Harold Pinter on U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq

[ QUOTE ]
Your whole post


[/ QUOTE ]

Soft bellied people, purely by definition, do not fight hard. You would have been better to argue that liberals cannot be automatically assumed as "soft-bellied", which is clearly evident by some of our decorated veterans serving as liberal politicians.

But instead, throughout your whole post you make idiotic historical transpositions across 70 to 80 years that clearly do not apply in any modern sense of the word "liberal" or "conservative", nor "Republican" or "Democratic". You do realize that Lincoln (Republican) is actually the creator of what Eisenhower (Republican) coined as our military-industrial complex? Seems like if I want to be that brief, I can simply chalk our military might up to Republicans, (this is completely ignoring Reagan as well).

You obviously credit our military might and our victory in World War 2 to FDR and "liberals", but I wonder, do you credit the winning of the Cold War to Reagan and "conservatives"? By your uncomplicated calculation then clearly Reagan won the Cold War, and therefore contradicts your later statement where "liberals dictated our foreign policy in the Cold War, dragging conservatives through it kicking and screaming"

[ QUOTE ]
They won the second World War,


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we would all like to see you elaborate on this statement and actually qualify the term "they."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They won the second World War,


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we would all like to see you elaborate on this statement and actually qualify the term "they."

[/ QUOTE ]

You are just mad that liberal dems were in power when they won the second world war. Meanwhile, conservative republicans like Prescott Bush and family were investing in Nazi financial institutions.

[ QUOTE ]
You are just mad that liberal dems were in power when they won the second world war. Meanwhile, conservative republicans like Prescott Bush and family were investing in Nazi financial institutions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, troll, I lose sleep over it.

[andyfox]

Lincoln was not the creator of what Eisenwhower was talking about; that was created in the aftermath of World War II with the advent of the Cold War.

Republicans have always attacked Democrats with the charge of soft belliedness. The Dems lost China; Johnson fought in Vietnam with one hand tied behind his back and then the Democratically controlled Congress hamstrung Nixon. Clinton is to blame for 9/11 by ignoring the developing menace of terrorism. And the Dems today are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and undermining the morale of our troops by criticizing the war in Iraq. It's an old story, that's why the history of the last 70 years are relevant.

ON WWII, the Repubicans were isolationist and did not want to get involved in Europe's war. The liberals Roosevelt and Truman were in the White House during the war.

From the end of World War II to the present time, the idea that liberals have been soft on defense is nonsense. They have led the way towards involving us in the affairs of other nations and in building up the Defense Department.

"You obviously credit our military might and our victory in World War 2 to FDR and 'liberals', but I wonder, do you credit the winning of the Cold War to Reagan and 'conservatives'? By your uncomplicated calculation then clearly Reagan won the Cold War, and therefore contradicts your later statement where 'liberals dictated our foreign policy in the Cold War, dragging conservatives through it kicking and screaming'"

You lose me there. We entered WWII in 1941 and were victorious in 1945. Roosevelt and Truman were the only presidents we had while we were at war. The Cold War began in 1945 and ended in the Reagan term. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan served during that time and the Democrats controlled Congress during much of the period. The fact that the Cold War eneded while Reagan was president does not mean that he won it. World War II, Korea, and Vietnam were, to quote Bob Dole, "Democrat" wars.

Lastly, it's obvious that Lincoln was a different kind of Republican than, say, George Bush 41. But Robert Taft, Everett Dirksen, and Melvin Laird are much more closely related to Bush. So I don't think it's idiotic to talk about "conservatives" or Republicans of the Cold War and post-Cold war period in the same breath.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those words [liberation, terrorism, democracy] mean very specific things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define them,please

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that because we might disagree about some of the margins of these terms they become "subjective, empty labels"?

Democracy - A form of government in which the people elect their lawmakers.
Terrorism - Use of force against civilians by non-state actors to achieve political ends.
Liberation - Delivering people from an oppressing regime and replacing it with a democratic government.

[Chris Alger]

"Democracy - A form of government in which the people elect their lawmakers"

Then Iraq under Saddam was a democracy and Israel isn't. Saddam was elected and the residents of the territories have no right to vote for or against their Israeli overlords.

A democracy is when the government operates and legislates according to the informed consent of the governed, ensured by the meaningful participation of the electorate. This is often qualified by a requirement of some level of protection given to individual and minority rights. Election rituals aren't sufficient.

"Terrorism - Use of force against civilians by non-state actors to achieve political ends."

So the contra compaign was terrorism and Reagan and the U.S. Congress in the 1980's were foremost among world terrorist sponsors. Know any Republicans who accept this? Do you think the Commander-in-Chief of the WOT does? And is all war by states where force is used against civilians, like the U.S. in Iraq, "state terrorism"? Or are you defining away this concept, Newspeak style, so that no one should ever think about it?

Terrorism is the use of force by states or non-state actors against civilians. All modern war involves terrorism.

"Liberation - Delivering people from an oppressing regime and replacing it with a democratic government."

And since the countries liberated from Nazi occupation by the Soviets held elections, they too were liberated, even as they had to toe the line to avoid further "liberation." The very idea of any government thinking itself sovereign, much less democratically so, while under foreign military occupation, the occupiers immune from the sovereign's laws, is ridiculous.

Liberation occurs when the liberated are free to chose their a meaningfully sovereign government, not when their government must operate according to the dictates or largesse of a foreign occupier.

[The Truth]

I think arguing about weather democrats did this or republicans did that is rather pointless.

It is more important to analyze where the opinions of mainstream society stood at this time, and what exactly the popular left wing and right wing ideas were at the time.

We can always get more right wing then the ideas handed to us by our popular right wing writers. There is always much further left than the popular left wing writers of our time.

It is more important to argue the merits of a stance or cause than it is to argue the superiority of a group.

blake