Sign in to follow this  
The Giver

Yo! Euro-Liberal - Eat your Crow here!

Recommended Posts

Here's your chance to admit you were wrong!

The sky hasn't fallen. The Middle East hasn't been de-stabilized. Iraq is not a Vietnam style quagmire. The people of Iraq are jubilant!

The winners - 20 million Iraqis. The UK, the Untied States, Australia and all of the other Coalition forces.

The losers - France, Germany, Russia, Saddam and the Baath party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a little early to serve up crow yet.... Not that good feeding of crow is due for some, but the most difficult part of the war is just starting. Namely setting up a legitimate, friendly, stable and democratic government in Iraq. This is the only real test of victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be most happy to be wrong about my limited assessments of stability, and general overall damage to the reputation (and resulting trickle down effect on our economy and status as a world leader). Most happy. But I'm afraid it's several years too early to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, The Giver forgot. Liberals have a great deal of difficulty admitting it when they're wrong. Silly Giver.  :oops:

Oh, I forgot. The Giver is only interested in pushing his agenda. Silly me. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, The Giver forgot. Liberals have a great deal of difficulty admitting it when they're wrong. Silly Giver.  :oops:

Oh, I forgot. The Giver is only interested in pushing his agenda. Silly me. :oops:

What makes you think The Giver was talking about you? Are you a Liberal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal? Certainly, in some senses anyway. In others, no. However, I did think that the outcome of the war, while good for Iraq and its people (assuming the rebuilding goes well), would not be good for the US and its allies due to the way in which it had been persued, both in terms of its European allies and possibly the stability of the region. I think a lot of the stability issues will come down to the rebuilding and administration of Iraq, though, and not the waging of the war itself.

Having said that, the reason I responded as I did in my last post was due to the fact that I thought your comment was directed at the actually respondants to the thread, of which I was 50%. Instead of responding to my post or Occupant's, it seemed you were criticizing us as unable to admit that we were wrong. If, of course, you did not direct your reply at us, then I am barking up the wrong tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're barking in the right direction... sort of. It's just that The Giver never realized you considered yourself a liberal. So few people will actually will fess up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, Andrew is a liberal in the classic sense. As elaborated by Tannin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything, Andrew is a liberal in the classic sense. As elaborated by Tannin.

Yes, exactly. Liberal in the classic sense is defined as being open to trying new solutions until you find something that works, and even then continuing to refine your ideas. This is as opposed to conservative in the classic sense, which is rigid, traditional, and dogmatic. In the modern political sense, these two terms have become somewhat reversed, with modern liberals appearing to be the more dogmatic(and intellectually devoid). I would guess in the classic sense I'm one of the most liberal members here, but in the modern political sense I'm fairly conservative. Just goes to show you how meaningless labels are. I would personally like to see non-partisan elections where you actually have to study what each candidate stands for rather than mindlessly voting by label(i.e. political party), as over 50% of the populace regularly does. I HATE labels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Giver - as a true moderate (I'm content to play the conservatives and liberals off each other until we get long-term moderate policies), let me just remind you that NO ONE thought the war was ever in doubt. As Col. Hackworth said on CNN - "It's a popgun versus a battleship." I like Hack, he tells it like it is.

The real questions have ALWAYS been:

1) How many more terrorist acts will this inspire over the next 5 years? Remember, 9/11 was planned for years before they pulled it off.

2) How many civil wars get fought in Iraq after we pull our troops out?

3) How do we pay for the war and peace efforts, long term? We are already at $6.6 Trillion dollars of deficit, about $70k per each household...

4) What happens if we set up a democracy, and the radical Muslims win the elections? The Shiite's do make up the majority of the population, and most of them are highly aligned with Iran's religious leaders. Do we send troops back in if we don't like the results, and if so for how long?

A military victory over a penny-ante, panty-waisted Iraq military is hardly anything to crow about...if those had been Soviet T-80 tanks, manned with real Soviet crews, then I might be impressed...but they were T-72 export versions, manned by Iraqi crews. "Popsguns against battleships..."

Lastly, the real reason we lost Vietnam revoloved around the lack of viable end-state: we could win all the battles on the field, but there was no legitimate government in the South for the people to support, or even want to support. We've won the battle on the field in Iraq, and congratulatons to our troops: I'm waiting to see how the end-state part plays out...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, the military action turned out a complete success. The doubts I had have up until now been proven unfounded. However I do share Future Shock's concerns. The coalition has reached a very important milestone, but the game isn't over yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I had a rather long, involved, and rambling post about the significance of the labels, and indeed, the damage they can do, but that was eaten in the crash we experienced yesterday. Screw it.

