Wednesday, November 16, 2005

4 Questions for Democrats / Open Trackbacks

Not for the leadership, I already know where they stand. I mean average registered Dems like me. A couple days ago Bob Krumm suggested Democrats should support the war in Iraq and do everything in their power to win as quickly as possible. For poltical reasons if nothing else. The suggestion was not well received by many Dems as was evidenced by the Washington Monthly reaction and the comments that followed the post. So I asked the posters 4 questions. I will give you the obvious answers at the end but as usual my fellow Democrats disapointed me with their partisan hackery, complete lack of understanding, and no regard for right and wrong. As The Artist (a registered Republican) put it so well country always comes before party. Well so should doing the right thing by the Iraqis come before our party.
Here are the questions:

1. Do you think succeeding in promoting a democracy in Iraq would be a good thing?

2. Isn't that something the Democratic Party stands for?

3. Do you think the 25 million people living in Iraq deserve similar freedoms to the ones we enjoy?

4. Do you prefer we leave now and condemn them to chaos wiping your hands of the whole thing since you never supported the war in the first place?



Yes and so, too, would monkeys flying out of your ass be a good thing.
Enjoyable for everyone except the monkeys and the other troll who had to step
aside to make way for their exit. And quite as likely to occur. Shithead.

2. Isn't that something the Democratic Party stands for?
The
Democratic Party stands for promoting democracy in Iraq? I think you have this
confused with the Republicans' reason #135 for invading Iraq. Shithead.

3. Do you think the 25 million people living in Iraq deserve similar
freedoms to the ones we enjoy?
Yes, they should all be able to call you a shithead, too.

4. Do you prefer we leave now and condemn them to chaos wiping your
hands of the whole thing since you never supported the war in the first
place?

The entire point of the thread just sailed over your head. Democrats
are not in charge of this war, Republican's are. They have had ample opportunity
to "win" it and have failed miserably. On the other hand, Bush will discover
that he has "won" the war next year, just in time for elections. Oh, sorry,
Number 4 was just stream-of-consciousness trollery with no point. My bad for
taking any of this seriously.

Solar

howard has already ably dispensed with Ugly American's four "don't you
care about democracy?" questions, but I would also like to point out that they
presume a fact not at all in evidence -- that Bush's policies will be successful. By turning the qestion to the intent behind Bush's Iraq war -- the "promote democracy" version, anyway, now that "defend the US from a threat" argument has been rendered laughable -- UA seeks to smear Bush's critics as opposing his (presumably) good intentions, and change the subject from the policy's disastrous and dishonest implementation.

No, UA, as howard and others pointed out, we're all for democracy; the
problem is, any democracy that arises in Iraq is too little, too late to justify
the expenditure of lives and treasure.

Gregory

Ugly American:
"1. Do you think succeeding in promoting a democracy in
Iraq would be a good thing?
Democracy (free elections, freedom of the press) would be good anywhere. But is making war the right and only way to do it?

2. Isn't that something the Democratic Party stands for?
Sure. But again, by making war?

3. Do you think the 25 million people living in Iraq deserve similar
freedoms to the ones we enjoy?
See answers above.

4. Do you prefer we leave now and condemn them to chaos wiping your
hands of the whole thing since you never supported the war in the first
place?

As someone, I think Pale Rider, above pointed out: the situation is
FUBAR. I don't believe there is any good way out. "Stay the course" results in
SOS. Withdrawal will leave chaos. But it's time to let the Iraqis work out their
destiny themselves.

I am opposed to war except as a very last resort because innocent
people die. I refuse to use the term "collateral damage" because this is a
weasel term which allows the user to gloss over the fact that these are real
people dying, people like you and me.

Also, it simply is not our RIGHT to go in and impose "democracy" at gunpoint. There is no argument that can be made which makes it our RIGHT to do this. Democracy by definition must come from those who would be governed that way, on their timetable, in their own way. OTOH, I would certainly say that we should encourage any groups which are working toward democracy in various countries. But we must also be very careful here: I'm sure Chalabi presented himself as one who wanted to overthrow Saddam so there could be "democracy" in Iraq. We can encourage by offering financial support, by encouraging our own people here to study languages and cultures of other countries, by working with immigrants from those countries to better understand them so that any encouragement we offer is constructive rather than destructive.

Ugly:
I'll play your ridiculous game:
11. Do you think succeeding in promoting a democracy in Iraq would be a good thing?
Funny how 'promoting democracy' in the 'central front of the war on terror' is proving difficult-to-impossible when the American occupiers have engaged in torture, run sham elections and provided little to none of the security needed to live in safety.In other words, how do you unfuck a virgin you've already deflowered?

