/liberal demand that all definite institutional structure for the family be abolished as an infringement of individual autonomy (typically phrased as a demand for the elimination of sex roles and heterosexism and the protection of children’s rights) is different in kind from anything in the past, and conservatives believe it must be fought.

Every political view promotes the particular advantage of some people. If political views are to be treated as rationalizations of the interests of existing or would-be elites, then that treatment should apply equally to conservatism and all other views. On the other hand, if arguments that particular political views advance the public good are to be taken seriously, then the arguments for conservatism should be considered on their merits.

It’s worth noting that contemporary liberalism furthers the interests of the powerful social classes that support it, and that movements aiming at social justice typically become intensely elitist because the more comprehensive and abstract a political principle, the smaller the group that can be relied on to understand and apply it correctly.

Slavery disappeared in Western and Central Europe long ago without need for self-conscious attempts at social reconstruction. It lasted much longer in the new and less conservative societies Europeans founded in America.

While conservatism as such doesn’t guarantee there will be no oppression, neither do attempts at autonomous rational thought. It has been under radical and not conservative regimes that brutal forced labor and other gross forms of oppression have made a comeback in recent times. That is no paradox. Radicalism is far more compatible than conservatism with tyrannical institutions because by overemphasizing the role of theory in politics it destroys reciprocity and mutual accommodation between rulers and ruled. In addition, conservatism is not self-contained; its recognition of existing practice as a standard does not mean denial that there is any other standard. It recognizes that moral habits evolve with experience and changing circumstances, that social arrangements that come to be too much at odds with the moral feelings of a people change or disappear, and that there are transcendent standards as well as those that exist as part of the institutions of a particular people. It recognizes that there can be improvements as well as corruptions.

Conservatism arose not from a desire to freeze everything exactly as it is, but from recognition of the necessity of continuity, the difficulty of forcing society into a preconceived pattern, and the importance of things, such as mutual personal obligation and standards of right and wrong not reducible to power and desire, for which ideologies of the Left have trouble finding a place. Those recognitions make conservatives more reliable opponents of tyranny than progressives.

For example, in the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. Source: and source2

Who’s the “progressive” party?



QUOTE

Even if a war against Iraq was actually the best thing to do, it still doesn’t seem right.



Why? If it’s the best thing to do, why doesn’t it seem right? Do you prefer we do that which is NOT the best thing to do?

QUOTE

You can’t change people’s mind and vision just like that. People of Iraq have to build their own democracy. It took ages before Europe (and the rest of the West) became a democracy and the only reason why it still standing is because we built it ON OUR OWN. Imagine that a great-unknown force came into the U.S. and wanted you to think, live and behave different then you normally do. Wouldn’t that be absurd?



If we were oppressed by a tyrannical dictator that killed on average 1,000 citizens per day or raped, tortured and mutilated citizens for voicing opposition, I’d be happy to have a country that has succeeded in peace and prosperity through a representative democracy for over 200 years to assist in changing our country, sure.

And with respect to it taking time, I think that’s why George Bush said it wouldn’t be quick and easy and it would test our resolve, but we must stay the course, no matter what. Unlike previous administrations that would cut and run at the first sign of trouble *cough*Mogadishu*cough*.

We’re heading for a deadline of June 30 to turn over the government in Iraq to Iraqis, because we understand the notion that it needs to be an effort of their own people (with limited outside assistance by experts of representative democratic government operations). Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s the Democrats in our country saying that deadline for handover is too soon.

Who’s the progressive party?

QUOTE

Well here’s a solution:

I think that if America wants some respect from the Islam world then they should fix the problem in Israel\/ Palestine and I don’t mean killing the Palestine’s but by taking these Israeli soldiers out of the streets. Picture that a great-unknown force comes into America but this time not to turn you in their belief but to put you out of your home, take over your land and use soldiers to keep you quiet.



Take the Israeli soldiers out of the streets, who will protect the innocent people from the Palestinian terrorists? You need to go study the history of this conflict some more. Israel’s land was stolen, then given back after the war. After multiple Arab attacks on Israel over the years, Israel has been fighting back. When Arabs were launching attacks from Jordan, Israel defended itself and took the land in the process. If Israel laid down its weapons, there is little doubt the Arab world would try to drive it into the sea.

QUOTE

They take away your freedom and human rights. This is a situation on what’s happening in Israel for those of you who haven’t noticed. Now tell me, why are we supporting a country that does all that??