Suffice to say, I agree with this:

Liberal in the classic sense is defined as being open to trying new solutions until you find something that works, and even then continuing to refine your ideas. This is as opposed to conservative in the classic sense, which is rigid, traditional, and dogmatic. In the modern political sense, these two terms have become somewhat reversed, with modern liberals appearing to be the more dogmatic(and intellectually devoid). I would guess in the classic sense I'm one of the most liberal members here, but in the modern political sense I'm fairly conservative. Just goes to show you how meaningless labels are. I would personally like to see non-partisan elections where you actually have to study what each candidate stands for rather than mindlessly voting by label(i.e. political party), as over 50% of the populace regularly does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The winners - 20 million Iraqis. The UK, the Untied States, Australia and all of the other Coalition forces. "

The only winner here is.....the U.S.

1) Now every Arab (oil producing) country is afraid they will be next.

2) the U.S. has prevented the euro go get stronger too fast

3) the U.S. made sure the dollar remains the number one and most used currency for transactions.

4) the U.S. made sure thanks to number 2 that they can stay the strongest most powerfull country in the world (for now)

5) the U.S. will make sure that the "new Iraqi government" will kiss a**

6) the Iraqi oil will no longer be connected to the euro

7) not one Opec nation will dare to convert from dollar to euro for who knows how long.

8) The U.S. will stay in Iraq for a long time (is there oil?)

9) The Iraqis will have to pay the rebuilding of Iraq with oil

10) Afganistan is a mess right now. Unfortunately they do not produce oil.

11) Let's hope that Iraq will not be a second Israël, a few months from now.

François

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The winners - 20 million Iraqis. The UK, the Untied States, Australia and all of the other Coalition forces.  

I don't think there were any other coalition forces. Unless you count the numerous countries who "supported" action on paper, including Japan who was happy to help after the war was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
Well, I had a rather long, involved, and rambling post about the significance of the labels, and indeed, the damage they can do, but that was eaten in the crash we experienced yesterday.  Screw it.

Was it? There was another post other than your 4/8 5:58pm EDT post here?

We were down more or less from 2:20pm EDT to 5:30pm, after which we briefly got up a backup database of the community as of 11:50pm yesterday. 20 minutes afterwards, we decided to take the forum down again to restore a copy of the database that would cover all posts up until the 2:20 EDT site downtime yesterday- so, in effect, the only posts lost should be the ones made between 5:30pm EDT and 5:50 yesterday, which had to be overwritten in the face of the 2nd restore.

Were you in the unfortunate position of composing a huge post @ 2:20 EDT yesterday? Just want to quash rumors before the start to fly (;)) or, if there really are posts before 2:20 missing, copy and paste them from the old server before its retired for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correction. The sunny face is put there by accident. A typo, typed 88 instead of 8.

Not one of the 11 points was for laughs.

François

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Eugene, let me be more specific:

Nope, the post never made it to the database. It was a reply to The Giver in this thread mostly related to the political "definitions" of the term, as opposed to my rather similar conversation with lgeis in the thread you linked. I was, in fact, composing it around 2:30-3pmish, and when I hit Preview, I got the universal page not available screen. I press Back to try again later, e-mailed you, and continued working...then my computer crashed, requiring a reboot (our company's app blew up the system). So I was SOL in terms of the post. My own fault for not saving it to a text file.

So the forum didn't eat my post; the web site going down set in motion a series of events that resulted in my stupidly losing my post. I just put it that way because explaining all this seemed to be irrelevant to the post I made, but I hadn't considered the implications to the forum at large.

In short, not your fault. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're barking in the right direction... sort of. It's just that The Giver never realized you considered yourself a liberal. So few people will actually will fess up to it.

Let me make this clear:

If you force me to be either liberal (L) or not-liberal (nL), and L = the current US political definition of liberal (i.e., approximately social democrat), then I must conclude that I am nL.

Perhaps, my friend, that is why you find so few "liberals" willing to own up to it -- you insist on a method of definition that excludes them from it without leaving them a recourse to anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks dislike being labeled a "Liberal" because the liberal way of thinking has largely been discredited as useless, destructive, touchy-feely mush. And rightly so. The Giver isn't forcing you to do anything.

Conservatives are not afraid of being labeled as such. That's because conservatives straighten out the problems liberals create - which of course is why liberals hate them so intensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks dislike being labeled a "Liberal" because the liberal way of thinking  has largely been discredited as useless, destructive, touchy-feely mush. And rightly so. The Giver isn't forcing you to do anything.  

Conservatives are not afraid of being labeled as such. That's because conservatives straighten out the problems liberals create - which of course is why liberals hate them so intensely.

I give up. You don't want to understand, and I can't make you. If you don't want to listen to logic, then there's nothing I can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks dislike being labeled a "Liberal" because the liberal way of thinking  has largely been discredited as useless, destructive, touchy-feely mush. And rightly so. The Giver isn't forcing you to do anything.  

Conservatives are not afraid of being labeled as such. That's because conservatives straighten out the problems liberals create - which of course is why liberals hate them so intensely.

being labeled a "Liberal" Is far better than being a American republican where the only thing they know about is how to wage war against a second rate country,you might have beaten them by your superior technology but the real test is if you win the peace.

"how many more people will die learning your republican democracy"

It is a great lesson that person in the white house who got there by default is teaching the world, looting ,lawlessness ,And using statements such as we are soldiers not policeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this