2. Isn't that something the Democratic Party stands for?
If the Democratic Party ran this war from the start the would deserve the credits
and/or the blame. But for a historical perspective, it was the Democrats that
truly fucked up Vietnam, proving that without a legitimate mandate the import of
'democracy' is a lie, whether in the desert or the jungle.

3. Do you think the 25 million people living in Iraq deserve similar
freedoms to the ones we enjoy?
Wow. That's a lot of bullshit to swallow. Do the 1 billion people in China deserve similar freedoms to the ones we enjoy? Or the 121 million people of Nigeria? Or what about the 78 million in Egypt? Obviously you don't think so, or else you'd be right there on the front lines with Amnesty International and the rest of those NGOs.

4. Do you prefer we leave now and condemn them to chaos wiping your
hands of the whole thing since you never supported the war in the first
place?
Do you prefer we stay for the indefinite future while Americans
continue to die for a war that you only now think is about freedom? How can you
fight a war for democracy in the middle of the central front of the war on
terror? Those require different responses, don't they? Or is it acceptible for
your neighbor's son to die in a fruitless war so long as you don't have
to?


Moreover, they live in chaos NOW. Our presence there helps foster chaos
in Iraq and beyond. Our blind, dull and shameless leadership helped tie this
Gordian Knot and yet still, even after all this sensless death and destruction
with no plan communicated to us beyond the idiotic bromide of "stay the course"
this is somehow a failure of our will.
Sign up son. Iraq needs committed
young men like you.
n.o.l.t.f

Now, ugly american, the problem with your questions, which i'll deal
with in detail in a moment, is that we have exactly the same problem in iraq
that we had in vietnam: there is nothing to "win." meanwhile, there is such
a thing as cost-benefit analysis. and so, we can slog on indefinitely, not
losing, and maybe, some years down the road, iraq will be, oh, i dunno, turkey
lite - a non-theological islamic country where there is, more or less, civilian
control - but that will in no sense have been worth the cost in american blood
and treasure. so, to specifically address your little sequence of questions:
1.) yes, i think "promoting" a democracy in iraq would be a good thing. i also
think it would be a good thing to have democracy in dozens of other countries
that are currently ruled by totalitarian regimes, but i don't think we should
march off to war in order to rid these lands of their awful leadership;

2.) no, the democratic party does not stand for willy-nilly entering
into wars in order to "promote" democracy, particularly ones where the american
public bears virtually all the costs in blood and treasure;

3.) your question 3 is, of course, simply a variation on your question 1,
so see my answer, but i'll add a point: i do not think that the interests of 25M
iraqis are more important than the interests of 300M americans, and the
interests of 300M americans are not being well-served by this war;

4.) i'm actually torn about what to do now. That's how we know this is a
FUBAR situation - we're damned if we do (withdraw) and we're damned if we don't
(withdraw). i don't think we should withdraw simply because the war was a bad
idea, poorly implemented. but it's an open question whether our staying there is
doing anything but providing target practice. but i do know that to determine the best way out of this mess is not to be caught up with democracy "promotion;" it's to take a clear-eyed and realistic look at costs and benefits of our policy options and choose the one that enhances american national security interests the best. we don't do that by paens to democracy "promotion" so that 25M iraqis can turn into NASCAR dads and soccer moms.

Pale Rider

1. Do you think succeeding in promoting a democracy in Iraq would be a
good thing?
Yes, but how likely are you to achieve this while over 4 million
military-aged Iraqi males sit on the fence and do nothing to ensure that
democracy and stability can be a reality? The only experience with democracy
that they've seen in the Middle East is Israel and the Arabs don't seem to care
for Israel. Hence, the majority seem to be saying, 'we'll sit on the fence
because we don't want to be like Israel.'

2. Isn't that something the Democratic Party stands for?
Sure. Whenever the Democratic Party has ever tried to do such things, they are slammed for engaging in 'Nation Building.' See: 1999, with our intervention in Kosovo. Now, all of a sudden, nation building is what the Republican Party loves to engage in, while they once condemned the Democrats for it. So, the question is, does
the Republican Party stand for anything at all?

3. Do you think the 25 million people living in Iraq deserve similar
freedoms to the ones we enjoy?
Not if they don't do anything for those freedoms. See number one, above, and see number two, above as well. No group of people can build themselves a free country without getting off the fence and doing something about it.

