Mainstream Liberals vs Extremists on Iraq

[Pangloss]

What the heck, I think I'll start a second thread just for old times' sake. This is something I've been meaning to harp on lately, and I just posted something that's construable as anti-right, so a little anti-left jabbing seems in order. (grin)

 

If you want to see the difference between Democrats/liberals who are fairly normal, mainstream people, and Democrats/liberals who are so extreme they make you wonder if forced birth control might be a good idea after all, you need look no further than the issue of Iraq. Many outspoken Democrats, who spared no punches during the 2004 election cycle, have been ardent, even outspoken, in their support for our current efforts in Iraq.

 

Last week Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Hillary Clinton (D-New York) went to Iraq as part of a normal congressional delegation. Their report back was unanimous in its support for our efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. Both the soldiers who work over there and the majority of the administration's initiatives, not to mention the efforts by the Iraqis themselves, enjoy quite a lot of bipartisan support right now.

 

Just look at some of the issues that were contentiously debated in 2003/4 which now enjoy bipartisan agreement:

- We have enough troops there now to do the job.

- We should not set a timeline for withdrawl.

- Enough money is being spent (more or less).

- Some level of military commitment to Iraq is going to be necessary for a very long time to come, and that's more or less okay (not desirable, but acceptable).

 

Contrast this, for example, with Ted Kennedy's recent call for a timetable for withdrawl (a statement which John Kerry flatly disagreed with a few days later on Meet the Press!), or pretty much any post you might find on michaelmoore.com or democraticunderground.com. (I've never heard Kerry answer a question so succinctly before! Russert: "Do you agree with your colleage from Massachusetts about this?" Kerry: "No.")

 

There are plenty of things that congressional Democrats and Republicans diagree on, of course, even when it comes to Iraq. But I think this is one of those rare moments when you can see a very sharp, very clear dividing line between extremists and reasonable people.

[budullewraagh]

so wait, what's wrong with kennedy?

[Pangloss]

Hehe, hey Bud.

 

Nice hat!

[In My Memory]

There are plenty of things that congressional Democrats and Republicans diagree on, of course, even when it comes to Iraq. But I think this is one of those rare moments when you can see a very sharp, very clear dividing line between extremists and reasonable people.

I get from your post that the dividing line between extremists and reasonable people seems to be as follows:

* Extremists dont support the war in Iraq

* Reasonable people do

 

Most people can probably see that is a strange way to define extremism. I personally like to think of extremists as being fundamentalists - as essentially non-thinking ideologues who support their beliefs based on ideology rather than merit.

[TimeTraveler]

What the heck' date=' I think I'll start a second thread just for old times' sake. This is something I've been meaning to harp on lately, and I just posted something that's construable as anti-right, so a little anti-left jabbing seems in order. (grin)

 

If you want to see the difference between Democrats/liberals who are fairly normal, mainstream people, and Democrats/liberals who are so extreme they make you wonder if forced birth control might be a good idea after all, you need look no further than the issue of Iraq. Many outspoken Democrats, who spared no punches during the 2004 election cycle, have been ardent, even outspoken, in their support for our current efforts in Iraq.

 

Last week Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Hillary Clinton (D-New York) went to Iraq as part of a normal congressional delegation. Their report back was unanimous in its support for our efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. Both the soldiers who work over there and the majority of the administration's initiatives, not to mention the efforts by the Iraqis themselves, enjoy quite a lot of bipartisan support right now.

 

Just look at some of the issues that were contentiously debated in 2003/4 which now enjoy bipartisan agreement:

- We have enough troops there now to do the job.

- We should not set a timeline for withdrawl.

- Enough money is being spent (more or less).

- Some level of military commitment to Iraq is going to be necessary for a very long time to come, and that's more or less okay (not desirable, but acceptable).

 

Contrast this, for example, with Ted Kennedy's recent call for a timetable for withdrawl (a statement which John Kerry flatly disagreed with a few days later on Meet the Press!), or pretty much any post you might find on michaelmoore.com or democraticunderground.com. (I've never heard Kerry answer a question so succinctly before! Russert: "Do you agree with your colleage from Massachusetts about this?" Kerry: "No.")

