FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-08-2003, 04:05 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: former British colony
Posts: 2,013
Default Liberal approach to war on Iraq.

It is generally true that liberals only feel comfortable attacking the Right on matters of war if they attack from the right. So, Hillary Clinton has been attacking Bush for not clamping down hard enough on civil liberties (i.e. Homeland Defense), John Kerry has been attacking Bush for not using the right tactics in launching its attack on Iraq, and generally the Democratic Party will not utter a word in opposition to Bush's war mongering unless it is to complain that he is not waging war correctly or enthusiastically enough. There are exceptions to this rule, notably Barbara Lee, the only person in congress who voted against the Patriot Act, but these exceptions are far in the minority. In general, the liberals have nothing but praise for war, unless it is not being carried out with the correct amount of hypocrisy and deceit.

I was particularly struck by this article in the semi-official journal of American liberalism, The New Republic. This fine journal has been noted for its fervent support of the Contra terror war, the NATO dismemberment of Yugoslavia, and its slavish adherence to state propaganda in the Vietnam War and Gulf War I. And now Gulf War II.

The propagandist Lawrence Kaplan, a lover of war if ever there was one, writes about Powell's speech (pack of lies) at the U.N. He writes,
Quote:
To any rational observer, the communications intercepts and satellite imagery Powell presented today should offer sufficient proof that Iraq is not cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. But, of course, we already knew this. And so did the other members of the Security Council. The problem with Powell's presentation, and with the entire logic behind it, is that they just don't care.
You see, even to question the proper authority, Colin Powell, is to exhibit an incomprehensible irrationality. If you question Powell's reliance on "unnamed sources," tapes alleging to be Iraqis bragging about fooling the inspectors, and photos of buildings with the appropriate labels pointing to "nasty stuff here," then you "just don't care." You are an unreasonable human being who refuses to see a logical argument when presented with it.

Kaplan then resorts to that all-purpose method of hyping up a war--jingostic nationalism, by denigrating the French and Germans for not seeing the light. No doubt, the French and German state managers are slimy, despicable politicians seeking to grab the right share of the pie, but this is not what concerns Kaplan. Rather, he is disgusted that the "allies" are not slavishly following U.S. orders.

But, it gets better. Kaplan finishes his excoriation of those irrational opposers of war with this:
Quote:
But if the Security Council continues to turn a blind eye to Saddam's misdeeds, the United States will have every reason to walk away from the process--and the organization behind it.
Here we enter into an Alice in Wonderland world, where imposing the harshest sanctions in the history of Mankind constitutes "turning a blind eye." Placing Iraq under a microscope in service of U.S. imperialism's aggressive intents, in order to try to ferret out the slightest pretext for war is "turning a blind eye." The failure of the U.N. to fall in lock-step with U.S. orders gives the U.S. "every reason to walk away."

The hypocrisy is just mind-boggling. So, Iraq complies with every demand to open its country to the most intrusive inspections in history, has had 2/3 of its country under U.S./U.K. occupation, and makes repeated calls for a peaceful solution, while the U.S. continues to seek out excuses for war, and it is Iraq that is to blame, and the U.N. even more for not supporting the U.S. war drive.

This is quite typical of American liberalism, which has always supported U.S. imperialism's wars. The point is that the opposition to war does not now, nor has it ever, lie with liberals or the Democratic Party. In seeking to ingratiate itself to that ever-elusive "progressive" wing of the bourgeoisie, opponents of war shoot themselves in the foot, and act in ways that are counter-productive to stopping war. Only by class struggle can imperialist war be stopped.
moon is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 04:20 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 5,047
Thumbs up

Quote:
Only by class struggle can imperialist war be stopped.
Will I have to give up my fat and lazy american lifestyle to join the struggle?

...burrrrrrrrrrp.
Ronin is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 07:58 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 638
Default

Liberal office holders are scared to speak out against this war because they know that in the end Bush will get his way and they feel their best chance for re-election will be to wait and critisize the chaos his war will cause.

Spineless cowards.
Danya is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 09:16 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: WV
Posts: 4,369
Default

I agree with Moon and commend him on being able to stand to continue reading and listening to the corporate lies. I listened to the majority of Powell's speech yesterday, it was practically dripping with evil. (Doublespeak, capitalism equals democracy etc, very Orwellian.)
emphryio is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.