NationStates Jolt Archive

Granted, many, possibly most, of the people opposed to the Iraq War are on the left. But far from all. There are plenty of people in the center and on the right who are dead-set against it. And of course, libertarians. Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war. Why?

Granted, many, possibly most, of the people opposed to the Iraq War are on the left. But far from all. There are plenty of people in the center and on the right who are dead-set against it. And of course, libertarians. Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war. Why?

While it may be tough to discern from my posts these days (or from the days leading up to the Iraq war), I am firmly against the original pretexts that the Bush Administration used. But I refuse to accept collapse and chaos in Iraq as the result of their mistake. We can rectify the error, it's a costly outcome, but a world in which we don't is a world that is far less safe and desirable than one in which we do realize our failings, and work to fix them.

If we leave Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

If we stay in Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

The difference between the two is that one option will save American lives, one won't. Either way, the Iraqis suffer. :( Incidentally, I doubt many Iraqis want us to stay.

If we leave Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

If we stay in Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

The difference between the two is that one option will save American lives, one won't. Either way, the Iraqis suffer. :( Incidentally, I doubt many Iraqis want us to stay.

The difference is the level of violence, the order of chaos, and the eventual outcome. And help to make it a more favorabe outcome.

Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war. Why?

Read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error (a person believes what they believe because they're "evil," not because of special circumstances, experiences, or situations)

In short: addressing the merits of the argument presented is far to dangerous. In the end, one might find that the argument presented is actually valid. Thus, distracting attention away from dissent, mainly by invoking fear of whatever particular bogeyman, is the name of the game. The result is that all who think like us are noble and good, all who think otherwise are damn dirty hippy commie bastards.

Of course, this also works for leftists who wish to easily dismiss opposing viewpoints as being those of "right-wingers," "fascists," "capitalist pigs," etc.

Granted, many, possibly most, of the people opposed to the Iraq War are on the left. But far from all. There are plenty of people in the center and on the right who are dead-set against it. And of course, libertarians. Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war. Why?

Snarky reply: because they're idiots.

Serious reply: It's pretty much what Dissonant Cognition said - the administration can no longer effectively defend their case, so they resort to rhetorical distractions and emotional appeals.

Because if we don't, the terrorists win by default.

Why is being called a leftist a bad thing? I mean yes it is inacurrate in some cases, but you act as if its an insult.

Why is being called a leftist a bad thing? I mean yes it is inacurrate in some cases, but you act as if its an insult.

Being labeled something one is not, so that one's argument can be ignored without consideration of any kind, is, in fact, quite insulting.

Why is being called a leftist a bad thing? I mean yes it is inacurrate in some cases, but you act as if its an insult.

It's not an insult. I just don't like to be called something I'm not. And it is, quite simply, stupid to lump so many diverse groups under one category.

Well, the initial opposition to the war did come from what passes for the left in the US, so in the beginning, the label was somewhat accurate. But like others have noted, it's really just a cheap and easy shortcut to label a group and attempt to discredit it rather than actually deal with the substance of the issue.

If we leave Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

If we stay in Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

The difference between the two is that one option will save American lives, one won't. Either way, the Iraqis suffer. :( Incidentally, I doubt many Iraqis want us to stay.

i was dead against this war...i am also slightly leaning right in my political stance on economic things,quite liberal in other areas..but as was just stated..we leave now and we are jerkoffs...bomb their country,overturn the asshole saddam,have a bunch of nutcases trying to turn it into another taliban nightmare,and then leave?

my kid just got out of bootcamp,do you really think for a n.y. minute i want him in harms way,that i spent my adult life trying to protect him,just to see him go over there?

obviously i dont want him there..afghanistan is different...we got every right to stomp the taliban,saddam was/is a tyrant...but it was up to the iraqis to overturn his murderous ass,not ours.

however to leave now is bullshit,we broke it,we buy it.shouldnt have been there to begin with for too many reasons to list.

to leave now means all the kids and iraqis died for nothing,and i will not condone cutting out like a bunch of assholes,not to mention the power vacuum that we would create,and even more innocents dying,and the real possibility that it would degenerate further into another afghanistan.

not to mention,there is something to be said about fighting the jihadists over there...cynical and selfish and at great exspence to the iraqis...sure.

but their is no other option,we are in a fight now,and leaving is as wrong as going in was.