Self-defense, in case you haven’t noticed. Feel free to read up on the situation before replying. Here, I’ll even help: http:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/news\/indepth\/mideast\/hebron.html<\/a>

QUOTE

I know America wasn’t responsible for all this (Europe isn’t innocent either, it seems).

“It’s easy to fight but to bring hope there where it isn’t is a challenge”



“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” – Sir Edmund Burke

QUOTE

If the US government wants the Arabic world to cooperate they should win over their faith and trust and America can reach that by taking this challenge instead of giving Israel weapons and money to fight against the Palestinians.



You’ll never “win the faith and trust” of those who want to see the complete destruction of all Jews. Take a look at a map of the middle east and tell me how much land Israel has compared to the rest of the Arab community. Then explain to me how they can defend themselves from eradication without outside help.

QUOTE

We were so close under BILL CLINTON, but then some Israeli had to screw it all up. I guess history is based on continuity…



Honestly, we weren’t that close. Just like you said above, they must find the solution themselves. Clinton was forcing schedules and timetables that dealt more with the remainder of his political term and the prospect of leaving a legacy that didn’t consist of a stained blue dress, that both sides saw the meetings as not in their best interest.

QUOTE

P.S. don’t think I am pro-democrat or pro-Bill Clinton.. I think this whole system is corrupt just like wargasm said.. and the only good president was assassinated, his name was Abraham Lincoln (a republican).



I agree the political system as we know it today would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves. The best way to reform it is to stop electing career politicians and go back to the idea that public service is a temporary civic duty for the betterment of the whole.

QUOTE

You probably don’t agree with anything what I just said but at least take time to think about it.



I trust you’ll see the time and effort I spent responding.

QUOTE

If you republicans want me to vote on Bush, I want him to:

1) go to Iraq and fight with the U.S. troops against “the enemy” or take his troops back because sitting behind a desk and barking marching orders doesn’t make you any braver than Osama or Saddam. (When I say Bush, I mean the whole administration, of course, since Bush is only chewing on other people’s ideas)



That’s not the President’s job. Just like the mayor of a city isn’t going to walk the beat, a CEO isn’t going to serve lunch in the company’s cafeteria. I assume by this statement you’re not going to vote for anyone, since there is not a single candidate on the ballot, now or ever, that is going to drive a tank into the theater of battle. It’s not their job.

QUOTE

2) Stop bothering other countries and first handle America’s own problems like poverty, drugs, violence, debt, and obesity. (400,000 Americans die each year from being too damn fat!)



That’s the President’s fault? How about some personal responsibility? People are fat because they intake more calories than they burn. It’s nothing new. Sure, some obesity results from medical conditions, but that’s a different story. It’s up to people to eat less or exercise more, what can the government do? If you think government solves the poverty issue, you’re sorely mistaken. What can government do to help those who are poor? Offer them gubmint jobs? Those don’t really pay much. How about offer tax breaks to small businesses that would hire them, perhaps give them stock options and someday become successful? What about job training? Maybe reducing the income tax burden on people so they can keep more of what they earn in hopes of making ends meet, and maybe putting some away in savings accounts? Guess what, there’s a political party making such things a reality – in the face of harsh opposition. Is the government distributing drugs? If so, I agree they should stop. Other than that, how is the fact people abuse drugs the government’s fault? Where’s the personal responsibility? Maybe this is the “victim” thing again, huh?

Debt – I agree this has become a problem, and it started in the 1980s when the credit card industry was deregulated. Now anyone with a pulse can get some line of credit. Other than restoring harsh regulations, what can the gubmint do? How many Americans do you think would vote FOR passage of regulations that would take their ability to get credit away? Think about it. (One caveat, some debt is good, like a mortgage or small business loan – as these forms of debt lead to more ownership and growth – good things for our economy).



QUOTE

Greets from Bob,

Bye



Adios.

