quote:

---

Afghanistan, just recently one of the most oppressive countries in the world, is now a functioning democracy.

Iraq, once ruled by one of the most depraved despots in the world, is now a functioning democracy. There are still terrorists trying to turn back the clock, and while some sick minds are sympathetic to their goals, they have been unsuccessful in derailing the democratic process.

---

quote:

---

What is the worth of democracy from the barrel of a gun?

---

quote:

---

Afghanistan, just recently one of the most oppressive countries in the world, is now a functioning democracy.

---

quote:

---

More than three years after a pro-U.S. government was installed, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is "on the verge of becoming a narcotics state," a presidential report said Friday. CNN

---

quote:

---

What is the worth of democracy from the barrel of a gun?

---

quote:

---

Did the population themSELVES go for it? Did they start a revolution? No. It was forced at from the end of our gun barrels.

---

quote:

---

That was certainly the case in Afghanistan, of course, but let's face it: we don't care a whit about Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

Peter Kornbluh: U.S. economic policy changed 100 percent once Pinochet took power. This is ironic, because Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger claimed after the coup that covert operations in Chile were designed to support democratic opposition, democratic institutions. And yet the moment that General Pinochet took power and outlawed political parties, closed down the Chilean congress, ordered a wave of repression that was unparalleled in the Southern Cone up until that point, the Nixon administration and the Ford Administration embraced him and turned back on the spigots of economic aid and military aid to Chile.

---

quote:

---

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both starting to initiate democratic reforms (very small ones, granted, but democratic nonetheless.)

---

I'm not sure what's behind these, as you say, very limited reforms. Perhaps reform is in the air, a zing in the zeitgeist, and Bush has helped it along, or been an instrument of that spirit.
Morbo
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
"There are more Bad Men than just Saddam...a Bad Man doesn't make a good reason to force democracy on a...country."

Giving Dubya 72hours to leave the country and disbanding the Republicans as an instrument of terror does have a certain appeal.

[ March 08, 2005, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Why stop there? Let's get rid of all the politicians who supported sending troops to Iraq, Republican, Democrat, Greenie alike!
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I applaud the nascent moves toward democratic processes and reforms in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are looking really good to me because the leadership is taking this task on without (or rather before) the bloodshed. It may become something that represents actual democracy someday. I think the Palestinian Authority is a potential bright spot too, after Arafat died.

And I will applaud Bush for supplying a lever in the region.

I think Iraq and Afghanistan are a bit worrisome still. Unless the life of the average person there is demonstrably better in real terms, not abstract things like "freedom" but in terms of full bellies, engaged minds, and meaningful work -- unless the vast majority are free first from fear and deprivation...truly, then I think what we really have is an experiment in government overlayed on a powder keg.

The fact that more "average citizens" died since we arrived in Iraq than under the previous regime has not gone unnoticed. That's a side effect of war that many of us were talking about from day one of this adventure. With a bit of foresight, it's not impossible to see where that kind of experience could lead average Iraqis to turn away from us in heart and mind, even if we see ourselves as their rescuers. At least those who lost innocent loved ones may have a special reason to support our enemies in the future.

In Afghanistan, the practice of opium growing is growing and the government is not able to suppress it mainly because doing so would create a massive hardship for the farmers. I'm not entirely sure that this uptick in the dependence on drug creation won't come back to haunt the US in a number of ways as well. Also foreseeable in advance.

I'm impressed by the elections and willing to say that maybe Bush had a solution to the problems. I still maintain, however, that he didn't have THE solution to the problems and that we will be reaping the long-term consequences of this whole thing for many generations.

It's a worry that I think Colin Powell expressed in the early days before he learned to toe the line in the Administration. I felt it was a valid concern then and I haven't seen anything to make me think that the problem is going to resolve itself.

And, in part, because of that, I'm still not glad we went to war in Iraq.

There's also the vaguer sense of not wanting us as a nation to think that the ends justify the means. It should never be forgotten that our President et al made up a story that they wanted to believe and wanted us to believe that gave them initial justification for this war. They snookered Congress and the American people with faked or misinterpreted intelligence and got what they wanted.