to your question...people are called leftist's for the same reason that people that hate bush call anyone supporting the troops as warmongers..ad nauseam...pathetic political nonsense...the left is blinded by their disdain for bush(rightly so)but also blinded by that same disdain to logic and common sense...same as the bushovics are with the opposite rhetoric....sad

lest we forget...we are at war with radical muslim fundies,and they are not going to go away if we leave,pull our troops out of the gulf,whatever.

we are their now,and it is the frontlines in this war.

p.s.i thought we should have concentrated our collective efforts on afghanistan,till the country was rebuilt,and osama was hanging from a tree..but we squandered the worlds support for us,and also managed to open another front that drains our resources...very stupid..but it is what it is...and leaving now would be as stupid as going there in the first place...just my humble op.:(

It's not an insult. I just don't like to be called something I'm not. And it is, quite simply, stupid to lump so many diverse groups under one category.

you know that cuts both ways...many here jump all over repub's or "the right"

pot calling kettle black?

not siding with either side,just pointing out that everyone is pointing crooked fingers from both sides.

to leave now means all the kids and iraqis died for nothing

I'm sorry, but that's another disgusting emotional appeal.

As Kerry said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

I'm sorry, but that's another disgusting emotional appeal.

As Kerry said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

i understand your point...i really do,as i have a son about to be deployed to god knows where.
and i hate it,i would go for him if i could.

it is just my op that to leave now would be a huge mistake,the fight aint lost quite yet i guess,and it seems to me that would kinda leave the iraqis in the lurch what with a civil war looming.

i think we owe them some support for a little.

i am all for a reduction of our efforts their,but not just leave them at the hands of militias..etc.

and to quote kerry(would you like some ketchup with your lies)is not really relevant...vietnam was a mistake on so many levels...but i know this,if we brought our full military might to bear,the vc/nva would have sued for peace much like what occured in korea.
not to mention,and i know people from vietnam....the horror show that occured when we abruptly left(think re education camps..mass murder of supporters of the b.s. souths gov..on and on)
if we had done a few things differently...thousands may not have suffered after the war was over.
i dont want to get into a debate on fighting wars,and especialy vietnam...but i do think,we still have a chance to help iraq out of the mess we made,and i for one dont(as much as america haters would love to see iraq fall apart to be able to blame america)want to see that.

it is not an emotional responce...it is just me wanting to at the least see the innocent people of iraq not degenerate into chaos cause we bugged out..it is wrong to leave them in this mess....period.
it would then become another vietnam...but with other geopolitical repurcussions.

Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war.

Because it is easier to label your opponents than to actually address their arguments.

i was dead against this war...i am also slightly leaning right in my political stance on economic things,quite liberal in other areas..but as was just stated..we leave now and we are jerkoffs...bomb their country,overturn the asshole saddam,have a bunch of nutcases trying to turn it into another taliban nightmare,and then leave?

my kid just got out of bootcamp,do you really think for a n.y. minute i want him in harms way,that i spent my adult life trying to protect him,just to see him go over there?

obviously i dont want him there..afghanistan is different...we got every right to stomp the taliban,saddam was/is a tyrant...but it was up to the iraqis to overturn his murderous ass,not ours.

however to leave now is bullshit,we broke it,we buy it.shouldnt have been there to begin with for too many reasons to list.

to leave now means all the kids and iraqis died for nothing,and i will not condone cutting out like a bunch of assholes,not to mention the power vacuum that we would create,and even more innocents dying,and the real possibility that it would degenerate further into another afghanistan.

not to mention,there is something to be said about fighting the jihadists over there...cynical and selfish and at great exspence to the iraqis...sure.

but their is no other option,we are in a fight now,and leaving is as wrong as going in was.

to your question...people are called leftist's for the same reason that people that hate bush call anyone supporting the troops as warmongers..ad nauseam...pathetic political nonsense...the left is blinded by their disdain for bush(rightly so)but also blinded by that same disdain to logic and common sense...same as the bushovics are with the opposite rhetoric....sad

lest we forget...we are at war with radical muslim fundies,and they are not going to go away if we leave,pull our troops out of the gulf,whatever.

we are their now,and it is the frontlines in this war.

p.s.i thought we should have concentrated our collective efforts on afghanistan,till the country was rebuilt,and osama was hanging from a tree..but we squandered the worlds support for us,and also managed to open another front that drains our resources...very stupid..but it is what it is...and leaving now would be as stupid as going there in the first place...just my humble op.:(

I agree 100% with your 'humble op'. It started off in favour of this war but have now changed my opinion completely - is it turning me from a righty to a leftie??

