RSS Feed
Update: Welcome readers of the selectively-quoting Salon.com website. Before you go ape-s##t in the comments, READ what I wrote first. My main point is that hey, if the New York Times can play “what if” games with history, then why can’t we?
Still trying to say that Iraq is like Vietnam, but it isn’t:
The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war — but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.
Now, in urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, President Bush is challenging that historical memory.
In reminding Americans that the pullout in 1975 was followed by years of bloody upheaval in Southeast Asia, Mr. Bush argued in a speech on Wednesday that Vietnam’s lessons provide a reason for persevering in Iraq, rather than for leaving any time soon. Mr. Bush in essence accused his war critics of amnesia over the exodus of Vietnamese “boat people” refugees and the mass killings in Cambodia that upended the lives of millions of people.
President Bush is right on the factual record, according to historians. But many of them also quarreled with his drawing analogies from the causes of that turmoil to predict what might happen in Iraq should the United States withdraw.
“It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia,” said David C. Hendrickson, a specialist on the history of American foreign policy at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.
“But there are a couple of further points that need weighing,” he added. “One is that the Khmer Rouge would never have come to power in the absence of the war in Vietnam — this dark force arose out of the circumstances of the war, was in a deep sense created by the war. The same thing has happened in the Middle East today. Foreign occupation of Iraq has created far more terrorists than it has deterred.”
Well, since we’re conjecturing cause and effect, why don’t we consider what would have happened if we hadn’t gone into Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11. Don’t you think that quite a few radical Islamists would have joined the jihaad after seeing us attacked and doing nothing about it? After all, bin Laden hit us numerous times before that, and we did nothing…yet his organization grew, didn’t it? Why do you think that is? Hmm?
Vietnam was at war before we arrived, let’s not forget that. Simply believing that “A” wouldn’t have happened without “B” is nonsense…you can’t possibly know what would have happened. It’s entirely possible that even had we not gone into Vietnam, Pol Pot and his gang of thugs would still have risen. It’s quite possible that the wholesale slaughter of South Vietnamese would have been greater, not less.
You can play “what if” as much as you want with history, but the thing is, you just never know. I’ve always believed in destiny, or fate, if you will. That some things happen for a reason, and for whatever reason, certain men are destined to be at a certain place and time to guide those events.
My favorite saying is (stolen a little from “Jurassic Park”) “History will find a way.” By that, I mean if something happened to one of these “destiny men”, history or fate or whatever you want to call it, will find someone else to be in the right place at the right time.
For example, Churchill was nearly killed in a car accident during a trip to New York City. Before he was PM of Great Britain. By his own account, he should have been killed…but he wasn’t. You know the rest.
Hitler was gassed during WWI, and easily could have died. But he didn’t. And he went on to kill millions and ignite a world war.
FDR was nearly killed by an assassin before his first inauguration. The person next to him was killed, but he was unharmed. He went on to lead us to victory in WWII.
Castro was nearly a pro baseball player, but for whatever reason, it didn’t work out.
You get my point: for whatever reasons, history finds these people to lead certain events or cause change, be they good or evil, and a lot of them have a huge “what if” in their past. Now, why history/fate/destiny does this, I don’t know. I’m not about to question God’s motives, but if I had to guess, I’d say perhaps it’s to teach us that evil exists (a lesson we seem to forget, time and time again, and need reminding of) and that we need to face and defeat it.
Anyway, I’ve rambled on long enough with that, but you get my point: to simply say that Pol Pot and all that would never have happened is ridiculous. And to say there were no ill effects of our withdrawal on American or our allies is equally ridiculous. Perhaps the people at the New York Times forget, but I don’t.
Right after our withdrawal from Vietnam, several things happened (and continue to happen). We became a nation unwilling to fight for our friends or when our national interests are at stake. And our allies saw that. So did our enemies.
