Re: Have We Forgotten!!!!!!!
My problem with these liberal arguments is precisely illustrated in your post. The argument tends to go to imaginary liberals with imaginary positions, and how dangerous they are.<br /><br />I could do precisely the same thing by inventing a conservative with ridiculous imagined arguments, and tearing them down. It adds nothing to the debate, however.<br /><br />For example, as an adjective for liberal, you use "peace at all costs" as if that is the standard of all liberals. Exactly which liberals are you referring to?<br /><br />Real liberals are as concerned as you are with the safety and security of this country, and are more than willing to devend this country by any means necessary. However most thoughtful liberals prefer to use military action as a last resort, rather than the preferred method.<br /><br />Perhaps the greatest liberal in the history of this nation was FDR, and he could hardly be termed "peace at all costs" (That distinction was held by the conservatives of the day, BTW)<br /><br />We prefer to engage the world in diplomacy where possible, and react militarily only when a real threat exists.<br /><br />We also believe in learning from history, and not entering into conflicts, as another liberal did in Viet Nam, without a real reason, and an exit strategy that makes sense.<br /><br />Your argument about liberals is simply specious, and is directed at some imaginary liberal that for the most part, does not exist. (I am sure there are extremes on either side of this issue, from those that are "peace at all costs" to those on the conservative side that view this as another religious crusade to rid the world of Islamics)<br /><br />In the current conflict, for example, which we are probably no more than days away, our goal of turning Iraq into an oasis of democracy is simple fantasy--Not to mention that we have shown with out actions thruout the world that simple democracy is not good enough--we demand a democracy that agrees with our position.<br /><br />I hear from conservatives that the last 12 years of diplomacy in Iraq "has been a failure", yet the containment policy has left Iraq with a military of dramatically reduced strength, which has no capability of being a threat to anyone anytime soon ,let alone to the US. Hardly a failure. And so our argument goes that they could supply our enemies with weapons. Well, that same argument could be made for any number of countries--are we to preemptively attack them all?<br /><br />And we are leaving poor Tony Blair out to dry on this one. We have argued that this is about disarmament, as has Blair, but Bush made clear in his recent speech to the AEI that this is really all about regime change. With the result this imagined oasis of democracy.<br /><br />I firmly believe in the safety and security of the US and our allies. I believe with this action we are alienating our allies, and creating a situation that far increases the worldwide threat to the US, and makes us far less secure and safe. Iraq has known nothing but strong dictatorial rule since the days of Nebekadenser (sp?) and giving over the rule of this country to at least three separate, warring groups, all vowing to be the pre-eminent power in the region, all hoping to get control of what weaponry is there, is foolhardy, IMO. Not to mention wildly expensive.<br /><br />And we have not even mentioned the truly serious threat that North Korea poses to our real substantive allies.<br /><br />I don't think there is any way in the world that we can impose peace and security in the world thru military means alone. We should use other means whereever possible, and military means when no other option exists, against real threats.<br /><br />It is hardly a "peace at all costs" strategy.<br /><br />I really do hope I am wrong, and that somehow this action makes the world a safer place. I have a hard time even imagining how that could possibly happen, but time will tell. I don't believe there is any way to stop it at this point, so we will surely find out, I guess.
My problem with these liberal arguments is precisely illustrated in your post. The argument tends to go to imaginary liberals with imaginary positions, and how dangerous they are.<br /><br />I could do precisely the same thing by inventing a conservative with ridiculous imagined arguments, and tearing them down. It adds nothing to the debate, however.<br /><br />For example, as an adjective for liberal, you use "peace at all costs" as if that is the standard of all liberals. Exactly which liberals are you referring to?<br /><br />Real liberals are as concerned as you are with the safety and security of this country, and are more than willing to devend this country by any means necessary. However most thoughtful liberals prefer to use military action as a last resort, rather than the preferred method.<br /><br />Perhaps the greatest liberal in the history of this nation was FDR, and he could hardly be termed "peace at all costs" (That distinction was held by the conservatives of the day, BTW)<br /><br />We prefer to engage the world in diplomacy where possible, and react militarily only when a real threat exists.<br /><br />We also believe in learning from history, and not entering into conflicts, as another liberal did in Viet Nam, without a real reason, and an exit strategy that makes sense.<br /><br />Your argument about liberals is simply specious, and is directed at some imaginary liberal that for the most part, does not exist. (I am sure there are extremes on either side of this issue, from those that are "peace at all costs" to those on the conservative side that view this as another religious crusade to rid the world of Islamics)<br /><br />In the current conflict, for example, which we are probably no more than days away, our goal of turning Iraq into an oasis of democracy is simple fantasy--Not to mention that we have shown with out actions thruout the world that simple democracy is not good enough--we demand a democracy that agrees with our position.<br /><br />I hear from conservatives that the last 12 years of diplomacy in Iraq "has been a failure", yet the containment policy has left Iraq with a military of dramatically reduced strength, which has no capability of being a threat to anyone anytime soon ,let alone to the US. Hardly a failure. And so our argument goes that they could supply our enemies with weapons. Well, that same argument could be made for any number of countries--are we to preemptively attack them all?<br /><br />And we are leaving poor Tony Blair out to dry on this one. We have argued that this is about disarmament, as has Blair, but Bush made clear in his recent speech to the AEI that this is really all about regime change. With the result this imagined oasis of democracy.<br /><br />I firmly believe in the safety and security of the US and our allies. I believe with this action we are alienating our allies, and creating a situation that far increases the worldwide threat to the US, and makes us far less secure and safe. Iraq has known nothing but strong dictatorial rule since the days of Nebekadenser (sp?) and giving over the rule of this country to at least three separate, warring groups, all vowing to be the pre-eminent power in the region, all hoping to get control of what weaponry is there, is foolhardy, IMO. Not to mention wildly expensive.<br /><br />And we have not even mentioned the truly serious threat that North Korea poses to our real substantive allies.<br /><br />I don't think there is any way in the world that we can impose peace and security in the world thru military means alone. We should use other means whereever possible, and military means when no other option exists, against real threats.<br /><br />It is hardly a "peace at all costs" strategy.<br /><br />I really do hope I am wrong, and that somehow this action makes the world a safer place. I have a hard time even imagining how that could possibly happen, but time will tell. I don't believe there is any way to stop it at this point, so we will surely find out, I guess.
