NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed some very strange dynamics that have emerged from the situation in Iraq and the Bush-bashing. I thought that Liberals were supposed to be progressive. Yet, the status quo seems to be the current obsession of the Left. A third of the world lives under the thumb of a few tyrants and when one is toppled all the Left can do is proclaim that it is wrong and that it is not the place of anyone to interfere. Another murderous dictator saw what was going on and has pledged to give up his aims to gain nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorists, he is seen by the left as a tool of the evil Right, someone who has allowed himself to change, for the better I might add, at the behest of Satan. Another doctator, a Communist no less can't get any farther left than that, starves his people to build nuclear weapons to hold the world for ransom with and the left asks why he is not the target. Are you sure that it is the changes that you hate and not just the nation that you see, falsely, as being solely behind them?

I've noticed some very strange dynamics that have emerged from the situation in Iraq and the Bush-bashing. I thought that Liberals were supposed to be progressive. Yet, the status quo seems to be the current obsession of the Left. A third of the world lives under the thumb of a few tyrants and when one is toppled all the Left can do is proclaim that it is wrong and that it is not the place of anyone to interfere. Another murderous dictator saw what was going on and has pledged to give up his aims to gain nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorists, he is seen by the left as a tool of the evil Right, someone who has allowed himself to change, for the better I might add, at the behest of Satan. Another doctator, a Communist no less can't get any farther left than that, starves his people to build nuclear weapons to hold the world for ransom with and the left asks why he is not the target. Are you sure that it is the changes that you hate and not just the nation that you see, falsely, as being solely behind them?Firstly, stop using the left wing right wing system. It doesn't work and makes you look like you have no understanding of the nature of political ideology. Secondly. Liberals aren't against deposing Suddam Hussein. Far from it, Liberals have been campaigning to remove Suddan Hussein and the Taliban for years. We do however object to the means by which it was obtained. Namely, failing to wait for the UN to first pass the final resolution giving Suddam a deadline, and secondly the fact that Suddam had agreed to weapons inspections.

EDIT: Spelling, there are probally more errors but it's hard to tell without my glasses.

I've noticed some very strange dynamics that have emerged from the situation in Iraq and the Bush-bashing. I thought that Liberals were supposed to be progressive. Yet, the status quo seems to be the current obsession of the Left. A third of the world lives under the thumb of a few tyrants and when one is toppled all the Left can do is proclaim that it is wrong and that it is not the place of anyone to interfere. Another murderous dictator saw what was going on and has pledged to give up his aims to gain nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorists, he is seen by the left as a tool of the evil Right, someone who has allowed himself to change, for the better I might add, at the behest of Satan. Another doctator, a Communist no less can't get any farther left than that, starves his people to build nuclear weapons to hold the world for ransom with and the left asks why he is not the target. Are you sure that it is the changes that you hate and not just the nation that you see, falsely, as being solely behind them?

Liberals aren't and have never been anti-war, other than the fringe. Republicans started Gulf I and II, and Democrats started (or at least brought us into) WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Kosovo, and (almost) Iraq in 1998. Democrats are not shy about war when it's in their interests. John Kerry was a tougher critic of Saddam, arguably, than President Bush, months before Gulf II and his candidacy, as was Pres. Clinton.

I've noticed some very strange dynamics that have emerged from the situation in Iraq and the Bush-bashing. I thought that Liberals were supposed to be progressive. Yet, the status quo seems to be the current obsession of the Left. A third of the world lives under the thumb of a few tyrants and when one is toppled all the Left can do is proclaim that it is wrong and that it is not the place of anyone to interfere. Another murderous dictator saw what was going on and has pledged to give up his aims to gain nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorists, he is seen by the left as a tool of the evil Right, someone who has allowed himself to change, for the better I might add, at the behest of Satan. Another doctator, a Communist no less can't get any farther left than that, starves his people to build nuclear weapons to hold the world for ransom with and the left asks why he is not the target. Are you sure that it is the changes that you hate and not just the nation that you see, falsely, as being solely behind them?Firstly, stop usign the left wing right wing system. It doesn't work and makes you look like you have no understanding of the nature of political ideology. Secondly. Liberals aren't against deposing Suddam Hussein. Far from it, Liberals have been campaigning to remove Suddan Hussein and the Taliban for years. We do however object to the means by which it was obtained. Namely, failing to wait for the UN to first pass the final resolution giving Suddam a deadline, and secondly the fact that Suddam had agreed to weapons inspections. Come up with a better system and I'll stop using the one that EVERYONE does. Liberals aren't against deposing dictators and bringing the governments of nations to the people? Great act, then. When does it end? How does asking permission from those who were profitting from Saddams rule bring him any closer to granting any political or civil rights to the people of Iraq? There was a resolution passed years before the war, that gave Saddam "a final chance to comply fully" and threatened "serious consequences" obviously meaning consequences more severe than the nearly universal economic and diplomatic sanctions in place. What do you think that resolution meant? And campaigning for the ousting of brutal governments is great. Liberals are to be congratulated for it. Thier will to actually do something about seems to be lacking, though.

A third of the world lives under the thumb of a few tyrants and when one is toppled all the Left can do is proclaim that it is wrong and that it is not the place of anyone to interfere.

