NationStates Jolt Archive

I am wondering how much liberal/left opposition to the Iraq war has to do with who is the president of America - the far-right conservative George Bush. Bush is the political opposite of most anti-war activists. Do his actions on other issues increase opposition to his war?

If a liberal Democrat president had executed the war in Iraq, would there be such strong anti-war sentiment? Would we see many more US conservatives out protesting against the war? Or would they still support it?

I think that in the world, the people who oppose it now would still be opposed to it no matter who was US President. In America, where people are very partisan, I think that less liberals would be against the war, and many Republicans would be against it.

If Clinton had gotten us into the war, few if any Democrats would protest. Republicans and Democrats are all spineless wimps unable to think for themselves, and they fanatically follow their leaders with 100% devotion no matter what, regardless of how bad their leaders may be (same thing with the Nazis and Hitler).

If Clinton had gotten us into the war, few if any Democrats would protest. Republicans and Democrats are all spineless wimps unable to think for themselves, and they fanatically follow their leaders with 100% devotion no matter what, regardless of how bad their leaders may be (same thing with the Nazis and Hitler).

And if Clinton had gotten us into the war, you'd hear a lot of Republicans whining about how the war is unjust, none of our business, and blah blah blah.

The reason I don't like George W. Bush is because of the war in Iraq. I liked Bush the first time around and even beleived the war in Iraq was justified at first. However I have come to realize that it was a sham and was on a few neo-con's personal political agendas. The war in Iraq is also the reason that the rest of the world does not like Bush. He and America as a whole had tremendous support from most of the world after Sept. 11 and the Iraq war vaporized that support. As for your question of what would the right-wingers do if it had been a Democrat president going to war you need look no further than Somalia under Bill Clinton. After the "Black Hawk down" incident he was blasted by Republicans for endangering American troops in a foreign conflict that supposedly did not concern America.

-snip-
So true!

The reason I don't like George W. Bush is because of the war in Iraq. I liked Bush the first time around and even beleived the war in Iraq was justified at first. However I have come to realize that it was a sham and was on a few neo-con's personal political agendas. The war in Iraq is also the reason that the rest of the world does not like Bush. He and America as a whole had tremendous support from most of the world after Sept. 11 and the Iraq war vaporized that support. As for your question of what would the right-wingers do if it had been a Democrat president going to war you need look no further than Somalia under Bill Clinton. After the "Black Hawk down" incident he was blasted by Republicans for endangering American troops in a foreign conflict that supposedly did not concern America.

True, but Clinton didn't get us in Somalia, George H.W. "I Never Met a Dictator I Didn't Like" Bush did.

So true!

?

Republicans and Democrats are all spineless wimps unable to think for themselves, and they fanatically follow their leaders with 100% devotion no matter what, regardless of how bad their leaders may be (same thing with the Nazis and Hitler).
Precisely why I am a liberal, but not a Democrat. I think the party system is overall damaging to the U.S., even with its brighter points.

If Clinton had gotten us into the war, few if any Democrats would protest. Republicans and Democrats are all spineless wimps unable to think for themselves, and they fanatically follow their leaders with 100% devotion no matter what, regardless of how bad their leaders may be (same thing with the Nazis and Hitler).

What the hell are you talking about?

I would say it is the other way around, as republicans refuse to admit that Iraq has been one big error after another, that Bush's Corporate tax cuts caused global tariffs on American goods which has caused the dollar to fall, that Bush was caught napping on 9/11, and that Christian morals cannot be legislated as documented in the constitution.

And way to compare democrats to nazis and democratic leaders to Hitler. :rolleyes:

If Clinton had gotten us into the war, few if any Democrats would protest. Republicans and Democrats are all spineless wimps unable to think for themselves, and they fanatically follow their leaders with 100% devotion no matter what, regardless of how bad their leaders may be (same thing with the Nazis and Hitler).If Clinton had gotten us into Iraq, our troops would be home by now.

One thing he did do well was 'pull out'. ;)

?
I snipped the post where u said Dems and Reps follow each party's leader w/100% blind devotion

What the hell are you talking about?

I would say it is the other way around, as republicans refuse to admit that Iraq has been one big error after another, that Bush's Corporate tax cuts caused global tariffs on American goods which has caused the dollar to fall, that Bush was caught napping on 9/11, and that Christian morals cannot be legislated as documented in the constitution.

And way to compare democrats to nazis and democratic leaders to Hitler. :rolleyes:

I was comparing to the blind loyalties of the Democrats and Republicans to their leaders to the blind loyalties of the Nazis to Hitler.