The Soviet Union exploited our new weakness and began to probe into new areas where we never would have allowed them to probe before. Afghanistan, Central America, parts of Africa…I should think that millions of people, whom we considered friends, if not allies, would beg to differ that there were no ill results. Millions suffered because America was in retreat.
We began to gut our military, and the Soviets took advantage of that, too. A huge arms race began, but there was one problem: we weren’t really participating in it. Hillary can say we need to withdraw from Iraq to ‘get ready for the next war’, but one of the lessons of the post-Vietnam era is that when liberals are in power after a military defeat, they don’t rebuild our forces, they gut them. Our navy lacked spare parts to the point where many of them could not go to sea if it were required of them. Our nuclear forces were aging, and they sure as heck weren’t deterring the Russians at all. That’s why the Reagan build-up was so huge, because we had fallen so far behind in virtually every category, and hundreds of billions of dollars were required to get our military back to where it should have been.
Make no mistake, it’s no accident that Russia and China are arming themselves to the teeth right now, because they know what will follow if we retreat in disgrace from Iraq. All they, or anyone else, have to do is look to the 1970s and see for themselves. They are arming so they will be in perfect position to be major military powers when we start gutting our forces when we come home. Now, I’m not saying they’re planning for war, but they are certainly planning to become world powers on a par with the United States…and that, given their history, should concern everyone.
Leaving Iraq now, before the mission is complete, will be like leaving Vietnam. It will cause untold misery, mass killings across the region, it could very well spread into a huge conflict across the middle east, and it could very well escalate into a real, actual global war. And why wouldn’t it? The fanatics over there would have been proven correct, that we won’t fight, no matter what is at stake, so they would feel free to attack anyone, anywhere.
Our allies will have learned never to rely on us or even trust us to keep our word or honor our committments. Our enemies will have learned that all they have to do to defeat us is not lose. If they can stay in the fight for a year or two, we’ll get tired and come home. They, on the other hand, will emerge stronger and continue the fight, whether we resist or not. More 9/11s are in our future, ladies and gentlemen, if we don’t deal with this now.
No, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and nobody ever said it did. But Saddam was sponsoring terrorists of his own, and that was unacceptable. We were wrong about WMDs, but that wasn’t the sole reason for going in. It was as much a humanitarian mission as it was a mission to rid the world of a grave threat, one that couldn’t be ignored any longer.
Yet the same people who take issue with our liberation of millions of Iraqis are and complaining how we are supposedly bogged down in Iraq are now demanding that we go into Darfur to help there. We can’t do that, because our interests are not at stake, not even in the slightest. Darfur poses no threat to us, period, and never will. Perhaps they forget Mogadishu and the lessons we learned from that: you don’t commit troops to an area where your national security interests are not at stake.
We leave Iraq before the mission is done, and it will all be for nothing. Three thousand brave men and women will have given their lives in vain. And it won’t stop there, by any stretch of the imagination. They WILL follow us home. They WILL cause havoc, death, and destruction to us and our friends and allies.
You think Iraq is creating more terrorists now? Wait until we retreat and see just how many join the cause. Iraq is merely one battle in a long war. The sooner this country realizes it, the sooner we can get on to winning the war on terrorism and the sooner we can bring the troops home.
Popularity: 7% [?]
I would guess that the NYT reporter never visited Little Saigon in Orange County.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:01 am“what would have happened if we hadn’t gone into Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11. ”
Wow what a straw-man! Of course that’s the only way you can make a point with this kind of back-asswards way of thinking, so I guess you kinda have to set it up this way..
So let’s try again to make the above into a coherent statement:
“what would have happened if we hadn’t gone into Iraq, but instead had gone into Afghanistan and *finished* the job there (ya know, uh, capturing Bin Laden?)”
So what would have happened? The Islamic jihadists would have seen that America doesn’t mess around, and will immediately capture or eliminate anybody that f*cks with us. Period.
What do they see now instead? They see that we can be drawn into a completely unrelated conflict (suckers!) and worse, can be slowly but surely defeated with nothing more than a little patience and a whole bunch of homemade IEDs. Brilliant!