The problem is that the right tolerates and encourages one set of tyrants while decrying others no worse.

Mugabe is as bad as Saddam, with the exception that he's got no oil and he's no threat. Sani Abacha was as bad as Saddam, with the exception that he actively encouraged the West to take his oil. Saudi Arabia and China have horrific human rights record but the West tolerates and does lucrative trade with them. The world's full of corrupt, dictatorial, or scarily extremist regimes, true - and they should all go. With regard to Iraq, I think it was right to get rid of Saddam, but not to do so without UN remit, and without any decent evidence that he was more of a threat than any other of a dozen despots.

Terrorism never gets noticed until it's perpetrated against rich white people.

All brutal dictators need to go. Yet, it is wrong to topple one simply because permission hasn't been granted by an impotent debate society? As far as the rest of the world's tyrants go, cooperate with the "evil right" and we may well be rid of them, as well.

I've noticed some very strange dynamics that have emerged from the situation in Iraq and the Bush-bashing. I thought that Liberals were supposed to be progressive. Yet, the status quo seems to be the current obsession of the Left. A third of the world lives under the thumb of a few tyrants and when one is toppled all the Left can do is proclaim that it is wrong and that it is not the place of anyone to interfere. Another murderous dictator saw what was going on and has pledged to give up his aims to gain nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorists, he is seen by the left as a tool of the evil Right, someone who has allowed himself to change, for the better I might add, at the behest of Satan. Another doctator, a Communist no less can't get any farther left than that, starves his people to build nuclear weapons to hold the world for ransom with and the left asks why he is not the target. Are you sure that it is the changes that you hate and not just the nation that you see, falsely, as being solely behind them?Firstly, stop usign the left wing right wing system. It doesn't work and makes you look like you have no understanding of the nature of political ideology. Secondly. Liberals aren't against deposing Suddam Hussein. Far from it, Liberals have been campaigning to remove Suddan Hussein and the Taliban for years. We do however object to the means by which it was obtained. Namely, failing to wait for the UN to first pass the final resolution giving Suddam a deadline, and secondly the fact that Suddam had agreed to weapons inspections. Come up with a better system and I'll stop using the one that EVERYONE does. Liberals aren't against deposing dictators and bringing the governments of nations to the people? Great act, then. When does it end? How does asking permission from those who were profitting from Saddams rule bring him any closer to granting any political or civil rights to the people of Iraq? There was a resolution passed years before the war, that gave Saddam "a final chance to comply fully" and threatened "serious consequences" obviously meaning consequences more severe than the nearly universal economic and diplomatic sanctions in place. What do you think that resolution meant? And campaigning for the ousting of brutal governments is great. Liberals are to be congratulated for it. Thier will to actually do something about seems to be lacking, though.
1. Ask virtually any remotely intellectual person and they will tell you the Left-Right System is outdated. They may suggest the three dimesional scale, or one of the multi factot systems. But very few people use it on this forum, and very few falls a far cry from "everybody".
2. Please try and fromulate youe thoughts into some kind of cohesion, I'm fidnign it very hard to understand you.
3. Liberals have always been against tyrany, and have repeated supported the use of force to remove it. Though we do not support war a whole.
4. We cannot afford ourselves the luxury of ignoring the United Nations, it may be in desperate need of reform however it would have provided the validation for the conflcit Iraq.
5. Everyone profits from Iraq, it's what we do. However nations such as Germany have consistantly voted against their economic intrests to support instead the ethical choice.
6. The resolution set a deadline by which if met then serious meassures would be considered, and trust me with America at the helm that would have been an Resolution for War.
7. No, the willingness for the government to act the right time is lacking.

It's extremely ridiculous to point out that France and Germany profited from trade with Iraq, but not point out the fact that Bush's biggest campaign contributors (Halliburton, etc.) are profiting from the war and reconstruction.

Yes, tyrants should be removed, but start with the worst one first. Saddam was hardly the worst, or the most powerful. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. and Britain supported him in the '80s, giving him scores of lovely weapons to use against Iran.

http://www.newint.org/issue360/xword.htm#bbw

It's extremely ridiculous to point out that France and Germany profited from trade with Iraq, but not point out the fact that Bush's biggest campaign contributors (Halliburton, etc.) are profiting from the war and reconstruction.

Yes, tyrants should be removed, but start with the worst one first. Saddam was hardly the worst, or the most powerful. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. and Britain supported him in the '80s, giving him scores of lovely weapons to use against Iran.

The Taliban was first, not Saddam.. but okay, who *is* the worst, then? And do they support terrorism, as Saddam did, or are they just generally oppressive?

It's extremely ridiculous to point out that France and Germany profited from trade with Iraq, but not point out the fact that Bush's biggest campaign contributors (Halliburton, etc.) are profiting from the war and reconstruction.

Yes, tyrants should be removed, but start with the worst one first. Saddam was hardly the worst, or the most powerful. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. and Britain supported him in the '80s, giving him scores of lovely weapons to use against Iran.

The Taliban was first, not Saddam.. but okay, who *is* the worst, then? And do they support terrorism, as Saddam did, or are they just generally oppressive?Please, Suddam financed terrorists in Israel. It's a common tactic used even by the US, the lesser of two evils, my enemy's enemy is my friend et cetera.