I daresay that had we and they taken more time to review all the facts we might still have gone to war, but it is the nature of our Presidency in general that delays mean no second terms and wars usually mean a second term. I would like to see us change the mix of incentives as a means of decreasing our reliance on luck and increasing our reliance on sober assessment and discussion.

I doubt that's really rising much in the National consciousness. But that bugs me too. I've never felt so out of step with my fellow Americans as I have in the last year or so.

And the feeling is getting worse.
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
BookWyrm, was democracy imposed on these states at gunpoint? Or did guns allow it to arise? I think there's a distinction between people who don't give a rip about democracy (not that I know of any such personally--most people seem to want a say in their government's affairs) and people who want democracy but are under the jackbooted heels of thugs too powerful for them to overthrow.

Morbo, back in the 70s and early 80s, wasn't there a real danger that countries with Communist governments would be coopted by the Soviets or the Chinese? In that case it doesn't seem that it would matter whether said government was elected or not. I believe the saying (from Africa) is "One man, one vote--one time."

I also question whether failed democracies really fail because it is "too early" for democracy there, or due more to chance and local conditions. The system implemented may be flawed, or in preventable conflict with local traditions. Alternatively, almost any system is vulnerable in the early stages; one problem official can set the tone for everything thereafter. (Imagine if our first president had been an incompetent like Grant, or a manipulator like Nixon.)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"What was that about needless cynicism?"

When was the last time you saw Afghanistan in the news?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

why were we not approached by the people and asked for help?

---

quote:

---

Ortega and the Sandanistas in Nicaragua.

---

Point of clarification: Ortega came to power with the aid of a terrorist campaign against his own people to keep them away from the polls. He then lost his bid for reelection and two more bids for the presidency since. While in power, he modeled much of his government's policies after Castro's in Cuba. His government suppressed political dissent and violated human rights. The Nicaraguan constitution was suspended, and freedom of the press was curtailed.

Not your best example, perhaps.

EDIT TO ADD: Exchanging a right wing dictator for a left wing dictator != democracy

[ March 08, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Mabus:

Allende rather disliked the Communists as well, he was a Socialist, not a Communist.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"That no one was ever able to escape and come to this country or others and get with governmental authorities to get help in starting a coup?"

Again, in all fairness, quite a LOT of people "escaped" Iraq and came to this country -- and Britain -- to live in exile while attempting to persuade us to invade. Many of these people were installed as part of the provisional government once Saddam was ousted. That's not uncommon.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
I think all the images of the purple fingers spoke for themselves
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, no, not really.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Well, yes, really.

The Purple Finger

How do all smiles in the face of danger with people thanking us as they show off their purple finger for their new right not?
I for one am very proud
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
um, Jay, did you read your link?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The premise of that article is ridiculous. The success of the UIA isn't giving the finger to the U.S., nor is their desire for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I don't know how much I credit Bush for any success.

Iraq is a mess, part of a stable functioning democracy is safety, which they don't have, and the political situation there is so fragile it could burst apart at any moment.

Afghanistan's opium production is back up to pre war levels, warlords roam and control half the country, and Karzai needs a platoon of secret service agents to protect him.

Syria/Lebanon has little or nothing to do with Bush, unless he ordered Hariri's assassination. Those were events totally beyond his control.

Palestinian elections only came about because Arafat died, also not having a single thing to do with Bush, again, unless he ordered Arafat's death.

Saudi Arabia/Egypt can hardly be called a major move. Both are offering limited elections, Saudi Arabia still restricts the rights of women and promotes wahabi state funded terror schools. And we've still yet to see if these elections aren't corrupted by the officials running them.

Positive steps in the right direction? Yes. Glory be to the Bush Doctrine? I think not.
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
Icarus, thanks for the correction about the Sandanistas, I wasn't up on all the facts. I didn't know there was a terror campaign pre-election.

quote:

---

Morbo, back in the 70s and early 80s, wasn't there a real danger that countries with Communist governments would be coopted by the Soviets or the Chinese? In that case it doesn't seem that it would matter whether said government was elected or not. I believe the saying (from Africa) is "One man, one vote--one time."

---

Mabus
Yes, and to fight this possible danger we supported vicious thugocracies world-wide, as long as they weren't Communist.

