yup, that's my tag line. i see you are good at retyping things. i guess you and devolved into blabbering trite quips and have nothing left to say. ok then, enjoy your day.
I am referrring to a Wilsonian view of liberalism but in particular to the idea that force should be used to advance progressive values and human rights especially overseas. Liberals have traditionally called for revolutionary change and expressed a willingness to use force to advance that. Whether from using police power to force social change at home or military power overseas in places like Haiti and Bosnia. Traditionally conservatives were isolationists and far more cautious. The Cold War overturned a lot of those views and with Neo-Conservatism and the war in Iraq liberal and conservative is almost now solely defined on where people stand on the war. That said though you still see such things as liberals more likely to push for military intervention in places like Darfur whereas conservatives more cautious.
Difference is is that in most instances, liberalism doesn't look to the military as its first option.
i'd like to know Hillary's opinion on this http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news3.shtml [rquoter]FOOTBALL stars David Beckham and Wayne Rooney are the targets of a chilling al-Qaeda murder plot. A terrifying internet video call to action for supporters of Osama bin Laden also fingers ex-Arsenal striker Thierry Henry for assassination. It was launched this week on a Glasgow-based website named after al-Qaeda that regularly supports attacks on Westerners. It has also been uploaded to the massively popular YouTube video-share site, visited by millions of youngsters. The sports stars are branded EVIL for being CRIMINAL influences on young Muslims. The sick film shows a picture of Manchester United ace Rooney with the headline: "Why do u love the evildoers?" Beckham, who is now at LA Galaxy, is shown under the caption: "What made u among the losers?" And the slogan across an image of Henry asks: "Why do u imitate the people of desires?" Alarmingly the video then flicks to a series of graphics depicting graveyards and bodies. One shows the feet of a CORPSE on a mortuary slab with a toe tag marked "Death". A caption across the screen threatens: "Every soul shall taste death." Much of the soundtrack is a sermon given in London recently by a young militant cleric linked to radical Omar Bakri Mohammed, barred from Britain after praising the 7/7 bombings. His rant declares that Muslims who are passionate about sport or music are hellbound like the "disbelievers" they admire. Other celebrities rubbished on the video include P Diddy and Justin Timberlake. It ends with the rousing message: "Rise up, oh youth!" The threat comes in the wake of a security services admission that the number of Britons trained in Afghanistan terror camps is much higher than previously thought. Terrorism expert Neil Doyle said: "There's no question — this video is setting sports stars up as potential targets. "Choosing their words carefully, using double meanings and veiled threats, the people behind it are trying to stay within the realms of the law. "But it's clear they're trying to incite — the images of dead bodies and graves is provocative and reinforces that. "And the fact that it's out there on YouTube is shocking." [/rquoter] likely, she'd just want to make it with posh...
I don't believe I said Petraeus wasn't credible. In fact I agree whole heartedly with him when he says that politic progress needs to be made and that the war is unwinnable militarily. As I've said I can take all the reports of progress at face value and still be very skeptical about whether the US is winning in Iraq. The problem is that there isn't much cause for optimism given the track record in Iraq. Further Iraq isn't a situation you can just wish away the problems by puttin on a happy face. As for what we should be doing in Iraq, I've been on record, even in this very thread, that I don't believe we will be out of Iraq until Bush leaves office. Whether that makes him look bad or good that is the nature of our Constitutional system and I've taken some heat for supporting that even if it means there is no withdrawl from Iraq. For that matter I believe Iraq is winnable, in terms of having stability, but not militarily and have advocated the ISG's recommendations. Its true I don't but neither do you. What I have though is that the track record in Iraq isn't good and surges have been tried before (remember the taking of Fallujah and Ramadi?) and those didn't lead to long term success. Again its possible the surge could work but the track record is good cause for skepticism.
Just to follow up on "liberals" vs "conservatives" is why get so uptight about the labels anyway? In the history of both movements there has been a lot of good and a lot of bad done by both but the way people are treating them as is either as the highest praise or the worst insult to the point that people are treating this as a war. In the end their are liberals such as Tony Blair who supported the war and conservatives such as Pat Buchanan who are against it. I don't think that makes them any less liberal or conservative.
The term liberal has been turned into an epithet by right-wingers and they insist on turning every single discussion into a "conservative" vs. "liberal" debate, oftentimes to cloud facts that are discussed or avoid them altogether. Just look at this thread and others in D&D. Listen to right-wing talk radio if you can. They use those terms consistently while most other people don't.
