Why the pessimism?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Nope. What you call the 'extreme left' is the normal center left in Europe.

What do you guys think of Kerry, who has the most liberal voting record in Congress? Is he to the left or right of European "center left"?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
What do you guys think of Kerry, who has the most liberal voting record in Congress? Is he to the left or right of European "center left"?

I guess he would be seen as 'center'.

First, he is a social liberal, for gay marriage and against DP. The only problem is his economic policy: even the most liberal presidents would face too much pressure if they tried to extend Medicare and SS, which means none of them will ever be considered a true leftist.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Oerdin

If Iraq can be turned into something similiar to Turkey then I think we can consider it a success. That means a fairly stable democracy which has a few worts but which by and large shows steady improvement both economically and in social rights. It would be nice if, like Turkey, Iraq became a western ally.

Thanks, Oerdin. I would agree that that would be a reasonable success, a great improvement over the Saddam Iraq. But do you, indeed, see it as a reasonably likely outcome? I don't, and I'm still genuinely curious what basis for optimism you see. Neither history nor what I can learn of current events leads me to think the US invasion is likely to lead to democracy in Iraq.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ned
Kerry, who has the most liberal voting record in Congress?

I take back what I've said elsewhere, Ned. You aren't just pretending to be stupid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
An actual conflict between two declarable sides (at least). Who is the US fighting a war against? If you can't even really name the other side, it isn't a war. It's just guerrila terrorism, kind of like the ETA in Spain.

The Iraq war was over when the opposing side fell.

No. Last I looked, the Madrid government fights ETA with Civil laws, and the police. It does not have the army out enclosing villages an carrying out raids.

NO, a war does NOT need to "declared sides". Who are we fighitng? The insurgents...that there are multiple different groups of them does NOT mean that you can claim..there is no side.

Sorry Imran, but the simple plain evidence disproves you- yes, the war against the Saddam regime is done-but the insurgency has not been quelled. That is still a war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

a war does NOT need to "declared sides". Who are we fighitng? The insurgents

Of course it does. Fighting generic terrorist 'insurgents' after occupation is not a war. Russia is not involved in a war in Chechnya right now. Israel is not involved in a war against Hamas right now. The British were never involved in a war agains the IRA. And in those cases, you do have a declared side. Here you have a nameless bunch of insurgents. No different from those who still fought the American Civil War years after 1865.

the simple plain evidence disproves you- yes, the war against the Saddam regime is done-but the insurgency has not been quelled. That is still a war

Sorry, the plain evidence goes against you. The Saddam regime is disposed. What is left is just a rabble of insurgents. The war has ended, now it is just mop-up.

In the history books, the Iraq war will only have been said to take place until Saddam was deposed. The insurgency will be the last gasp of the regime, or something else entirely.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I guess he would be seen as 'center'.

First, he is a social liberal, for gay marriage and against DP. The only problem is his economic policy: even the most liberal presidents would face too much pressure if they tried to extend Medicare and SS, which means none of them will ever be considered a true leftist.

Actually, Kerry is against gay marriage and is in favor a Mass. constitutional amendment to ban it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by debeest






I take back what I've said elsewhere, Ned. You aren't just pretending to be stupid.

I'm just repeating what I have heard. Do you disagree that Kerry has the most liberal voting record in Congress?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ned


Actually, Kerry is against gay marriage and is in favor a Mass. constitutional amendment to ban it.

Not to nitpick, but I'm quite sure he is in favor of it in private. He just can't afford the political price.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm just repeating what I have heard. Do you disagree that Kerry has the most liberal voting record in Congress?

Of course I do. He voted for NAFTA. He voted for war against Afghanistan and Iraq. I could be wrong, but I think he even voted for the extra $87 billion.

I wouldn't be surprised if California alone has a dozen Congress-critters with more liberal voting records than Kerry's. Consider Berkeley/Oakland's Barbara Lee, the only US Rep to vote against authorizing Shrub to make war in Afghanistan. Hell, Dennis Kucinich is in Congress and he's 180 degrees more liberal than Kerry.

[Harry Tuttle]

You what is really comical? After GePap has a hissy fit, this thread turns into a liberal circle jerk.

It is just to easy, really.

And let's see here. GePap, you decided to call me a racist and then made assumptions about my politics. Hey guess what genius? You just proved how much you try to swamp alternate opinions. You are the epitomy of pessimism.

Oh and thank you everyone else for sticking up for my opinion in the face of the usual inane hive mind of the Commie Coalition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Not to nitpick, but I'm quite sure he is in favor of it in private. He just can't afford the political price.

I wouldn't be so sure - not that it matters, again, as he can't endorse it in public. I'm sure that if he could, he would simply because it would distinguish him as more "left-wing", even if he disagreed with it.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by debeest


Of course I do. He voted for NAFTA. He voted for war against Afghanistan and Iraq. I could be wrong, but I think he even voted for the extra $87 billion.

I wouldn't be surprised if California alone has a dozen Congress-critters with more liberal voting records than Kerry's. Consider Berkeley/Oakland's Barbara Lee, the only US Rep to vote against authorizing Shrub to make war in Afghanistan. Hell, Dennis Kucinich is in Congress and he's 180 degrees more liberal than Kerry.

Kerry voted against the 87 billion, because he said he disagreed with the way it was funded.

