Hitchens: Does the left really want the U.S. to lose?

I'd rather be a "chickenhawk" than a chickensh!t hater like you who takes delight in every drop of American blood that is spilled.

 

What a bunch of bulls**t! I'm not a liberal (and I'm very proud of that). I do not post articles about Iraq that are negative. I do not know Glynch nor Wnes. However, I do know that they DO NOT root for the bodybag numbers to escalate. That is an immature and irresponsible label to put on someone.

Just because someone is against the war does not mean they are anti-American. Posting articles about what is going on in Iraq are not a means to attract applause. If our soldiers are dying left and right, then the anti-war crowd has a responsibility to make us aware. It is not a means to say "I'm right, you're wrong," but rather a medium to say the war is wrong (if that is what one believes). Initially, I was against the war. Now, I believe our troops need 110% of our support so we can finish what we started. Although I don't believe was a threat to us when we went, I do believe that the insurgency and the suicide bombers are a threat to us now. Within the timeframe of us being there, the war has become justified (granted we brought a lot of it on ourselves). Just because I support the war now does not mean I will say that Glynch is anti-American because he does not. It's a sad day in America when dissent equals treason and people who dissent are expected to keep their trap shut.

This is a sad sad post that I'm forced to reply to.

 

Seeing all of these neocons sitting in America instead of fighting the good fight tells me even more.

 

Make no mistake about it (to borrow the favorite phrase again from your beloved President), I have nothing but despise of the chickenhawks like you who'd rather see troops dying for the lies, deceitfulness, greed, and incompetence of their civilian leaders at highest levels.

 

I did not name you, nor will I ever back down from my prior statement. They share the same agenda as the terrorists in that they want America to have another Vietnam. At least that's the way they seem on this forum. They're cheering for every IED, for every suicide bomber. Not all those who oppose the war come off that way, but these two individuals do.

 

Funny, based on the threads you start, you seem to enjoy them dying.

 

We each have the right to our own opinion and that's what makes America great. I certainly don't see the posts of anyone here to reflect what you are saying. But as I stated previously, we each have the right to hold our own opinion.

 

If you think the war is justified, if you think there are good reasons to kill and die in Iraq, why do you think it's okay for someone else to pay the price. I would say chickenhawk and chickensh!t are birds of a feather.

 

I challenge you to find any post of mine that showed I was rooting for IED killing our troops and/or siding with terrorists and suicide bombers. If there isn't any, I have to ask Clutch to ban you for making such baseless and despicable vilification.

 

seriously...

basso why did you start this thread?

 

I never said that you said that directly. It's inferred by the way you focus on negative events. Oh, and how very brave of you to ask that I get banned. Now, who's the chicken?

 

As I said, fascist thought seems to be making a comeback. Dissent is 'dangerous', i.e. Democracy in a time of war is a dangerous thing. Therefore, we must root out the 'enemy within'. Silencing dissent is the utmost duty of the patriotic citizen.

 

Apparently (although he won't name them, thereby by inference, there are such people) basso agrees with gwayneco.

 

I guess that makes wnes very patriotic.

 

What's the angriest thread ever?

 

If I talk negatively against war it is because I am against people dying and killing. I don't care what president or "side" is doing it. It's not that I want a "side" to lose. I want peace to win and war to lose.

 

There is a huge misunderstanding going on here. I think the first thing we need to do is stop making accusations at people, and stop calling each other names.

I have posted both negative and positive articles about our troops. I was against the war. I am not in favor of just pulling out either, though I need to be convinced that we are actually doing good on a large scale why we are there.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can guess based on the articles which point out the negative events in Iraq that it is not a gleeful and joyful thing, to point it out. There is no joy from any liberal that I know, or myself at seeing that people were blown up, or that American soldiers died.

It is in fact because those are so abhorrent to me, and I believe other liberals that we post them to show the horrors of war, and in an effort to show what a horrible thing is being done by our leaders and supported by others. In the mind of many liberals it isn't conceivable that people can see these horrible things, and know that they are happening because we were lied to, and know that they didn't have to happen to this degree had the State Departments plans been implemented. The more Bush/war supporters ignore those facts and continue to support the war, the more liberals want to give them evidence to make them see the seriousness. It is out of concern for our nation, and our troops. We believe that presented with facts as sad, and gruesome as they are, people will have to stop supporting leadership that caused this, and demand that people be held accountable for their actions.

Conservatives seem to misunderstand the purpose in these articles and respond by rallying to the president and his mission. Which makes liberals believe if they show more evidence of how truly horrible war is, and why it should only be supported as a last resort. So they attempt to show this by posting more and more articles that show the hellish side of war, which seems to make conservatives convinced that it is pleasurable for bad things to happen to our troops.

Along the way both sides call each other names, accuse each other of horrible things, and get angry. They are encouraged and influenced by media on both sides of the issue as well.

I am definitely a liberal on the liberal side of the issue, but I don't want terrorists to win, I don't want troops to die, and I want Iraq to become a peaceful democracy. However, I won't ignore the facts, negative or positive. I also will get offended when someone accuses me of not loving my country and what it stands for, or not supporting the troops. Folks may disagree with my positions or how I express them but everything I believe about the war comes from the point that I do support our troops, and the American way of life. Let us start from there.

I will accept that war supporters a different idea of how to support the American way of life, or our troops. I will present reasons, and evidence in an attempt to support why I hold the opinions I do, and I welcome those who believe in a different way to do the same.

We might not ever agree, but we might come to an understanding of why we have our beliefs. That won't happen if we call people chickenhawks, accuse them of delighting at the deaths of troops, or Saddam/Terrorist lovers, etc.

 

By the way, why don't war supporters agree that the whitehouse and pentagon were wrong to trash the State department planning?

They are all for supporting our troops, but they support an administration that trashed plans that had already accounted for a constitution, elections, Iraqis handling their own security, policing, oil field work, providing power and electricity, and whole list of other things all the way down to garbage collection.

If that plan would have been followed there would be more than 400,000 Iraqi troops monitoring security in Iraq right now, which means more American soldiers could be either at home, or in Afghanistan fixing that mess.

Why won't people who claim to support our troops at least ask for some accountability on this issue which would have saved so many lives? The people who made the plans were forced out of the whitehouse, and the people who trashed the plans were all promoted. Why don't 'troop supporters' have the same wish for accountability on this issue as those who oppose the war?

 

well said blade

 

Being liberal is not about being negative, it's about making positive changes.
I'm pretty damn liberal and I support overthrowing a dictator and trying to establish democracy, but I'm pretty used to tilting at windmills. It would have been the conservative stance to allow the status quo in Iraq if Saddam hadn't gone crazy and invaded Kuwait and threatend US oil supplies and, Oh yeah, plotted to assasinate 41. Conservatives are supposed to be isolationist.

Here's a quote I like:

If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people.


--Joe Conason