my 2 cents:
although the pretext for an "invasion" of iraq was completely bogus and i've come to believe that the entire 9/11 bombings/hijackings were nothing other than an extended ploy to make money and or cement power for a chosen few. i side with those that want the troops to stay in iraq, however my reasons may be quite different. mainly that any drain on america's economic and military power is a good thing in and of itself and therfore im quite happy that the continue to kick the shit out of some poor defenceless (read here totally unbalanced power) iraqi's. morally i object to the killing etc but hey what u gonna do? protest? yeah right, your government killed almost 3000 of its own citizens so it could start out on a warpath, you really think anything you say will be heeded?
hmm sorry mean to be a quick reply there

my 2 cents:
although the pretext for an "invasion" of iraq was completely bogus and i've come to believe that the entire 9/11 bombings/hijackings were nothing other than an extended ploy to make money and or cement power for a chosen few. i side with those that want the troops to stay in iraq, however my reasons may be quite different. mainly that any drain on america's economic and military power is a good thing in and of itself and therfore im quite happy that the continue to kick the shit out of some poor defenceless (read here totally unbalanced power) iraqi's. morally i object to the killing etc but hey what u gonna do? protest? yeah right, your government killed almost 3000 of its own citizens so it could start out on a warpath, you really think anything you say will be heeded?
hmm sorry mean to be a quick reply there
*tries to look for "It's A Conspiracy!" picture but fails*
*restorts to enlarged HAHAHAHA*
I'm not sure what my opinion is on troops staying in Iraq. I still believe that there was plenty of moral justification for the war: after all, despite sounding cliched, Saddam was an evil dictator. You all remember the pictures of Iraqis cheering Coalition troops as their liberators and toppling statues. However, it's pretty clear now that it's a complete fiasco and was a huge mistake. But everyone goes "omg, ebil americans!!11" when it's neglected that most of the violence at the moment is done by Iraqis trying to 'liberate' their country from democracy and stability. You want the US troops out: STOP BLOWING STUFF UP AND THEY'LL LEAVE. But the Iraqis side with the insurgents, although ten Iraqis are killed for every American soldier. Maybe we should just pull out, since that's what everyone wants us to do, and say "Don't look at us... you asked us to leave" when Iraq descends into civil war.

Granted, many, possibly most, of the people opposed to the Iraq War are on the left. But far from all. There are plenty of people in the center and on the right who are dead-set against it. And of course, libertarians. Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war. Why?

On the contrary, many conservatives people felt, and rightly so, that the Iraq ar was an unnecessary distraction from the war on terrorism.

Many more feel duped(and rightly so) by the administration over the spun intel that led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Then there are right-wing libertarian who feel that the United States has no business in foreign countries and should focus on internal security.

Plenty of people from all political affiliations object to the Iraq war. As time goes by, more and more of them have their blind patriotism and support of their republican presidential candidate overpowered by their own senses. *nod*

If we leave Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

If we stay in Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos.

The difference between the two is that one option will save American lives, one won't. Either way, the Iraqis suffer. :( Incidentally, I doubt many Iraqis want us to stay.

SO the question ought to be; Will they suffer more with us, or without us? Considering that the majority of the fighting is ABOUT us, I think it would be in their best interest to remove the biggest reasons for the insurgency; Foreign troops.

In short: addressing the merits of the argument presented is far to dangerous. In the end, one might find that the argument presented is actually valid. Thus, distracting attention away from dissent, mainly by invoking fear of whatever particular bogeyman, is the name of the game. The result is that all who think like us are noble and good, all who think otherwise are damn dirty hippy commie bastards.

Of course, this also works for leftists who wish to easily dismiss opposing viewpoints as being those of "right-wingers," "fascists," "capitalist pigs," etc.

Your argument sucks, because you're a leftist fascist capitalist money-grabbing treehugging commie pig.

Signed:

P. J. Noble III
T. C. Good PhD

Iraq is all but in civil war as it is. I know that to pull out now would leave the country in an even worse state, so it's simply not an option at this state (or at least, not a very attractive one). But there does need to be something done to stop troops making things worse. Yes, they're being shot at, yes they can't be very pleased with the Iraqis, but I still don't appreciate Western troops being on the news after having rpaed and killed Iraqi civilians.

This is especially unhelpful when I catch one of these news reports while I'm visiting my Pakistani friends.