Better facists than Communists, eh? Good thing we got that straightened out after WWII instead of before.

Mabus, it might not matter to many Americans or our leaders whether the governments were legitimate or not, but I am sure it matters to the Chileans who suffered under General Pinochet, and other people who dealt with tyrants we supported in other countries.

I have no idea what that African saying means.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 

quote:

---

Original poster is missing the point entirely. Bush is not the president of the world. He is the president of the United States. His primary responsibility is to protect the United States, a country he is currently in the process of destroying.

---

Actually, I think you're the one who's missed the point entirely. I wasn't talking about what your president should be doing or what his primary responsibility or jurisdiction is. I wasn't talking about domestic policy. I am asserting that this sudden wave of democratic reforms in the middle-east is both directly and indirectly caused by Bush's foreign policy there. Whether or not you agree with that foreign policy is beside the aforementioned point.

In the past couple weeks, several prominent Arab leaders (both legal and otherwise) have stated that a change is taking place in the mentality there (sorry for no link, but it's hard to link to a printed newspaper ). People are seeing what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they want the same thing in their own countries (democracy, not war.) I don't know if the people of Lebanon would have dared to defy their occupiers so firmly without that kind of encouragement. Of course, it's still a very young process. But something is definitely changing for the better there.

I would appreciate it, therefore, if you would point out which point you think I'm missing.

[ March 08, 2005, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: dh ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
On the subject of imposed democracies, how about Germany and Japan? While it's true that these had more of a democratic tradition before WWII than Iraq did before the occupation, they still work pretty well now.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
We also spent far more time and resources in those locations than we are spending in either afghanistan or iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if in afghanistan, and maybe even Iraq, we were spending less than a tenth as much per capita in real dollars.

Also, both japan and germany were relatively modern industrial states. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is anything close.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
A couple of other key differences:

1. Both Germany and Japan were shattered - between atomic bombs on one and the absolute shredding of Berlin, neither country had much by way of being intact.

Iraq was, for the most part, spared any attempt to reduce it's cities to rubble and ruin.

2. Neither Japan nor Germany had close neighbors similarly beholden to this government form.

Iraq risks becoming an anomaly in the region and in the eyes of its people - which may very well lead to the democratic election of a theocracy.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't know if the people of Lebanon would have dared to defy their occupiers so firmly without that kind of encouragement.

---

There's a lot more to the Syrian involvement in Lebanon than what's getting play in the media at the moment. Lebanon would still be embroiled in civil war if it wasn't for Syria. It isn't a simple matter of occupation, and Lebanon has a massively complex history because there are about ten jillion factions that are constantly warring for power.

That's one of the big reasons I generally oppose the Bush Administration's Middle Eastern policy -- its hamfistedness shows an apalling lack of understanding of the region and its history.

And to touch, tangentially, on an issue that I refuse to discuss here anymore, there is a much more long-standing and far more oppressive occupation happening south of Lebanon that the Bush Administration does not appear to be interested in sabre-rattling about. That double standard is always going to make them look like liars to Arabs.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Amen! There is also a great deal of evidence that the insugencey (in Iraq) has lost its momentum. Softer targets, kidnapping for funds and a seeming cap on operations, more poorly trained operatives all point to a dwindling ability to function.

In short, it looks like Rush Lumaugh called another one right. Makes you folks on the left want to cry don't it... hee hee

BC
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
dh, I'm afraid I can't agree with all you are saying.

Afghanistan is a great example of what needed to be done, and what was done. A tyranny forced thier way of life on a powerless people, and sought to export it. We came in and helped those people to freedom by destroying that tyranny and helping them take the first steps to a democratic government...

yet much of the country is not free, but in the hands of drug trafficking warlords that we don't have the troops to face at the moment.

In Iraq a vote was taken, and there have been lots of promises that this has finally broken the back of the insurgents. Yet the attacks continue and the deaths, both Iraqi and American/Coalition increase. There are places throughout the country where people fear to walk.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are doing a lot of talking about how Democratic they are getting. For that matter Russia is talking about how democratic they are, and they seem to be going backwards. In one of Card's books he commented that a truly Peaceful society has no word for peace, because they do not know war. Similarly, the louder they scream about peace, the more warlike they may be. So to, the louder these countries hype their minor steps toward democracy, the farther they really have to go.