I would oppose this war no matter who had gotten us into it (assuming everything else remained the same). I'm a centrist (more left on domestic social issues except gun control, more right on economic issues), and I supported the Afghanistan invasion for the most part because it was reactive, not pre-emptive and not clearly a result of someone's pre-existing political plan.

I belong to no party because no party comes even close to speaking for me on more than a handful of issues. I think partisanship is a cancer to democracy.

I was comparing to the blind loyalties of the Democrats and Republicans to their leaders to the blind loyalties of the Nazis to Hitler.
Welcome to propaganda and demagoguery, my friend.

I was comparing to the blind loyalties of the Democrats and Republicans to their leaders to the blind loyalties of the Nazis to Hitler.
Why do people feel the need to take a legitamite point and exagerate it to the point that they sound like idiots? Yes, people follow their parties too strongly sometimes. People throw around the word Nazi as if the part of their brain that has any sense of proportion got hacked out with a chainsaw...
Liberals defitely would have supported Clinton in Iraq- all the Democrat senators (like Kerry) that critisize Bush so much were ready to back in '98. And there would be a lot more conservative opposition than jsut Pat Buchannan.

If everything were the same, the same lack of waiting for weapons inspectors, the same violation of the UN mandate, the same lies, the same death, the same costs, then I would definitely not support the war.

The liberals would find a humanitarian justification but be wary of it.

The conservatives would hate it since it was being carried out by a Liberal but would ultimately support it since they like war.

However, I have doubts a liberal government in the US would have gone to war in Iraq in the first place.

It would be just as unpopular, but you wouldn't see all of the same people opposing it.

I was comparing to the blind loyalties of the Democrats and Republicans to their leaders to the blind loyalties of the Nazis to Hitler.

Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot.

Why do people feel the need to take a legitamite point and exagerate it to the point that they sound like idiots? Yes, people follow their parties too strongly sometimes. People throw around the word Nazi as if the part of their brain that has any sense of proportion got hacked out with a chainsaw...
Liberals defitely would have supported Clinton in Iraq- all the Democrat senators (like Kerry) that critisize Bush so much were ready to back in '98. And there would be a lot more conservative opposition than jsut Pat Buchannan.

Liberals wouldn't have supported the war but democrats would have. There is a distinction.

The conservatives would hate it since it was being carried out by a Liberal but would ultimately support it since they like war.

That's news to me...

1. The conservatives would hate it since it was being carried out by a Liberal but would ultimately support it since they like war.

2. However, I have doubts a liberal government in the US would have gone to war in Iraq in the first place.
1. It's neoconservatives who actually like war (as long as they don't have to fight it themselves). Most more normal conservatives do it reluctantly.

2. If you look at 20th century history, you'll see that American governments have a fascinating tendency to wage war regardless of ideology.

I think the waging of war is one of those unusual issues that is not so much left vs right, or liberal vs conservative, but rather elites/powerful vs ordinary people.

Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot.

No, you're not.

Welcome to propaganda and demagoguery, my friend.
both overused but under appreciated tactics essential to democratic politics.

Why do people feel the need to take a legitamite point and exagerate it to the point that they sound like idiots? Yes, people follow their parties too strongly sometimes. People throw around the word Nazi as if the part of their brain that has any sense of proportion got hacked out with a chainsaw...

Godwin's Law (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/) strikes again. It seems to be uncommonly prevalent on this forum.

I am a democrat, I guess.

I barely knew anything about the conflict in Kosovo, and didn't really care. I barely knew anything about the conflict in Afganistan and didn't really care. I did hate Bush because of his tax cuts and other policies. Then he started the war in Iraq. It was completely uncalled for. Actually, since then I've decided I am against all war. Anyway...

I don't think I would react differently to a liberal declaring war on an irrelevant nation.

Godwin's Law (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/) strikes again. It seems to be uncommonly prevalent on this forum.


so does that mean if i'm trolling against my real position, i can invoke godwin's law to immediately cause my psuedo-side to be defeated and thus the side i really agree with to win?

I don't know about world support, because someone like Clinton could launch it without a hitch. Clinton was extremely popular abroad, moreso than any president we've ever had.
As for me, well I won't say if I would have supported it or not. It's a damned if I do or damned if I don't question, but I do have an answer.

so does that mean if i'm trolling against my real position, i can invoke godwin's law to immediately cause my psuedo-side to be defeated and thus the side i really agree with to win?

Not quite. It means that bringing up the Nazis will end reasoned debate on any topic. It's unlikely that there will be a winner (not like there will ever be anyway).

Thats like asking: "would christianity have reached so far around the world if Jesus was a Muslim?"