<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"QUOTE \r\nAmerica had to start a war against terror. Why? \r\n\r\n\r\nFallacy #1. We didn\u2019t start the war. In 1996 Osama bin Laden declared jihad against America. He asked Muslims worldwide to kill anything American. Then 15 hijackers landed planes in the middle of New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. They started the war, we\u2019re just going to see it\u2019s finished.","numcomment":3,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2004\/07\/113817.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":113831,"heading":"Then 15 hijackers landed planes","article":"wow.\r\nhow did they do that?\r\nThe previous post is a joke, right?\r\nHa ha.\r\n","author":"Dug","parent_id":113817,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-07-04 23:28:32","modified":"2004-07-04 23:28:32","fileurl":""},{"id":113846,"heading":"some comments on comments","article":"Mostly, the above it propaganda and repetition of points from conservative websites. I'll answer a few points here and there. It's good to read the linked article to see how the winds of change shift over time with regard to party politics.\r\n\r\nWar on terror - we named it, thus we started "it". The "war on terror" is not an actual war, but and abstract policy similar to the "war on drugs" or "cold war" and seems to be defined by a series of military actions.\r\n\r\nRadical Muslims - I don't think are motivated by heaven so much as the idea of a pan-Arab confederation of states under Islamic rule. Kind of like NAFTA meets Sharia.\r\n\r\nGovernment regulation of fast food - a counter argument is that there are a lot of things that are regulated in food, like animal feces, pollutants, and carcinogens. Should we not regulate these things, because they aren't that dangerous if you take them in small quantities? In a democracy, people are free to regulate businesses at will. They really have few "rights" per-se beyond "personhood" -- and even that is under attack.\r\n\r\nVictimology - the argument is that victims aren't really victims. Or if they are, then, they are actually responsible for their being screwed over. This is a bogus argument. We all have different degrees of freedom and power, and some people simply have fewer resources than others. The desire to make situations more equal comes from the "democratic spirit" that disparities shouldn't be too great, and that the powerful should not get *too* powerful.\r\n\r\nThe situations described in the argument are not the whole picture. They're a simplified version of reality that's constructed simply for argument's sake.\r\n\r\nThe Democrats were going after the votes of the formerly disenfranchised. That is all. There was a body of votes out there for the taking: 2nd generation children of immigrants, blacks, women, other nonwhites, even gays... and the Democrats went to get their votes. These people were oppressed. The oppression wasn't some figment of their imagination.\r\n\r\nIt's really the ultimate in denial to think that people are basically equal these days, or were more-or-less equal before the 1960s. They simply weren't.\r\n\r\nMoreover, it's simply untrue that, given enough time, all these inequalities will vanish. The fact is, a lot of money and energy is spent maintaining inequality. That's the nature of power -- to preserve power for itself -- and to use the law to do so. The main way this is accomplished is by shifting resources away from those with less power, to those with more power.\r\n\r\nThe most naked exercise of this power recently was Segregation. (Supported by Democrats in the South by the way. They later became Republicans.)\r\n\r\nTerrorism and rebels - I don't think terrorists are rebels. They are motivated by larger political goals, but lack power, particularly state power.\r\n\r\nStalin - we have the luxury to make alliances with people like Stalin, Saddam, and Osama bin Laden, but each of these alliances saps some of our ability to promote global democracy. Our alliance with the government of Indonesia led us to ignore ethnic cleansing there. Our support of Aristide's coup was basically neoliberal "imperialism" at its worst. In none of these situations, will we be able to legitimately say we've supported democracy and peace.\r\n\r\nSaddam - his main threats were to people in Iraq, neighboring nations, and Israel. He was no threat to the US... Did he have missiles that can reach us? Nope. Europe? Nope. Why did we go in then? The nation was pretty screwed up, and ripe for the picking. Or so some people thought.\r\n\r\nConservatism - basically means "slow to change". It's true: it's at odds with the Enlightenment, and even with the common belief in the ability of people to use *reason* to plan for the future. I think conservatism ignores that diversity and dynamism are necessary for improvement.\r\n\r\nRegarding the disappearance of slavery - in the South, it persisted because of the cotton gin. It automated one aspect of production that was expensive, and as a result, the demand for cotton picking labor increased. One way to keep labors costs down is to create situations of oppression where people are forced into bad jobs.\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/sc.essortment.com\/cottongin_rciv.htm\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.eliwhitney.org\/cotton.htm\r\n\r\nNormally, when labor demand increases, wages increase. When wages increase, or threaten to increase, people with political power (the business elite) manipulate laws to create oppressed classes of people. In their case, the Southern plantaion owners perpetuated slavery for a while longer. This kept labor costs down.\r\n\r\n(Today, I think the same situation is being created for "illegal immigrants." They are a legally created class of people relegated to the worst possible jobs in this society.)