Whether the war is justified, right, or legal is pretty much now irrelevant. Questions as to the behaviour of each of the sides are the important ones. And do remember what happened in Vietnam. The war got worse and worse, troops kept dying, and the US eventually had to pull out to cut their losses before the country was back in any semblence of order. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, the initial opposition to the war did come from what passes for the left in the US, so in the beginning, the label was somewhat accurate. But like others have noted, it's really just a cheap and easy shortcut to label a group and attempt to discredit it rather than actually deal with the substance of the issue.

Most libertarians opposed it from the beginning, as well.

SO the question ought to be; Will they suffer more with us, or without us? Considering that the majority of the fighting is ABOUT us, I think it would be in their best interest to remove the biggest reasons for the insurgency; Foreign troops.

Agreed, L.G.

Because somehow "liberal" is the worst insult in the United States and "leftists" is synonymous with it.

Because somehow "liberal" is the worst insult in the United States and "leftists" is synonymous with it.

No, the term "leftist" is probably used because someone used the term "neocon" or "right-wing extremist" to characterize the person in favor of military action.

Most libertarians opposed it from the beginning, as well.True, but libertarians in the U.S. are fairly insignificant, as they don't fit within the two-party-mold, be they right-wing or left-wing libertarians.

Granted, many, possibly most, of the people opposed to the Iraq War are on the left. But far from all. There are plenty of people in the center and on the right who are dead-set against it. And of course, libertarians. Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war. Why?
Because it's easier to put a general umbrella label on something than to figure out why that person believes what they do.

It's easier to stereotype.

True, but libertarians in the U.S. are fairly insignificant, as they don't fit within the two-party-mold, be they right-wing or left-wing libertarians.

True.

Because somehow "liberal" is the worst insult in the United States and "leftists" is synonymous with it.

You beat me to it. I hear it all the time from conservatives who blame everything in the world on liberals. 9/11? Liberals. Insurgency in Iraq? The liberals' fault. Unemployment? The liberals and their minimum wage laws. That Danish that disappeared off Dubya's desk? No doubt it's a liberal conspiracy.

You beat me to it. I hear it all the time from conservatives who blame everything in the world on liberals. 9/11? Liberals. Insurgency in Iraq? The liberals' fault. Unemployment? The liberals and their minimum wage laws. That Danish that disappeared off Dubya's desk? No doubt it's a liberal conspiracy.

I hear the same thing about "neocons". When what people really mean by "neocon" is "Jew".

I hear the same thing about "neocons". When what people really mean by "neocon" is "Jew".

If they were christians, they would still be dickheads. :p

I hear the same thing about "neocons". When what people really mean by "neocon" is "Jew".

The ones I can think of off the top of my head don't strike me as Jews. Frankly, I doubt the whole "Jewish conspiracy" behind the neocon movement; all they want is power, and Israel's worked with the U.S. for decades.

OK, I'm not being clever anymore. Carry on.

If they were christians, they would still be dickheads. :p

Well, I think that when people say "leftist" or "right wing extremist" or "neocon" or "Democrat wuss" or "Republican asshat" they really mean "dickhead".

I hear the same thing about "neocons". When what people really mean by "neocon" is "Jew".

When I say "neocon" I mean Bushevik/warmonger.

When I say "neocon" I mean Bushevik/warmonger.

Too bad people don't fit into the simple little boxes you came up with.

Too bad people don't fit into the simple little boxes you came up with.

Don't worry; we can pack them tighter.

Too bad people don't fit into the simple little boxes you came up with.

You do. Most Republicons do.

I'm right-wing and I am against Iraq's invasion...

How is that possible?

I am not a citizen of the United States, amplified by the fact that I do not belong to the anglosaxon culture (that add the british lads to the formula). Therefore, the labels of "left" and "right" are blurry in several cases of foreigners who are against that war, and yet are not "liberals" in the sense of the word and concept as it is used in the USA.

It is a partial answer, but still applies.

You do. Most Republicons do.

Really? You evidently don't read enough of my posts.

Let's have a laugh, shall we?

What do you think my positions are on:

Abortion
Evolution
Homosexuality
Religion in public schools
Gun ownership
The War in Afghanistan
The War in Iraq
Serving in the military

Let's see if I fit in a Republican box. Go ahead - put the standard Republican positions in all of those topics.

Really? You evidently don't read enough of my posts.

When it comes to foreign policy, you're a thoroughbred neocon.

When it comes to foreign policy, you're a thoroughbred neocon.

Nope, wrong again.