Kerry is ultra-liberal, however.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran takes war to mean an actual military conflict. By his definition of war, America won the war. This is not in dispute.
Whether the USA will achieve its goals in going into Iraq is the matter being discussed. If someone as bad as Saddam gets into power, then the goals of the USA will not have been achieved.
The true underlying justification of the war, as Imran stated, was to get Saddam out because of the danger he posed--not because he had WMD but because the USA thought he would be crazy enough to use them. I really don't understand what this argument was about...

I don't think we should expand the definition of war needlessly. The only reason I can see doing so is to slam Bush over something else (he didn't 'really' win the war). Slam Bush all you like over the peace, but you have to admit he won the war pretty damn fast (much faster than most thought possible).

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think we should expand the definition of war needlessly. The only reason I can see doing so is to slam Bush over something else (he didn't 'really' win the war). Slam Bush all you like over the peace, but you have to admit he won the war pretty damn fast (much faster than most thought possible).

According to Bush the war was over long ago. It appears his enemies do not agree. I think it is premature to call the United States the "winner" in this greater, historical conflict. Therefore it is also premature to declare victory, since, allthough we may wish we were writing history, only time will tell if we are successful or not.

I tend to believe not, and when all is said and done, it will be the middle east who will be claiming victory, and the United States will be taking a defeat. Because regardless of what the American media shows, people are butchered, crippled and destroyed by war. Surely the survivors do not present a receptive consumer base.

So the resistance may take, as even the administration admits, 5-10 years. Yet people like Bush is already trying to declare victory, after the two months of this struggle.

A tet offensive? Imagine, a series of massive attacks across the US in a year or so. The United States economy starts to struggle, as foreign investment is pulled, and the oh-so patriotic rcih also "outsource" their money to more profitable, and secure markets. Imagine these attacks carried out by Iraqi nationals who fled from Saddam during the first Gulf War.

Not only that but a potential escalation, and abandonment by Europe, as they interperet the attacks as America getting it's due for invading Iraq. An unpopular war can cause democracies to withdraw from their agreements, once their governments have been changed.

Why the pessimism? Because only 33% of the American population agrees with the rest of the world that Bush took us on a foreign blunder, and diplomatic nightmare.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it does. Fighting generic terrorist 'insurgents' after occupation is not a war. Russia is not involved in a war in Chechnya right now. Israel is not involved in a war against Hamas right now. The British were never involved in a war agains the IRA. And in those cases, you do have a declared side. Here you have a nameless bunch of insurgents. No different from those who still fought the American Civil War years after 1865.

Actually, every time I lookin any paper, I read about the WAR in Chechnya. Everytime Israelis speak, the speak about their WAR against Hamas....every time this admin.speaks, they speak about a WAR on terror, of which now Iraq is the most important battleground. Will you, holding the stance you do right now, right here state you do not believe there to be such a thing as a war on terror?

In the history books, the Iraq war will only have been said to take place until Saddam was deposed. The insurgency will be the last gasp of the regime, or something else entirely.

Hardly-while the hisotry books are not yet writen, most liekly,like with the Philippinnes, the subsequent violence will be seen as an integral part. As for "mop-up" if ONLY the mop up were as bloodless as the war, no?

[chequita guevara]

tp

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm just repeating what I have heard. Do you disagree that Kerry has the most liberal voting record in Congress?

While Kerry is a liberal, I highly doubt he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, let alone all of Congress. What is going on is a perception problem on the part of the right (which isn't surprising since they tear out their eyes in order to keep from seeing anything that might disagee with their ideology). One vote, for example, being touted as proof of his liberal voting record was made on the basis of a recommendation from Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and President G.H.W. Bush. Unless Cheney and Shrub's father are closet liberals, one could hardly describe that as a liberal vote, and yet the mouth-frothing right is doing just that.

[chequita guevara]

dp

[chequita guevara]

qp

[debeest]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Kerry is ultra-liberal, however.

Maybe people like Kucinich and Barbara Lee and Charles Rangel don't count as Congressmen in Ned's mind, but even in the Senate, a bastion of conservatism, you have Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, Byron Dorgan, Richard Durbin, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden.....

There's barely a real liberal in the bunch, but surely no one really believes that John Kerry is the most liberal of these, as Ned claimed. An "ultra liberal" would find no place in the two major parties, like Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Dellums are about as liberal as elected politicians get.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, every time I lookin any paper, I read about the WAR in Chechnya. Everytime Israelis speak, the speak about their WAR against Hamas....every time this admin.speaks, they speak about a WAR on terror, of which now Iraq is the most important battleground. Will you, holding the stance you do right now, right here state you do not believe there to be such a thing as a war on terror?

I love these 'wars'. Chechnya is not a war, no matter how Putin would like to spin it that way. And I have doubts that it ever was (even during actual battles between Russian and Chechnian rebels, I'm not sure they reached 1000 battle deaths.. and since then it's just been random guerrila fighting and terrorism). Israel is not fighting a war against Hamas, even though they'd like to call it such. Hardly any other country recognizes Chechnya or actions against Hamas to be part of a 'war'.

How many times do I have to state that I don't believe that the War on Terror is actually a war, just like the War on Drugs is not a war. Do you even read my posts?

most liekly,like with the Philippinnes, the subsequent violence will be seen as an integral part

But with the Philippines revolt, it isn't seen as an integral part of the Spanish-American War, but something totally distinct. Aguinaldo led something very different than the Spanish at Manilla did according to the history books.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Not to nitpick, but I'm quite sure he is in favor of it in private. He just can't afford the political price.

Oncle, wishful thinking, I suppose. Kerry is a Catholic and you know the position of Catholics on the issue.

Now, if he were to openly declare himself to be an atheist, then I would agree with you.