\r\n\r\nRadical regimes creating oppression - it has to be taken on a case by case basis, and some standards must be established to measure oppression in a society. For example, America has more oppressed people than Sweden, if you count the number of homeless people. Neither state is radical. The radicals of the French Revolution oppressed the monarchs, but the monarchs oppressed the poor.\r\n\r\nThere are conservative strains within the "radical" left too. China is a good example. The conservatives there are communists. Conservatives in Sweden are socialists. Conservatives just resist change, and in doing so, resist ending any existing oppressions. Not surprisingly, conservatives, regardless of political stripe, tend to be those with power and money, and a history of oppressing someone.\r\n\r\nAs for moral arguments -- I generally think that it's radicals who make the most moral arguments. Conservative morals tend to reflect the society as it exists, while radical morals tend to be more fundamentalistic and theoretical. A good example is political veganism. That's a moral position that results in radical behavior. The conservative position is to continue with things as-is, and attach no moral value to the act of eating.\r\n\r\nEven the act of declaring amorality within a traditionally moral context, is a moral break from tradition. Laissez-faire self-interest (aka libertarianism) is an amoral position that is radical break from long-established religous traditions of social welfare and\/or mutual aid. People have had charity for centuries. To argue against caring is a radical moral break that started in the 1900s.\r\n\r\nAs for the Republican votes for civil rights since 1933... that's going a ways back. Look at the linked article. Between 1933 and 1965, the politican sands shifted, and civil rights, which had been a Rep issue, became a Dem issue. From the 1940s through today, the Dems have locked in the minority vote.\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.mury.k12.ut.us\/mhs\/apus\/handouts\/politicalparties.htm\r\n\r\nToday, the sands are shifting again, and gay rights is like the new civil rights. The Dems are hemming and hawing about the issue at the national level, but at the local level, reality is shifting. Reps in California are starting to consider switching sides. Arnie already has considered it, I'm certain.\r\n\r\nDems suffer from, and benefit from internal diversity. They have so many constituencies that it's hard to come up with a common platform sometimes. Though they get some large sums of money, they get a lot of smaller donations, and operate more as a mobilized network than the GOP.\r\n\r\nThe Reps have it a little easier, partly because they are bound to be more "unified" by the large pile of money running the machine. The GOP are the Whigs - the party of the rich. They are also the party of nationalistic fundamentalism, and religious ferver, for now. They pick these two issues because it's easier to lock in these people who vote for abstract issues by using money to impress the uncommitted.\r\n\r\nThat's one reason why conservative talk radio does so well. It's all abstract political debate. On the left, the talk radio is Pacifica, which is also a lot of abstract political debate. There's only one Pacifica station to a half dozen conservative stations.\r\n\r\nDespite the 3:1 spending, and huge numbers of conservative stations and publications, the GOP only manages to get a minority of voters.\r\n\r\nI think this implies something that people aren't really saying:\r\nThe far Right is now the "radical" group, who propose major changes. The middle is the "conservatives" who resist changes (aka, budget cuts) and they are considered "Left" by the pundits. The Left is radical, but have a fairly small minority that's yet to build up too large (don't count it out - we could be in for a new Populist movement).\r\n\r\nRegarding Buiding Democracy - you can change governments pretty quickly, in terms of decades. In one, we turned Iraq from a powerful war-torn seculary dictatorship into an impoverished dictatorship, but with a democratic region in the north. Then, with a short war, and a couple years, we destroyed it and turned it into a society threatened by the imposition of a theocratic government.\r\n\r\nIt's true, though, that democracy must be built from the bottom up. It just must, because democracy is embodied in democratic practice, and that takes some time to learn. I disagree with pacifists on one point. At some point, in the fight for democracy, the society will probably experience some kind of revolution. In all likelihood, this revolution will be a civil war. I belive it's the role of democracies in the world to help fund these wars, and help fight these wars.\r\n\r\nThe war in Iraq, however, isn't one of these wars. Iraq was plainly and invasion of a weakened nation for its resources, labor, and land.","author":"more rational","parent_id":113817,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-07-06 10:46:31","modified":"2004-07-06 10:46:31","fileurl":""},{"id":114101,"heading":"Thanks for posting my response...","article":"Thanks for reprinting my entire post here. I only wished you'd been kind enough to attribute it to me, as it took some time to compose.\r\n\r\nThe original was posted in response to a troll on the Conservababes website: http:\/\/www.conservababes.com\/forums\/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=25&t=5204&st=0?entry31634\r\n\r\nYou can add a link to my blog where I post all my other original thoughts and works, too: http:\/\/texasrainmaker.blogspot.com\r\n\r\nThanks.\r\nJason - TexasRainmaker","author":"TexasRainmaker","parent_id":113817,"mime_type":"text\/html","created":"2004-07-14 02:17:33","modified":"2004-07-14 02:17:33","fileurl":""}]}