If we had a liberal president, there would not have been an iraq war. The point is moot.

Precisely why I am a liberal, but not a Democrat. I think the party system is overall damaging to the U.S., even with its brighter points.
You can say that again. (Avoid the obvious funny post if you can).
I agree with posters who say anything like rush and Bill would be trashing the war like the Democrats, only they'd be more zealous and effective in their efforts.

I am a democrat, I guess.

I barely knew anything about the conflict in Kosovo, and didn't really care. I barely knew anything about the conflict in Afganistan and didn't really care. I did hate Bush because of his tax cuts and other policies. Then he started the war in Iraq. It was completely uncalled for. Actually, since then I've decided I am against all war. Anyway...

I don't think I would react differently to a liberal declaring war on an irrelevant nation.

The biggest difference betweeen Kosovo and Iraq, for the U.S., was death toll. If I understand correctly, not a single American died in Kosovo because of how the war was fought. It was mostly through air strikes and what-have-you. The death toll increases in Iraq every day over a war taht didn't exist before the U.S. got involved. Kosovo existed before Clinton sent people in. If Clinton created the war in Kosovo, things might be different.

so does that mean if i'm trolling against my real position, i can invoke godwin's law to immediately cause my psuedo-side to be defeated and thus the side i really agree with to win?

Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.

The war would be fully supported by all sides, since conservatives feel that Hussein was a threat, and the media would do everything in it's power to support Clinton (instead of doing everything in their power to depose Bush), so liberals would love it.

I am amazed at everyone's short memories here.....you all act as if George Bush decided to just up and start a war somewhere(..."let's see....oh, Iraq looks like a good place to start one.")

DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER 9/11??

I Lost 2 good friends that day....so as far as I am concerned...we should get everyone and every country that had a hand in what happened.....

And gee whiz...since we have gone to war, there haven't been anymore attacks on US soil...

I am amazed at everyone's short memories here.....you all act as if George Bush decided to just up and start a war somewhere(..."let's see....oh, Iraq looks like a good place to start one.")

DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER 9/11??

I Lost 2 good friends that day....so as far as I am concerned...we should get everyone and every country that had a hand in what happened.....

And gee whiz...since we have gone to war, there haven't been anymore attacks on US soil...

Logical fallacy.

I am amazed at everyone's short memories here.....you all act as if George Bush decided to just up and start a war somewhere(..."let's see....oh, Iraq looks like a good place to start one.")

DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER 9/11??

I Lost 2 good friends that day....so as far as I am concerned...we should get everyone and every country that had a hand in what happened.....

And gee whiz...since we have gone to war, there haven't been anymore attacks on US soil...


Iraq had no hand in it.

The innocent iraqis have lost 2 good friends. Perhaps they should kill everyone who had a hand in that?

Thats like asking: "would christianity have reached so far around the world if Jesus was a Muslim?"

If we had a liberal president, there would not have been an iraq war. The point is moot.
Glad I waited to see if someone else had noticed the obvious answer before wading in. Too bad it took until the bottom of the second page to happen.

I am amazed at everyone's short memories here.....you all act as if George Bush decided to just up and start a war somewhere(..."let's see....oh, Iraq looks like a good place to start one.")

DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER 9/11??

I Lost 2 good friends that day....so as far as I am concerned...we should get everyone and every country that had a hand in what happened.....

And gee whiz...since we have gone to war, there haven't been anymore attacks on US soil...

Well your friends weren't killed by Iraqi peasants. How far would you be willing to go to get 'everyone and every country that had a hand in what happened'? Would you be willing to go after countries and people who weren't involved, but fit in with an agenda of stealing resources from sovereign nations?

Gee whiz. The one has nothing to do with the other.

I am amazed at everyone's short memories here.....you all act as if George Bush decided to just up and start a war somewhere(..."let's see....oh, Iraq looks like a good place to start one.")

DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER 9/11??

I Lost 2 good friends that day....so as far as I am concerned...we should get everyone and every country that had a hand in what happened.....

And gee whiz...since we have gone to war, there haven't been anymore attacks on US soil...

1) Just to start off on a good foot, you're a fucking moron

2) YOu obviously DON'T remember 9/11. Read the 9/11 comission report. Iraq had NO hand in it. Read it again-NONE.

3) Emotion !=logic

4) There's a rock I wanna sell you-it keeps away tigers.

Godwin's Law (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/) strikes again. It seems to be uncommonly prevalent on this forum.

Godwin's Law is only used by fascists.

If a liberal Democrat president had executed the war in Iraq, would there be such strong anti-war sentiment? Would we see many more US conservatives out protesting against the war? Or would they still support it?

