On the Liberal Thought Process...
Oh the beauty of liberal thought when it comes to Iraq, Darfur, civil wars, and helping people in general...
One on hand, we must leave Iraq as soon as possible.
So how is wanting the war to be over, anti-troops?
Isn't it the MOST pro-troop stance there is?
How is not wanting them to die in a civil war that is not ours to fight being anti-troops?
Yet on the other hand, we must help another civil war.
I have long ago given up hope that George Bush will do a damn thing to help the people of Darfur. You do know that Sudan supposedly keeps us up to date about terrorism. That seems to be the reason we look the other way or only impose wimpy sanctions. People are dying. They are poor and black. The West doesn't seem to care. Do you think racism might be involved. I believe it is painfully obvious.
Two different posts. Two different people. Probably the same thoughts -- get out of Iraq, get into Darfur?
I am all about helping those in Darfur and Iraq. My logic would not hold back on one for the sake of the other, but our government is using the same strategy for Iran -- force sanctions (and hope we don't need to use our military). Something most liberals agree on and Iran is a national security threat! Plus, wouldn't that be a "pro-troop" stand?
It is so easy to cry racism when it comes to Darfur, but not Iraq? I ask the question, do we as a nation have some prejudice against the Iraqis since we want to leave them to fight it out with Al Qaeda's blessing?
What if we go into Darfur and suffer lots of causalties? Would we withdraw or announce our future intention to do so?
Also from the second post:
<cynicism>Oh yes, let's have more sanctions against Sudan. Sanctions have done so well thus far, let's threaten to add more.</cynicism>
So help me out on this one.
In one breath, we criticize the U.S. government for not doing enough in Darfur and that more sanctions will do nothing. Only U.S. action in the region will help stop civilians being killed.
Yet 13+ years of sanctions in Iraq were fine in controlling Saddam's brutal regime (one responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths). And according to the liberal line -- our war in Iraq was unfounded.
I am not trying to be hypercritical, but I am trying to understand why liberals are so against helping the Iraqis (who overall want to be helped) and for helping those in African civil wars (who overall want to be helped). If we truly are noble and liberal, we should help all of those who need our help. Period.
My Groups
-
political Updated: 13 minutes ago
-
Freethinkers Updated: 13 minutes ago
-
Conservative Politics (host) Updated: 24 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
The main theme of the Democratic party right now is, whatever the Republicans are for, we are against. No matter the issue, no matter anything. I do not know if there has ever been a time in our history when our two parties were at such opposite ends of the road as today.
This is a country divided in half. If something doesn't change soon, we may need to worry about our own civil war.
Personally, I keep my mouth shut. I don't feel I know enough outside the hype and haven't had the time to educate myself properly on that issue because I feel there are other more pressing matters to me. (Like the fact that entire African nations could die out because of AIDS). I try not to pick pet media issues as my own because I feel that if we only ever educate ourselves about what the media is screaming we become less than human. We become automatons- an extension of party voice.
I don't want to be that.
Yes, and of course conservatives never use double standards. When President Clinton sent troops into Kosovo and Somalia, they supported him 100%, because it was right to help stop genocide and not supporting him would have demoralized the troops. Right?
But, of course, Iraq is different. We had to go into Iraq to get those WMDs away from Saddam. Right? Luckily, the war was over four years ago when President Bush declared that the mission was accomplished.
Yes, you're right, liberals are dumb.
When did I say liberals were dumb? I am merely asking the following question:
But hey if you don't the answer that is cool...
I am not trying to be political and offer up what politicians do, I am trying to drill down to ideology here (most of the time politicians and ideology don't meet) and figure what John Q public thinks.
And I don't like it when any agenda (liberal or conservative) uses a double standard that violates a basic tenant of that ideology.
If you are for helping people -- great I applaud you. But don't pick and choose.
It would be more accurate (in both cases) to say that there are some who disagree with any given plank in their party's platform
Sadly, that has been the case for both parties for as long as history can remember. Check out their behavior following the Civil War, or the actions of the Republicans during the Depression and World War II...
John
A unilateral effort is of course where we are at in Iraq. We've been committed to the President's plan for the last 50 months. An effort that is now longer in duration than that of the U.S. participation in World War II.
We can honestly say without malice, that the plan has been a failure. The only option we have left is to withdraw. It is the only strategy that has not been enacted yet. To stay, by all indications, clearly means another Vietnam all over again, something that no one in either of the parties wants to witness again.
No one is trying to undercut the other party for the sake of it. This is simply bad policy right, and one party is taking strides forward while the other is suffering because of its leader's inflexible and stubborn nature.
The anti-American far left fringe generally doesn't live within the Democratic Party; they sit outside the party. They can only be considered "Democrats" in that some of them hold their nose and vote for a Dem, when they're not supporting indy candidates or just sitting out of our system entirely. Either way, they're probably less than 5% of the electorate, and they get way too much attention from conservatives.
As for the difference between Iraq and Darfur: Many people -- not liberals, but people of all political stripes -- believe that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, and that our troops are not really helping the situation anymore. Yes, there are those who opposed the war from the beginning, but many of those who did support the war (50%-60% if you believe polls) now believe that Iraq and America would both be better off without our troops there.
Darfur is hosting the worst genocide on earth now. Every day we sit, thousands more die. It's not America's shame that we're not intervening like we did in the Balkans; it's the whole world's.
As per the comment about Clinton, and Republican double standards, I'd like to know what you're referring to there. A quick recap: It was Bush Sr. who sent our troops into Somalia and it was Clinton who said "mission accomplished" before pulling most of our troops out. Months later, things erupted (should not have pulled our troops out). Clinton then sent troops back in, and denied their requests for heavy armor. We lost troops when two blackhawks went down, then Clinton pulled our troops out again. So... I'm having a hard time seeing where the Republican double standard is here.
In my opinion, Clinton is to blame for not taking care of things in the 90s and we are paying for it now. Clinton's actions back then, changing our course in Somalia, show us that we should stick this one out in Iraq and not leave before it's done. I guess Democrats don't learn from the past. They just want to pull out again.
Blog/comment nice now...
I agree with Schomer when he said mission accomplished was removing Saddam from power. That was only the first battle of the total war. If you think this is lasting too long, just remember we still have a lot of troops in Germany, how long has that beeen? over 60 years...