Finally there is Lebanon, who's supporters are protesting for the removal of Syrian troops.

I am really upset that President Bush is taking credit for this.

He spoke yesterday of the great democratic spring welling up in Syria, but didn't mention that the Syrian backed terrorist group HezBullah (sp?) had 500,000 protesters marching in the streets at the same time, demanding Syria stay in Lebanon, and the rest of the world stay out.

You can argue in this thread that President Bush was right about Democracy blossoming in the Middle East. But you can not argue that he was wrong about the WMD being in Iraq, or that Hussein had connections with Al Queda. Two out of three aint great.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

There is also a great deal of evidence that the insugencey (in Iraq) has lost its momentum.

---

Clearly you have not been watching the news in the last week, let alone the last 24 hours.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Dan, Hezbollah is considerably more than a terrorist group. It is also a political party and a charity organization. It plays a major role in Lebanese politics.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Actually I haven't, I have been talking to MI.

BC
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
Riiight, BC, megadittos.
The insurgency has lost its momentum?
A seeming cap on operations, more poorly trained operatives?
Suicide Bomb Kills at Least 115 in Iraq

It was the single deadliest attack in the insurgency, a few days ago. This is evidence of a loss of momentum for the insurgency?
Attacking soft targets? Security Forces Find 41 Corpses of Iraqi soldiers in Iraq

More poorly trained operatives ?

quote:

---

Monday's blast outside the clinic was so powerful it nearly vaporized the suicide bomber's car, leaving only its engine partially intact.

---

quote:

---

Vaporize a car? Again big deal, just the gasoline in a car will almost do that.

---

quote:

---

I am really upset that President Bush is taking credit for this.

---

He's not taking it, I'm giving it to him. I didn't say that he is solely responsible for what is happening, I said he was largely responsible. I know quite well that the Middle-East in general, and every country, region, and ethnic group there in particular, have very complex histories, and that there are alot of factors at work. However, Bush's policy in the Middle-East has definitely set alot of stones rolling. Even where he does not intervene directly, there are repercussions from more direct actions, and it would seem (at least so far) that alot of positive change is in the air because of that.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I predict yet another increase in Republican numbers. The reason is that the more Democrats open their mouths, the more they sound Anti-American and Anti-Democracy. I believe that a majority of Americans find that distasteful.
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
I predict the opposite, if only because the Shrub is sure to do something else idiotic before 2008.
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 
Nothing is more democratic and pro-American than keeping your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself, right?
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
To reverse the traditional Democratic proverb, Mormo--I may defend to the death their right to say the things they are saying, but that does not mean I have to like them.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
The comment I made about Bush claiming this as his was due to his history of claiming other foreign peace victories as his.

He claimed that it was him who brought Khadafi to surrender the atomic weapons program, but doesn't mention the years of British diplomacy that worked to bring it about.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes, clearly opposing totalitarian measures with no direct democratic oversight is anti-american and anti-democracy. I can think of no way people would ever interpret that as a pro-democracy, pro-american sentiment.

*rolls eyes*

The exact practice I have a problem with is removing the direct democratic oversight from decisions about shipping terrorist suspects to places they might be tortured. I am willing to condone it where there is a review by the executive branch, and where every effort is taken that they will not get tortured, but I'm not willing to give the CIA a free rein.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Or to make it more blunt:

How in the heck is being anti-torture being anti-american or anti-democratic?

I don't really know why I'm asking. However, I would appreciate it if, being one of the avowed pro-torture people on the board you would respond to my additional scenarios for torture, Occasional.
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
On that matter, I think you are quite right, Fugu....I am not talking about that in particular. I will readily agree that a lot of things about the Iraq war and national security have been utterly mismanaged.

What I was agreeing with, however, was that Democrats have a tendency to object in ways that make them sound anti-America or anti-democracy--even when they are right. It's the phrasing, not necessarily the opinion.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
In this case its the "yea, right" smirk in the voice. There is no sign of hope, only hatred.