 

There are plenty of things that congressional Democrats and Republicans diagree on, of course, even when it comes to Iraq. But I think this is one of those rare moments when you can see a very sharp, very clear dividing line between extremists and reasonable people.[/quote']

 

Interesting. I believe that at this point is does no good to not support the war. Going to war was a huge mistake, but the fact is we are there. If we leave now the outcome could be catastrophic compared to if we stay. So I think we need to really focus now on the crimes committed by certain members of the American government who put us and them in this position for illegal and unjustifiable reasons.

[Pangloss]

I get from your post that the dividing line between extremists and reasonable people seems to be as follows:

* Extremists dont support the war in Iraq

* Reasonable people do

 

An understandable conjecture, but no. My point was that reasonable people are willing to support reasonable aspects of the current conflict. For example, reasonable people are willing to celebrate the Iraqi election as a kind of victory, even if they're opposed to our presence there in the first place. (This was the case with myself, for example.)

 

An extremists never even remotely concedes any kind of success in Iraq. My single, sole point with this thread is that Iraq has become a sharp dividing line which points out where one particular set of extremists may be found and clearly identified. I find that interesting on an intellectual level.

[budullewraagh]

i dont think that these "extremists" you are talking about can be classified as "liberal"

[Cadmus]

My single, sole point with this thread is that Iraq has become a sharp dividing line which points out where one particular set of extremists may be found and clearly identified.

In your first post, I was under the impression that you were speaking of "liberal" extremists. However, here it seems more likely that the one particular set of extremists that you are speaking of includes Bush and his oil buddies. Let's see: "You may think that he is an incredible idiot and a criminal for taking us to war n the first place, but it is too late now, so you MUST support him. Get over it."

[budullewraagh]

we dont have to support the president, mind you. we can hope for success, however

[TimeTraveler]

The extremism goes both ways, on many occassions I have tried to explain to people the mistakes made, (not on this board but another board), and they are just thickheaded, I make a well informed post supported by fact and certain people respond with things like, your not being patriotic, or your being a liberal, ect. ect. In my eyes thats an extremism as well.

 

Not to mention the ultimate extremism, the neo-conservative ideology.

[Cadmus]

The extremism goes both ways, on many occassions I have tried to explain to people the mistakes made, (not on this board but another board), and they are just thickheaded, I make a well informed post supported by fact and certain people respond with things like, your not being patriotic, or your being a liberal, ect. ect. In my eyes thats an extremism as well.

I don't think that they are necessarily being thickheaded. Some people are not very deep thinkers, and they let others think for them. They accept what they are told, and they change their mind when they are told differently. Most people believe what they are told in the press, not just in the U.S. but everywhere.

[Cadmus]

we dont have to support the president, mind you. we can hope for success, however

I quite agree. But, who does not hope for success? However, success does not necessarily mean that since we are there we must trust Bush to suddently start acting in a way that will lead to success, however we define it, and so we should just let him does what he and his advisors think best.

[budullewraagh]

who does not hope for success? certainly not liberals

[Cadmus]

who does not hope for success? certainly not liberals

Although not clear from your post, I assume that everyone is expected to recognize this as a joke.

[budullewraagh]

it's meant to be read as is. i don't think that liberals are by definition pessimistic

[Pangloss]

Some interesting points above. But the point of this thread was just that it's an interesting demarkation line for identifying extremists. Nothing more to it than that.

 

Bud's posts above are a classic example. He doesn't support the president, and represents a very firm left-of-center approach to his posts, but at the same time he's smart enough to know where to draw the line. In many specifics he might find himself in complete agreement with someone who's as far to the right as he is to the left (if such generalizations are really valid). That makes him "normal" in my book.

 

Cadmus' point above about people generally believing what they hear in the media does complicate such identification, along with the fact that we must question our (or rather my) need to identify people's politics in the first place, but in the general sense of trying to determine reasonable compromises in one's own mind (which was the point of the conjecture of this thread), I think it's a reasonable thing to do.

 

Put another way, it's hard for people in this day and age to separate fact from opinion. Again and again it seems to come down to having to assess the objectivity of the source. Anything that can help you do that is valuable.

 

Just my two bits worth, of course.

[-Demosthenes-]

- Some level of military commitment to Iraq is going to be necessary for a very long time to come, and that's more or less okay (not desirable, but acceptable).

I thought officials in Iraq right after the elections wanted the foriegn troops out in 18 months. I don't remember where.