**** whatever Patraeus has to say in September. We're kidding ourselves; the decisions have been made. -- ------------------- Bush draws Vietnam parallel in warning over Iraq withdrawal US President George W. Bush in a speech on Wednesday will warn that a US withdrawal from Iraq could produce a catastrophe similar to what occurred in Southeast Asia after US forces left Vietnam. According to excerpts from Bush's address released in advance on Tuesday, the US president was to charge that an early exit from Iraq would "pull the rug out" from under US troops just as their efforts are paying off. Bush's speech ties anti-war forces in the Vietnam era to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the aftermath of the US pull-out, and hints at a parallel disaster in Iraq if US forces leave too soon. "Many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people," he was to say. "The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be." "In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation, torture, or execution. In Vietnam, former American allies, government workers, intellectuals, and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished," he was to say. "Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea," said Bush, who pleaded for patience with the US-led security crackdown in Iraq. Bush was scheduled to deliver his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) group, which claims 2.3 million members, on Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, for their annual convention. US troops in Iraq "are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against Al Qaeda, clearing the terrorists out of population centers, and giving families in liberated Iraqi cities their first look at decent and normal life" according to Bush's prepared remarks. "As they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they are gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?" he said. "My answer is clear: We will support our troops, we will support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed," said Bush, who linked the painful US defeat in Vietnam to the situation in Iraq. "Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush said. "Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of Americas withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields,'" he said. The US president previously drew a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq in November during a visit to Vietnam. Bush had said that one lesson of the bloody US military defeat there a generation ago was that the United States must be patient in Iraq. "We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush said. Asked whether the US defeat in Vietnam offered lessons, Bush replied: "We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while." http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_draws_Vietnam_parallel_in_warn_08212007.html
i love it how all of these politicians who are trying to commend the fact that the military is having some recent success in Iraq are now having to back-track to make sure Bush doesn't get credit for any of it. What a fine line they have to walk!
No one disagrees political progress must be made, but a drop in violence can also perceptitate political momentum as well. I think that's a key aim, getting Al Qaeda out of Iraq is the minimal goal before we can even consider withdrawing. To withdraw before that would be reckless and a forfeit of our national security. We can't retreat from Al Qaeda. In terms of winning, that's one victory. The other would be as you say for Iraq to be a stable country and a member of the family of nations with a stable government and a reasonable level of peace for its constituents. Whether you define that as a military victory or a political one is moot, it's a success in terms of being able to get out and leave. While there isn't a lot to be optimistic about, there's no point in being a doom-sayer either, because I don't think withdrawal at this stage is a wise option. That means we have to find something to gain momentum and start changing the tide. Finally, it seems we have something to build on. Let's build on it, instead of trying to snuff it out like the liberals on this board advocate.
Liberal is used perjoritively but a lot of this stems from the view-point of many conservatives that they are looked down upon by liberals (called rubes, rednecks, backwards, etc). It's really a clash of values....more then just politics. I think calling conservatives "right-winger" is just doing the same thing.
Careful NewYorker, your bias is showing. Can you please point out where Mr McNerney is back tracking?
You have got to be kidding me! Right-wing nutcases have destroyed civil political debate in this country more than anyone by far. Trying to blame that on liberals is silly. Take your head out of the sand. In fact, one right-wing fruitcake, Rush Limbaugh, even blasts "moderates" because "they don't stand for anything." So who do you blame for that bit of nonsense? Liberals, again? I don't equate the term conservative with "right-winger". I respect a good many conservatives and agree with them on many issues. I usually use the term "right-winger" to denote individuals who consistently sling insults and resort to name-calling instead of addressing legitimate facts that don't support their position. Same thing applies when I call others "left wing loonies". Demagogues on both sides who shout, exaggerate and distort instead of discuss have ruined political debate in this country. To them, the term "enemy" includes anyone who doesn't buy their line and drink all of their Kool-Aid, including Americans who love this country. Another way I use the term "right-wing" is to describe people claim to be conservative but really are not. Example: George W. Bush, who spends federal money like a drunken sailor, enough to make "liberals" blush. It is so predictable that you would blame liberals for the venomous discourse that comes from so many "conservatives". Blaming liberals for everything must be an instinctive, knee-jerk reaction that makes you feel good.
you just don't see that as a liberal, you're just the other side of the coin of the "ring-wing nut". As crazy as you think they are, they think you are. That's all I am saying. You can't see that because you can only see the other side as crazy. But liberals have played their part in ruining debate in this country. You think your side is pure and good and free from dogma or bias - that's simply not true. Two sides of the same coin. Polar opposites, but trapped into the same kind of thinking.