This True Conservative can’t wait until the all these neo-con clowns (mostly former communists) are completely
discredited, so we can get back to taking names and kicking ass in the True American (i.e. no-nonsense) Way.
God Bless!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmHey, if the NYTimes could speculate on stuff they can’t know the answer to, then why can’t I? That was my point: you can’t possibly know the answer to the “what if” they threw out there, so I threw out one of my own.
As for thinking that the terrorists would have just laid down their arms had we got bin Laden, that’s pretty naive, don’t you think?
The terrorists will not defeat us on the battlefield. The only way they are going to beat us is if we come home before we’re done.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmAs long as we’re playing “what if” … what if we had dedicated our military might to invading Afghanistan, routing the Taliban, capturing the leaders of Al Quaeda? And what if we hadn’t wasted our blood and treasure on a useless foray into Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack or any other attack on the US? Why, I guess we would have proven how we can strike back immediately, precisely and with just cause.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmNobody ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They did say, correctly, that Saddam had sponsored terrorism…and that was a valid reason to go in.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 pmsponsors of terrorism we didn’t attack? And that DID have something to do with 9/11? Start with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan .. our ‘friends’.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmI’m sure we’ll deal with them when the time is right. Right now, both countries are helping us in the war on terrorism…and once that’s over, I would expect us to tell them to clean up their own country, or we’ll do it for them.
Unless, of course, libs are in power…they’ll just ignore the problem, like Clinton did for 8 years.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 pmAgreed, we can play “what if” games all day - but I stand by my point - directly going after those who did this and getting them would have been a whole lot more impressive to these jihadist freaks than getting mired down in a quagmire (giggidy giggidy giggidy!)
And the whole “terrorists in Iraq” thing is a straw-man too - they’re there because *we* let them in by removing the iron fist of Saddam (who *hated* islamists) and replacing it with chaos. Nice one!
Yeah Saddam was a baddie, but if we’re going into “liberate” his subjects, why can’t we do the same in Darfur (no I don’t think we should, just pointing out it’s the *exact* same way of thinking).
And no, terrorists don’t beat us if we give up on an unwinnable war that only serves to show us as weak, day after day, week after week, year after year. The way terrorists win is by *terrorizing* us.
So how do we win? By standing, being True Brave Americans and laughing at their weakness. And picking them off one by one as they show their pathetic little heads..
What did we do instead? Got our panties in a bunch with talk of WMD, color-coded alerts, etc. Shit, our so-called leaders were the ones inciting the fear! Whose side are they on, anyway??
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:12 pmThe time was right in September 2001. Those two countries are continuing to protect and fund terrorists. What incentive do they have to “clean up” their countries? Oh, we’re going to clean up the rest of the world? You and what worn-down, used-up, under-armored army?
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:12 pmTrueCon - I agree 100%. We have been betrayed by our own leaders.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 pmT.C.: We didn’t go in to “liberate” them, that was just a fringe benefit. To ignore that Saddam was a threat was unacceptable any longer. I didn’t say he had ties to al Qaeda (though he certainly had them in his country), I said he was sponsoring terrorists. Remember his promise to give the families of martyrs money?
Darfur is completely different. In no way, shape, or form can the violence going on over there threaten our interests here.
Your problem with that plan is this: how many people have to die? You say to pick them off one by one as they show their heads…well, usually when they do pop up, it’s during an attack…so again, how many people have to die so we can get just this one person? That’s moronic.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pmSuch is the sad state of the American “right” today - the day a True (small government, freedom loving) Conservative has to admit the silly leftists are making a whole lot more just plain *common sense* than the so called “conservatives” (really, former commies, and *still* lovers of big government).