When it comes to foreign policy, you're a thoroughbred neocon.

You don't know what my positions are on any of those things I listed.

Granted, many, possibly most, of the people opposed to the Iraq War are on the left. But far from all. There are plenty of people in the center and on the right who are dead-set against it. And of course, libertarians. Yet, anyone, regardless of ideology, who even questions the war, is branded a "leftist," a "liberal," or a "commie" by backers of the war. Why?



You answered your own question . Granted, many, possibly most, of the people opposed to the Iraq War are on the left.

I support that the war needs to be won ...I do not support the way its being handled and am appalled by the lack of planning for the aftermath and the intelligence failures that led up to it. I am far from a leftist ...but I cant see how a logical person usung reason and good judgemt and having any Idea of the US and its history along with the history of the region , can justify being " against the war " As in .."Wars over bring everyone home screw it , whatever happens ...happens".

Thats got to be the dumbest thing and most dangerouse thing the US can do .

Being against the way the war is / was fought and the reasons for waging it is one thing. And alot of people are on that TRAIN. BUT we are there and we must now win . To not win would be a disaster. And we are far from being in the position ..or even close to being in the position of losing...only by giving up or doing stupid stuff like leaving before its time can we lose .

Now take a look at Sheehan and the rest of the looneys..." they " are associated with the anti war whiners and its because they are the most visable and noisy ..along with DEAN and the goofball in Con. etc.

I'm right-wing and I am against Iraq's invasion...

How is that possible?

I am not a citizen of the United States, amplified by the fact that I do not belong to the anglosaxon culture (that add the british lads to the formula). Therefore, the labels of "left" and "right" are blurry in several cases of foreigners who are against that war, and yet are not "liberals" in the sense of the word and concept as it is used in the USA.

It is a partial answer, but still applies.


You scare me...:eek: YOUR right wing ????;)

You scare me...:eek: YOUR right wing ????;)

In my country, usually people, (politicians, other media collegues, even my family and the population in general) define me by those words.

I see myself as a moderate right winger.

Really? You evidently don't read enough of my posts.

Let's have a laugh, shall we?

What do you think my positions are on:

Abortion
Evolution
Homosexuality
Religion in public schools
Gun ownership
The War in Afghanistan
The War in Iraq
Serving in the military

Let's see if I fit in a Republican box. Go ahead - put the standard Republican positions in all of those topics.

May I take a stab at what I think your opinions are on these? This is just a semi-educated guess; correct me if I am wrong.

Abortion - You probably think the state has better things to do than ban abortion.

Evolution - You probably think it's a pretty good idea. We all should evolve.

Homosexuality - Again, the state has better things to do.

Religion in public schools - Out with all of it. Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Jedi. Out with it all.

Gun ownership - Probably with a few restrictions.

War in Afghanistan - Lemme guess...fundamentally good idea, execution could be better.

War in Iraq - Same as Afghanistan. Saddam had to go, but winning the peace has proved difficult.

Serving in the military - I'd venture you would encourage it but not require it.

How'd I do?

On the contrary, many conservatives people felt, and rightly so, that the Iraq ar was an unnecessary distraction from the war on terrorism.

Many more feel duped(and rightly so) by the administration over the spun intel that led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Then there are right-wing libertarian who feel that the United States has no business in foreign countries and should focus on internal security.

Plenty of people from all political affiliations object to the Iraq war. As time goes by, more and more of them have their blind patriotism and support of their republican presidential candidate overpowered by their own senses. *nod*

i have to agree with your points,as i said previously,i am kinda right on econ issues,left on personal freedoms,and i also think we should only meddle with other countries when absolutely neccassary for our national security...afghanistans-correct response to 911.....iraq-incorrect use of our power and not an imminent threat to the u.s.

people need to focus less on political rhetoric,and more on finding common ground.
and by that i mean...stop the your a lefty=commie hippie and your a righty=neocon warmonger,
it simply is not true for most on either side,but the noisy epithet screaming extremes from both sides that seem to be heard...the worst examples of both sides..sad

SO the question ought to be; Will they suffer more with us, or without us? Considering that the majority of the fighting is ABOUT us, I think it would be in their best interest to remove the biggest reasons for the insurgency; Foreign troops.

Bingo.

-snip-

The emotional argument that disgusted me (and still disgusts me, although you seem to havce backed off from it) was that we should continue to send good men to die in the name of a mistake that has become a lost cause, simply because of deaths that have already occured.