No, it would be very popular with the left and hollywood. Conservatives would support it too.

No, it would be very popular with the left and hollywood. Conservatives would support it too.

Bush is still way behind Clinton. Clinton bombed seven countries without provocation. And I never saw anyone protest that, even when he bombed Iraq.

From an international perspective, do bear in mind that many of us here don't give a rats ass about US partisan politics.

We supported Afghanistan because it was a reasonable response to 9-11

We did not support Iraq because we did not feel that GW made his case for it. And we noted the total ineptitude of the planning of this initiative.

But the last thing you can accuse us of is being partisan. We have no affiliation as we have no vested interest in which party rules, but rather have our interest in HOW given leaders rule. We liked some things about Clinton. We didn't like some things about him. He did, however, gain our sympathy Ken Star witchhunt.

Same thing with Reagan although with less sex. Some good. Some bad.


And from our perspective the US does not have a viable "Liberal" party that we might have allowed you to buttonhole us with (although this fascination with abusing labels so you can simplisticly group people together is another thing that I find annoying as hell. It trivializes both sides by assuming homogeneous opinions between people divided into two subsets). The fact is, you have two right-leaning parties. Calling one "left" is only valid because it is to the left of the other, but not to the left of the political center.



Left? Right? whatever! As non-voting observers we are far more interested in right decision versus wrong decision.

If the pres. was liberal, then none of these antiamericans would be protesting the war.

If the pres. was liberal, then none of these antiamericans would be protesting the war.

No, the Democratic party would be self-destructing, just like it did during the Vietnam War. Wait, that couldn't be happenning again, could it... :rolleyes:

WOw.. i love how lpeople against the iraq war jump to conclusions so quickly.. the kid who mentioned 911 never suggested to say that iraqi's caused 911, or had a hand in it.. there is no direct connection betwen 911 and iraq.. but there IS a PROVEN connection between IRaq and its general support for terrorism, against isreal and the United states. Saddam was the one who began the program to give finacial support to Palestinean familes whos members became suicide bombers. Terrorism is a broad term, it donst mean Alqueda.. AL quedea means terrorism, not vice versa.. We took out a nation who supported terrorism, and after 911 we see more clearly th e threat of terrorism.. so what that kid said about 911 is true.. 911 showed us what happens if we ignore terrorism and we shouldn't forget it.

If the pres. was liberal, then none of these antiamericans would be protesting the war.
Actually they would and probably become Conservatives due to the Democratic party losing its values according to them.
Those "Anti" people as you call them are with democrats because Republican party is full of bad policies. Stop doing things like Iraq and they might join your side instead.

Actually they would and probably become Conservatives due to the Democratic party losing its values according to them.
Those "Anti" people as you call them are with democrats because Republican party is full of bad policies. Stop doing things like Iraq and they might join your side instead.
80% of americans support the war in Iraq.

you know what, man, i totally agree with what you said. America is one of the most partisan nations in all the world, and I think that the people that inhabit it are to opinionated to switch their political views just to match the president's. The sad thing is, though, that the war will never get enough liberals to act out and protest. Republicans and right-wingers mostly make up the US, and the media is republican, too, so their will never be a public liberal view on the war...

you know what, man, i totally agree with what you said. America is one of the most partisan nations in all the world, and I think that the people that inhabit it are to opinionated to switch their political views just to match the president's. The sad thing is, though, that the war will never get enough liberals to act out and protest. Republicans and right-wingers mostly make up the US, and the media is republican, too, so their will never be a public liberal view on the war...

Want to know why? Vietnam guilt. It's still with us. Everyone still feels guilty about how the returning soldier was treated in Vietnam, and how we "lost" in Vietnam. And everyone really liked how we "won" the last time.

Never mind why we originally go to a place. We have to "win" now. So for Democrats to go down the path of "let's pick up our toys and go home" is the equivalent of saying "let's tell the world we LOST and go home"

Political suicide. Want to try it?

If the pres. was liberal, then none of these antiamericans would be protesting the war.
80% of americans support the war in Iraq.
Uh-oh, bullshit alert.

Actually they would and probably become Conservatives due to the Democratic party losing its values according to them.
When was pacifism ever a Democrat value?

Uh-oh, bullshit alert.


When was pacifism ever a Democrat value?
No, attacking a nation for false reasons or reasons unconnected to threats told about are not democratic values.
And if we had a LIberal President who took Bush's Iraq war then we would be going against our value.

Its not about pacifism; its about picking enemies that are an actual threat. Not "just kinda" a threat like Iraq.