Bonus: I just realized the name of this blog is “Libery Pundit”. Oh the irony. Brian, you don’t seem like a bad guy, but I gotta say: “Libery” is the OPPOSITE of involving oneself in foreign wars and squashing dissent at home. And enlarging government. And running that government in secrecy… etc. etc. etc.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 pmIf you think the lefties make more sense on this, then you, sir, are not, and never have been, a “true conservative”, especially if you think I’m a former commie or a lover of big government.
Nobody is squashing dissent at home…right there, that tells me you’re a lefty troll. That’s a pure liberal talking point if I ever heard one.
As for involving ourselves in foreign wars, it’s called self-defense. Maybe you’ve heard of it. What do you propose, that we wait around until some nutjob blows up NYC and kills millions of people before we dare strike back?
Again…you are not a conservative, and you more than likely never were. Nice try, though.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmThe reason we lost Vietnam was very simple. We chose to fight for a country {south vVietnam] whose government and majority of citizens were not committed to fighting for themselves. Their government was corrupt and large parts of their military lazy, dis-loyal to the people and infiltrated by the enemy. Sound familiar. You can’t fight a war for others and win if they aren’t willing to go all out against the foe. Korea is a good example of where the opposite was true. The south Korean people were mostly united with war fighters who were and still are probably the most fearless and ferocious in the war.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmAnd also, i left the army in 1974 and afterward followed closely the happenings in Vietnam . The blood bath everyone expected just didn’t happened.
The war on terrorism reminds me of the war on weeds I fight every day in my garden. I will NEVER get rid of all the weeds in the world … but I can selectively nip them in the bud as they sprout. I would be pretty stupid if I wasted my time spraying where there are almost no weeds. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan = WEEDS. Iraq = used to be almost no weeds, now LOTS of weeds. Yikes!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmReally? There was no bloodbath at all? Funny, but history says different.
I don’t disagree with you about the Vietnamese people not wanting to fight, but I don’t think that’s what lost the war. What lost the war was people here at home who weren’t willing to stand up and fight the communists. History does repeat itself. Perhaps the Iraqis know, based on our past history of cutting and running, that it’s probably not too wise to be on the wrong side of the lines when we cut and run from this war, too.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pmBrian, the war was packaged and sold as “liberation” and “democracy building” after the original WMD reason was discredited. Saddam’s support of “martyrs” was never a huge factor, but you’re saying that alone was reason enough to go in? yikes..
Again, no love lost between Saddam and Islamic terorists. Yes he did support the so-called “martyrs” but that was terrorism against *Israel* not America. Let them deal with it. A True Conservative doesn’t get involved in other’s messes (as you yourself pointed out regarding Darfur).
Oh, but isn’t Israel’s interests the same as ours? I would hope not to have to point out: they are a socialist country, founded on the *opposite* of freedom of religion! What True Conservative wants anything to do with that? jeez…
And yes, sometimes the only way to catch a terrorist is to wait until something blows up. But pre-emptive action is possible - it takes place by collecting intellgence (not ignoring it, or setting up your own intelligence gathering office, when you don’t like what the pros are telling you). Here’s a tip: alienating the entire world community only hinders that effort.
And yes shit will still sometimes blow up, but you know what? 9/11 didn’t kill that many people. The horror of 9/11 wasn’t the death toll (far more die on highways) but the *fear* - fear which was enflamed by our so-called leaders. Laughing with True American Bravery at these cowards would have been a much more appropriate response than cowering in fear, and letting our leaders strip away our rights, dignity, and common sense.
I could go on all day swatting down these strawmen, but I have to get back to work.. Later folks and God Bless.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pmI’m saying that there was more than one reason to go into Iraq, all of which had to do with our long-term security.
Israel is socialist? M’kay.
Wait until they kill/blow stuff up? Pure genius.
3000 lives “isn’t that many”? Then tell me, why is it such a big deal that we’re in Iraq? About 3000 troops have been lost there. Why are they a big deal to you, but 3000 normal American citizens aren’t? Shouldn’t it be equal?
And don’t factor in the enormous damage to our economy that these guys inflicted, or the costs of the towers, the airplanes, the damage to the Pentagon, etc.