4. Do you prefer we leave now and condemn them to chaos wiping your hands
of the whole thing since you never supported the war in the first place?
Yeah--what's your point? All of a sudden, it's the Democrats fault that the administration of post-war Iraq, which was handled EXCLUSIVELY by
handpicked ideologues from the dregs of the Republican Party? See: Coalition
Provisional Authority, and understand this: had the post war planning been
conducted in a reasonably competent fashion by someone other than Douglas
"Stupidest Fucking Guy on the Planet" Feith and the corrupt and fiscally
careless CPA (where are those billions of dollars?) PERHAPS chaos wouldn't be
the watchword of the day.Too frickin' honest for you? Next set of questions
please.
Posted by: Arnie's Car. on


1. Do you think succeeding in promoting a democracy
in Iraq would be a good thing?
Yes.
2. Isn't that something the Democratic
Party stands for?
Yes.
3. Do you think the 25 million people living in
Iraq deserve similar freedoms to the ones we enjoy?
Yes.
4. Do you prefer we leave now and condemn them to chaos wiping your hands of the whole thing since you never supported the war in the first place?
Your use of the AND operator suggests a package deal fallacy. I'll answer the questions seperately, if you don't mind. a) Do I prefer we leave now? -Yes b) Do I prefer we condemn them to chaos? -No
Glad to answer your questions.




The only correct answers to the questions are:
1. Do you think succeeding in promoting a democracy in Iraq would be a good thing?
Yes
2. Isn't that something the Democratic Party stands for?
Yes

3. Do you think the 25 million people living in Iraq deserve similar freedoms to the ones we enjoy?
Yes

4. Do you prefer we leave now and condemn them to chaos wiping your hands of the whole thing since you never supported the war in the first place?

No, we owe it to ourselves, to the Americans who have given their lives to this cause and to the Iraqi people to see this through to the end.

Now I am a Democrat because I thought the party was about Idealism. I thought it stood for Democracy and Freedom for everyone not just Americans. Willing to sacrifice our own treasure, and indeed blood to promote that cause and defend the oppressed throughout the world. JFK did, Truman did. Isn't that what Bill Clinton was trying to do in Somalia, and Bosnia? Didn't we as a party support those efforts? President Clinton should not have put our military in such a precarious position in Somalia nor should he have retreated at the first casualties but that is another argument for another day. The only reason I can see that Dems are so callous about the future of Iraq. Why they are so willing, indeed eager to condemn the Iraqi people to murder, mayhem, and chaos let alone allow terrorists an opportunity to gain control of that country and its vast resources is that a Republican president made the decision to remove a ruthless dictator, confront terrorists in their part of the world, and challenge 25 million people stand up for themselves and determine their own future.

The Dictator is gone soon to stand trial for his genocide, his brutal sons who were sure to inherit Iraq upon his death are dead, Thousands of terrorists who would gladly kill everyone of us if able are dead, thousands more are in custody, and the most moving and inspiring of all are the millions of Iraqis who have now voted twice under threat of death proving they are willing to risk their lives for freedom. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have volunteered for the military, and police force, thousands of them (Dwarfing American causalities) paying with their lives for their country's future.

George W. Bush has not only confronted our sworn enemies in Saddam and Al Qaeda, he has given hope to the 25 million people of Iraq, and hundreds of millions more Arabs who now live under the boot of fascists and dictatorial regimes. JFK and Harry Truman would have been proud to vote for him and support him even if he wasn't a Democrat.

Don't Go into the Light has a related story where Democratic Representatives will be ignoring Democratic principals and feeding red meat to the Bush haters.

Common Folk Using Common Sense is spreading the word about the "Bush Lied People Died" crowd:

"The Liberal's Media©, the Barking Moonbat Left, the Deaniac Democrats, the Loony Liberals, the Sheenenistas, and the Neo-Socialists all want you to believe that BUSH LIED. But anyone with an IQ above room temperature can prove beyond doubt that he didn't lie his way into war just by promoting a simple Google search."

If you have something to share leave a trackback but be sure to link back here in the body of your post or your trackback will be deleted.

Other Folks with Open Trackbacks today: Stop the ACLU, Adam's Blog, Choose Life, The Political Teen, Third World County, Something and Half of Something, MacStansbury, Stuck On Stupid, bRight & Early, Cao's Blog, California Conservative, Don Surber, Basil's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Jack Lewis, The Tar Pit, TMH's Bacon Bits, GM's Corner,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home