No, attacking a nation for false reasons or reasons unconnected to threats told about are not democratic values.
And if we had a LIberal President who took Bush's Iraq war then we would be going against our value.

Its not about pacifism; its about picking enemies that are an actual threat. Not "just kinda" a threat like Iraq.

I guess that's why John F. Kennedy sent troops initially to Vietnam. And why Lyndon Johnson invaded Vietnam under false pretenses (the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked).

And why a Republican President got us out of Vietnam.

My Gun Not Yours
And why a Republican President got us out of Vietnam.

being republican.. i hate to be the one to point this out.. but Nixon had no choice... Nixon was in favor of the war (not only that he belived we would win), and actually wanted to increase the mass carpet bombings bombing.. He got out of vietnam cause congress cut all funding .. The only choice he was left with was to pull out..

and Rudolfensia .. i like ur enthusiasm in being republican/concervative.. but.. really.. u have to become informed, start watching Cnn.. or even fox (if u can stand that partisan bias) But to think that 80% of the country is still in favor of the war.. is not even a joke.. its sad.. T_T we as republicans have many good issues we can argue.. but its people who are uninformed that have that tendency to make all republicans look extremist and dumb

80% of americans support the war in Iraq.
Source, dumbass.

If the pres. was liberal, then none of these antiamericans would be protesting the war.

The only anti-american here is YOU. Protest is patriotism. Or would you rather we just sit back and pay our taxes to the king like we're supposed to? We don't wanna be dissenters...

If the pres. was liberal, then none of these antiamericans would be protesting the war.

We have had a thread explaining the illegitimacy of labelling protesters as anti-American. You must have missed that one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/bush_approval_030704.html

Here is a report given by the washingtonpost.. (hardly a liberal news source) that reflect the actual support for Iraq.. its been about 50% for a while now ..

actually i think that link only talks about realitve arpoval rating.. this article actually talks of the real aproval ratings for Iraq in specificity

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/opinion/polls/main614605.shtml

as of 2004

Rather than take the Chomsky-esque stance that the phrase "anti-American" is "totalitarian", I just find the term meaningless.

By definition, Americans are not all alike. Therefore, all US citizens, regardless of their beliefs, are Americans. That's a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs. Saying you're "anti-American" is like saying you don't believe in anything at all.

Hmm. I suppose that's possible, but it's being seriously misused.

Rather than take the Chomsky-esque stance that the phrase "anti-American" is "totalitarian", I just find the term meaningless.

By definition, Americans are not all alike. Therefore, all US citizens, regardless of their beliefs, are Americans. That's a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs. Saying you're "anti-American" is like saying you don't believe in anything at all.

Hmm. I suppose that's possible, but it's being seriously misused.

I agree with you. That was the same reasoning Chomsky used for declaring the saying totalitarian, but as I remember, your differences were in the semantics more than the reasoning.

Source, dumbass.

:) Ah, the smell of desperation hangs in the air.

I do find it funny though.. how people blame bush for not following the UN in IRaq now.. but Blaim Bushes father for not taking care of iraq in the 90's.. even though the UN mandate restricted the US from entering Iraq.

Also.. how good of an argument is it to still stay we should have followed the UN when 1 resoluation 441 authorized "sever consequences" but more importantly after the revalations of the oil for food scandel happening with the French and German authorities. One sticking point grossly under reported during that time was that France demanded if no wepons were found that sanctions be lifted.. (as France was the primary creidtor to Iraq in its oil industry) one argument made these days is that those sanctions were keeping Sadam from his wepons (though he showed great desire to aquire them).

While its easy to say America went in for its own intersets.. the coin has two sides.. It is also clear from the history of the UN's functions.. that unless America took a definitative stance, no action would have been taken against Iraq (even though the inspectors were reporting Saddam was being counter productive and elusive in the inspecition process)

As i recall resolution 441 said that Iraq was a threat and had to comply with the inspectors demands, (which hans blix himself said to the UN was not happening)...

I wouldn't care who started the damn war, it's a war and I hate it. No reason for it. Yes I am a liberal by the way. I'm sure either way I'd hate George Bush more than anyone else ever, but I'd still be horrified at the war if we had a liberal president.

The "liberal" president would perhaps have built a coalition of more significant allies than poland. Moreover he would've created a plan the win the peace.

:) Ah, the smell of desperation hangs in the air.

Yeah, nothing's more desperate then asking for sources. :rolleyes:

Yeah, nothing's more desperate then asking for sources. :rolleyes:
No, nothing is more desperate than resorting to the typical leftist tactic of tossing ad hominem attacks at someone you are not able to fool with twisted logic. Go spew your shit somewhere else.