I don’t think Americans are running around in a panic (another lefty talking point). Yes, we’re on guard, as we should be, but scared to death? No.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pmBrian Your right there was a bloodbath. It happened during the war not after. I believe it was 3 million vietnamese and 59,000 american soldiers . The killing was done by both sides just like all wars. There was genocide in Cambodia and the reasons for that are open to debate
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmbut a bloodbath in Vietnam, didn’t happen.
Oh I just couldn’t resist coming back here on my break and checking things out. More strawmen as expected:
“Israel is socialist? M’kay.” Read about its history and the “kibbutz”. ‘Nuf said.
“Wait until they kill/blow stuff up? Pure genius.” Not what I said: I said “sometimes you have to wait”. Insert the word “unfortunately” there and you’ll get my point.
Just realism: the only way to prevent all terrorist attacks ever, is to implant electrodes into everybody’s heads and read their thoughts. (Of course that’s a wet dream to a lot of fascists out there, but I wouldn’t expect this type of thinking from somebody who titles his blog with the word “Liberty”!!)
I never said 3,000 was a lot of deaths on the battlefield, far more were lost in the WWII, a *just* war to stop the spread of fascism. Once again, you’re conflating me with the Loony Left.
On that topic, you accuse me of not being a conservative, and worse, of being a lefty troll! I didn’t think it was that hard to see my stripes, but here’s a handy little guide:
* Leftist: loves big government, massive taxes to pay for special interest entitlements
* Neocon (Facist?): loves big government, massive borrowing to pay for unneeded foreign “adventures”
* True Conservative: *hates* big goverment, hates taxes, hates borrowing (from Communist China!), doesn’t get involved in foreign adventures.
–
* Leftist: wants to start a war to “liberate” Darfur
* Neocon: wants to start a war to “liberate” Iraq
* True Conservative: doesn’t want to start a war, but will kick your ass if you start one on him. And he *can* kick your ass, because he’s not tied up in foreign adventures
Now specifically you call me a lefty cause I talk about “squashing dissent”, think about those folks who were arrested for wearing anti-bush T-shirts at a campaign rally, just one case in many, but a good example:
* Leftist: upset that some of their own were harrassed
* Neocon (again, fascist?): glad to see a couple of loony leftists beat up and taken to jail
* True Conservative: upset that *anyone* would be violently attacked by agents of the state for the text on their goddamn T-shirt!!
Are you getting it? I hope so…
Finally:
* Leftist: votes for Hillary and all she stands for (oh GOD no)
* Neocon: votes for Cheney/Bush and their massive expansion of federal goverment
* True Conservative: votes for…. Oh I think you all know the answer to that one! Do I really need to say his name??
Later!
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pmI already know who you mean (Ron Paul?)…I knew where this was going to begin with, and thus, I’ll say it again…you, sir, are not a conservative, and neither is that lunatic.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmActually Ron Paul, like True Conservative above is more representative of the history of the Conservative movement in this country, which has its roots in Classical Liberalism of the 19th century and the political philosophy of men like Thomas Jefferson. It was only starting with the Cold War that the conservative movement began to warp itself into a state-worshiping movement. With the arrival of the neocons, a movement heavily influenced by Trotskyism (i.e. global revolution), the transformation into something radical and certainly not conservative happened. It’s pretty simple really, if you’re against big government, government interference in individuals’ affairs, taxes, welfare programs, and needless foreign adventures, traditionally you’d be called conservative. “Mr. Republican”, Senator Robert Taft, was a firm believer in all of the above. In fact Ron Paul’s positions reflect Taft’s more than any other current Republican candidate for President.
Conservative doesn’t mean being belligerent, which apparently you don’t understand. When you’re for big government, foreign wars, suspension of constitutional rights, big government spying, torture, all on the tax-payer’s dime, you’re certainly not conservative. If you believe in spreading liberal democracy through war, among other means, then you’re a neocon and you have more in common with global revolution desiring Trotskyites than Senator Taft.
