A Political Bit

[the_gneech]

Picked up from bearblue, who is a never-ending font of interesting political discourse... A Moral Failure: Why Did So Many On the Left March to Save Saddam Hussien? Note that this piece is written by a self-identified Marxist -- but speaking as a former lefty gone libertarian, I found myself nodding in agreement several times.

-The Gneech

Comments

[kevinjdog.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long response to this, but deleted it. You may have read it already. Let's just say I disagree.

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

This comes as no suprise to anyone who knows the both of us. :) I'll try not to take it personal if you won't. :)

-The Gneech

[kevinjdog.livejournal.com]

Deal. (As in "you got a"). :)

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Thank you.

===|==============/ Level Head

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

I read it in the hope that it might be deeper than the summary of its title, and was disappointed.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I disagree strongly with the motivations the author assumes from the left.

[kevinjdog.livejournal.com]

The argument he presents is straight out of kindergarten logic: Saddam bad man. George Bush fight Saddam. Left hate fighting. Therefore Left hate George. If Left hate George, Left love Saddam. Therefore Left bad like Saddam.

[nekomimikun.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I HAVE been noticing that the left seems to rebel for the sake of rebelling, and opposing the current government for no other reason than to oppose it. I think the last few paragraphs were the best, really.

define rebelling, neko.

[electronin.livejournal.com]

Frank Herbert(Dune) spoke through his character Leto the 2nd, saying that rebels are closet aristocrats. He's got a point.

I, while being from the left, don't do that much rebelling, if any at all, unless you count voting.

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

In the past, I've been a liberal, a libertarian, and a conservative.

Now, I *try* to think for myself. It's harder than you
might think when it comes to politics.

I think I like this article.

Thanks.

Scott

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

I've found that most political discussions produce a lot of heat and very little light. A lot of people who would defend their right to post every little political thought that enters their mind with the ferocity of a Tasmanian devil, are the quickest to jump down somebody else's throat when that person says something they disagree with.

To that end, I only make political posts when something particularly catches my eye, and with the expectation that most of the people who look at it are likely not to agree with me.

Anyway, glad you liked it. :)

-The Gneech

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

So, I guess you put your asbestos pants on before you posted that, eh? ;)

Oh well, not everyone will agree with you. But, that's the nice
thing about living in a country where we're free to speak our
minds. :)

Right now, my mind says it's time for bed.

Good night! :)

thoughts

[twoolfe.livejournal.com]

from: Hey JW PFC 1427xxxUSMC
That was about 50 years ago in Korea. At the time, {and still to a lesser extent} I believed it as something that needed doing.
Sometime after that I was one of those !#_)(*&^%$%^ liberals, trying to save the world. One of those damned yankee marchers making trouble in Little Rock, in Mississippi, and in other civil rights brouhahas. That was the mid/late 50s. Times have changed but I haven't at least not that much. Except that now those same beliefs in right, wrong, and the value of justice makes me one of those !U&*^$##%^**%@ Conservative ba***rds that is blocking progress.
This said. Saddam is/was a bad person. His regime killed, maimed, and destroyed his own people in the hundreds of thousands. There were/are others just as bad but he made himself noticed. Ending his regime was a good thing. Some our *stated* reasons for doing so may have been bogus but the thing needed doing. If the politics involved could be disreguarded {impossible} I would venture that a world wide vote on "Should he be taken out" would be a resounding YES.
The problem is that it was that "Self serving, evil, dominering, United States that did the deed. We're the bad guys as usual and it's gonna cost us, bigtime.
This is nothing new. Remember kids I'm old enough to remember WW2, the Truman Doctrine, and the Marshall Plan. Check your history sometime you might learn that things usually repeat.
France may have suckered us into VietNam. We bit and we blew it. Dumb us.
This country/system has it's flaws, but on the whole we try very hard to do it right. We "unsophisticated country hicks" are clumsy and make errors of protocall. We often put our foot in it but we do try. And as a rule do better than most.
OK. You may now collect the brickbats and let fly. I Agree with the guy.
T.

Re: thoughts

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

My answer to "Should Saddam be taken out" was always "YES, IF we don't replace him with a Saddam equivalent or worse, wasting lives and resources in a process that nets nothing in the long term."

We who dissented could tell that the administration's motives were not conducive to successfully achieving this difficult result. We are now one stage before "I told you so." All America can do now is occupy a lawless Iraq to delay the inevitable for a generation or so until most people forget where it started.

In the best-case scenario, a "friend" like Saudi Arabia will be created. And then when they start killing Americans, like Saudi Arabian terrorists did in 2001, scheming politicos will again have to find some other country to blame because they're our important oil-rich "friends" that we dare not question.