It’s funny you call Ron Paul a “lunatic” A man who’s against wars of agression, who wants to lower your taxes and maybe abolish the IRS, who cares about preserving your consitutional rights, who wants to reduce government rather than expand it is a lunatic? You sound like a leftist.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pmYeah, he’s a nutjob. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job…at least, that’s the kind of people he surrounds himself with.
Interesting your “theory” about conservatives…just too bad not a word of it is true.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:51 pmhilarious line “what would have happened if we hadn’t gone into iraq and afghanistan”, as if they both mattered equally and were both necessitated by 9/11. Afghanistan is where the terrorists WERE and Iraq was where the terrorists WERENT. See the difference?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pmDid you read the entire thing in context, or are you just reacting to the selective quote from the lefty sites?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pmA nutjob? I don’t recall him ever saying 9/11 was an inside job. And nobody on his staff or campaign has ever said anything like that, so those are the people he surrounds himself with.
As for my “theory” about conservatives. It’s historical fact. I know historical fact is an inconvenience for neocons. But honestly, you simply show your ignorance of American history and politics if you believe “not a word of it is true.”
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmAgain, a leftist might be ignorant of the history of the conservative movement, so maybe that’s what you really are, a state-worshiping, tax-devouring, war-mongering, big goverernment-building leftist, aka Neocon.
A) Enough of the “Ron Paul has the mandate on low taxes” crap. Please, lower our taxes. We’re all for it.
B) This idea that everything that the government does is “big government” is absurd. Certainly, our government is inflated. Certainly, it can be trimmed back. Extensively. But calling every government program than is a shade above anarchy “big government” just shows your foolishness. Sometimes people let their “philosophy” get in the way of practical realities. Are you going to actually make an argument against certain programs, or just label everything as “neocon big government” and save yourselves the trouble of having to think? Most of our “big government” is leftovers from FDR, Johnson, etc.
C)Ron Paul rants on and on against SSN, driver’s licensess with identifiers, the sharing of medical records between providers, and other very practical things that save lives, prevent fraud, and make things more efficient. Do you actually think fraud would decrease if people weren’t able to verify who they were with an ID and a SSN? With live in a world of computers, the internet, cell phones, satellites, and near instantaneous world-wide travel. It is totally foolish to assume fraud and theft would decrease without these simple innovations. You really think stealing someone’s persona is easier with SSN and ID cards? Yeah, right.
4)And what’s with putting “liberation” in quotes? Is Ron Paul a pacifist who is only concerned with “liberty” if he can right-now see, taste, and touch it? Is he completely unable to use some foresight and see that sometimes, a preemptive war can save lives and protect liberty in the future? Washington, Jefferson, and the founding fathers fought lots of wars.
5)Taking “conservatism” = i.e. small government and state’s rights - to an illogical extreme - i.e. libertarianism - does not make you “truly” conservative.” It means you are unable to appreciate practicality and reality and are more interested with the theoretical and philosophical “small” government. But there are realities to consider. Sometimes, government is necessary to prevent fraud, prevent crime, and keep a playing field fair. In our world, sometimes that takes a federal government in very limited circumstances. Certainly when fighting terrorism, etc.
6) Oh, and Ron Paul’s ramblings against fair trade are decidely un-conservative. What was the United States but a collection of governments forced to trade freely by the Constitution itself? One of the very broadest powers the federal government was given - by the Founding Fathers themselves -was the absolute and complete authority of Congress (the Feds) to regulate trade completely. Jefferson was adamantly against tariffs (which is a tax, you know!). I mean, it is completely inconsitent to claim to be anti-tax and pro-originalist and be against free trade.
7) If you read Salon, you are a liberal. If you get your panties in a bunch and come running to a website because said site says there was a bloodbath after we left Vietnam, you are a liberal. Why? Because only liberals take offense to that. Honeslty, why would a true libertarian care?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pmYikes! Somebody got their panties in a bunch alright!
A) Ron Paul is the only candidate I hear talking about lowering taxes, the Dems? forget it. The other Repubs? I hear *nothing* about their commitment to smaller government, simply more of this “OMFG! 9/11 9/11 War on Terror OMFG!” bullshit. True Conservatives exhibit True American Bravery and refuse to be scared at all by that brand of bullshit. Just like we’re not scared of religious idiots in caves either.
B) I never said all govt was bad did I? Neither did Paul, he just tries a lot harder than everybody else to keep govt to it’s *Constitutionally* defined limits. The expansion of federal govt’s size and power under the current administration is *unprecedented* under any admin, Dem or Repub. So what if the Dems started it? The largest federal spending spree in U.S. history is happening right *now* - yeah I feel pretty comfortable calling that big government!
C) The world *is* becoming smaller and privacy is going to mean different things in the future, agreed. But I still don’t mind a candidate that has serious unease about things like shared databases and mandatory universal IDs (show us your papers comrade!). I’d rather we err on the side of privacy, thank you very much. The American people agree - witness the rejection of REAL ID in several states.
4) Weak, dude. You know damn well the founding fathers fought wars of their _own_ liberation, not those of others halfway across the globe. And “pre-emptive” war is always %100 bullshit, as we’ve seen in the ever-changing rationales for war in Iraq. “Pre-emptive” is just a (weak) attempt to somehow spin an overt act of aggression. A True Conservative attacks *no* sovereign state, but defends to the death His Own.
5) I never said I was a libertarian, nor an anarchist, I’m a True Conservative (haven’t you been paying attention?). Of course you need basic rule of law and I would even add basic infrastructure too. But what we have today however is so far from that it’s not even funny. Yes it’s the Dems fault originally, so it would be nice to see the Repubs do some cutting back. But they keep expanding too! Not Conservative At All.
6) Yes, of course, a True Conservative believes in free trade and it might be Paul is a little too protectionist in that regard, I’ll certainly give you that. I don’t think the guys is perfect, only by *far* the best choice we have next year.
7) Uh-oh more lefty name calling again. I thought we’d covered that already - please go back and read my comparison above. Those like you who defend these commies-in-sheeps-clothing like the current admin are the real leftists, and you know it. True Conservatives are horrified by the current build-up of federal power, curtailing of civil liberties and massive mounting debt.
And why would a True Conservative care about a defense of the Vietnam war? Because it too was an unwarranted act of aggression, again based on some kind of bullshit “pre-emptive” theory. Remember the dominoes? Didn’t come to pass did it? And now we *trade* with Vietnam just fine - too bad we couldn’t have just done that to begin with and skipped over the bloodshed and massive loss of American prestige. Oh well, despite blog posts like LP’s above, we might just learn our lesson this time ’round..
And finally no, I don’t read Salon but I *do* read their “blogreport” which I think is well done - all the closed minds of the Loony Left and the Fascist Right lined up in neat columns happily displaying their respective idiocies. Hours of fun slapping them with common sense on boards just like this ;)
So there ya go, once again a True Conservative slaps some sense into the proceedings (no need to thank me, it’s almost too easy!) But not a bad effort and you do make a few points that show you might almost get it. Keep it up PrivatePigg and one day you might make Corporal!
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 pmI think True Conservative said it all pretty well, but I’ve just got to comment on PrivatePigg’s #4 and #7
4)Perfect example of how neocons and their followers twist things, factually and linguistically. You have a rhetorical question praising preemptive wars, “Is he completely unable to use some foresight and see that sometimes, a preemptive war can save lives and protect liberty in the future?” followed by a totally unrelated statement, “Washington, Jefferson, and the founding fathers fought lots of wars.”
No, doesn’t work. It’s a cheap rhetorical ploy. As well as plain wrong.
As TC points out the founders fought for liberation, not for invading a far away foreign country, under the excuse of “PREVENTIVE” war safeguarding our liberties, a notion Washington and Jefferson might have an issue or many with, and something we Americans found so repellent we made it the supreme international crime at Nuremberg. Hitler fought such wars. At least that’s what he told his people and that’s what they believed, that they were under threat and that they were going to be attacked, by among others, those dangerous Poles and their horseback cavalry. And when they conquered those European countries, they called the resistance movements “terrorsists” who were to be hunted down and killed for their audacity to fight the just and noble war for Germany’s survival.
There is nothing, nothing conservative about preventive war. Right wing fanatical yes; left wing fanatical, yes. Conservative, not so much. Now if you were talking about an army amassing on our border, well yes then obviously we can fight a preemptive war. But the Iraq war was a war of agression, which they called a PREVENTIVE war, not a preemptive one.
7)Yes of course you had to resort to silly attacks about people being liberals, as people with little intellectual amunition must often do. I read Salon. I also read National Review. I read the New Republic and I read the Weekly Standard. I read Reason and I read the Nation and I read The American Conservative right after I’ve looked through Commentary. These among many other publications. Am I therefore a liberal? Or am I a neocon? Or maybe, just maybe I’m simply well informed.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:01 amTry looking up the Tripolitan Wars (also known as the Barbary Wars). They were started by Jefferson against Muslims in North Africa and had less to do with our “own” liberty than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
I’m glad we’ve established a few things, though: Ron Paul is wrong on free trade, and that he is too over-the-top with the rhetoric on SSN and ID cards (since when is “states have rejected them” an argument? I guess people are choosing for themselves at the state level - isn’t that what you want? So what does this “privacy” BS have to do with neocons?).
What’s left? Ah, yes. Nobody talks small government like Ron Paul, we should have just traded with Vietnam instead of fought them, and I am a liberal for defending commies-in-sheeps clothing aka Bush. Well, as I’ve said, Paul’s version of small government is just a shade above anarchy, in my opinion. And trading with Vietnam wasn’t really an option 40 years ago (and please compare Vietnam to South Korea re: trade), and Bush as a commie? That’s pretty funny. This was the point I made earlier: anyone who advocates any sort of government that’s a smidge above anarchy is a commie? Please. Bush is not my favorite of all time, but recall that it was Bush v. Gore and Bush v. Kerry.
This whole talk of “we won’t do anything outside of our borders or listen to 9/11 talk because we aren’t scared” is just ignorant. I don’t live in fear, either. I still believe we should go kills these guys where they sleep. I still appreciate the government telling me when intelligence reports terrorists are planning attacks, etc. And that makes me a fear mongerer? A war mongerer? Pretty lazy analysis, dudes.
Oh, and you can list all the stuff you read (way to go!!), but it doesn’t matter. You aren’t “more informed” because you read more tripe than the average man. As I understand it, Hitler was quite the avid reader, writer, and painter. How informed and sophisticated! Yet, his ideas were absolutely terrible, eh? But, no, he was well-informed because he read stuff! We all read and write, guys. That doesn’t make you intelligent or well-informed.
I’ll give you guys the last word on this one. I have some purges to get to at work and I need to stomp out a few peaceful protests downtown. I think Josef and I will probably use our Kalashnikov’s today. It’s been a long time since I’ve just gunned down some freedbirds.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:12 amWhat would have happened if we didn’t go into Iraq?
1) The FOAs (Friends of the Administration, i.e. war profiteers) would wonder just why they helped get W elected President.
2) We’d have no chance of stealing Iraq’s natural resources and divvying it up to energy companies.
There’s 2 things that would have happened.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:24 pmYeah, because we’re just ROLLING in the oil, aren’t we?
Dumbass.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:25 pmBrian,
August 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI’m looking forward to your posts after you finish that Reading Cmprehension class.
And I look forward to your comments when you learn how to spell. What’s your point?
You came here and floated the ol’ “war for oil” b.s., and I slapped it down. ‘Nuff said.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pm