[ March 09, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
This was the whole point of my last post. (And I disagree with you. EDIT TO ADD: insofar as I don't believe the democrats are saying things that sound like this so much as I think they are being inaccurately portrayed as saying such things.) I think some conservatives are saying "Look how well things are going!" (whether they are or not), and then letting the implication be made that liberals do not want things to be going well. This is a strawman. I'm not anti-American or anti-soldier or anti-democracy. I hope things go well in Iraq now that we are there. And I resent being lied to, and the immorality we have engaged in, even if the ends should turn out to be good (again, something that has not been guaranteed).

Frankly, I would say that those who have brought us to this point are anti-democracy (lies, secrecy, lack of oversight, curtailing of freedom) and thus anti-American. And it is precisely my heritage of coming to America fleeing oppression and tyrany which make me resent the heck out of the turn we have taken. So it's particularly galling to have it suggested that those who oppose this administration oppose America. Frankly, I think I value America more than most full-blooded Americans do. I certainly believe I value the ideals of America more than our administration does.

[ March 09, 2005, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
(and I got my threads crossed a little above due to sleepiness, but it all works )
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
In that case, I guess its a question of what one thinks Democracy means.

As the Liberals often like to say, who's values and who's America?

[ March 09, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Just a question out of curiosity, is there anything POSITIVE you can say about the United States and its government?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
There's a lot of positive things you can say about the government, but this does not negate the wrong things that are going on.
No system is perfect. Only blind robots praise a system all the time without critically thinking. We need a society of true patriots who question their government when they feel it's doing wrong, who actively participate in politics to keep it clean and honourable.
Like I have said before, It's not enough to say America is a free and wonderful country. Actions speak louder than words. The country must be held accountable so it can live up to its principals. You cannot run around trying to promote democracy in other nations without upholding it in your own backyard.
This is not how things work.
 

---

Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
 
I can say something positive about America's government: Bush will be out of office in 4 years.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Yep, I'm positive that Dubya&Gang love killing UStroops to keep their followers amused and distracted from the neo"conservative" looting of America.

[ March 09, 2005, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
 

quote:

---

is there anything POSITIVE you can say about the United States and its government?

---

I guess it reflects on my personality and issues, but I am often critical of the federal government, especially since Bush won in 2000.

I love America, and I criticize it because I think we can be better, and we should be a catalyst for freedom worldwide, just as Bush promised in his last inaugural address. But how can we preach freedom and democracy to others when our own constitutional freedoms are being taken away from us in the name of security and the war on terror?

Uhh, I guess I get preachy, and the answer to your question is "only with difficulty, qualifications and rhetoric included."
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Sure, and I say them, particularly about the United States.

It is because I value the US so much that I condemn what I consider to be practices undermining the principles we allegedly hold dear. Such as torture, and imprisonment without charges or trial, and other things. Some of these things may even be technically legal for the Bush administration to do, but that does not make them right to do, and the Bush administration's efforts to push every violation (or near violation, depending on who you talk to) of human rights to its utmost legal extension revolts me.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Why are people treating being accused of hating America seriously?

For what it's worth, I think that this situation is more complex than is being considered and that declaring victory now is as hollow as the "Mission Accomplished!" thing. Iraq and Afghanistan are years away from becoming stable, working democracies, even if they don't, like so many other countries, fail on the way. Nor are our interests necessarily best served and our problems done away with by democracy in countries (e.g. a democratic Saudi Arabia would make our position much less stable, which is why it's always absent from the President's list of countries that need to listen to their people). It's not some magic panacea that's going to make everything better.

The dice are still very much in the air and we face this situation with an administration that has shown little compunction about deceiving and even outright lying to the American public and often seems to do a poor job of anticipating and planning for things that could go wrong.

I'm still ambivilent about aggressively pursuing the spread of self-determination. I really hope it works out for us, but I'm convinced that this isn't going to happen if we cease holding the President accountable, as he and some other people seem to be suggesting we do.

[ March 09, 2005, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Then there is Dubya&Gang's success in foisting the neo"conservative" agenda upon Iraqi women.

[ March 10, 2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
With friends like these, who needs enemies? I honestly believe that Democrats are placing themselves in a permanent minority status. They are never positive or hopeful in a very positive and hopeful thinking country. True, there are enough who think the same to not count the Democrats out. But, there is a vast Middle America who don't believe that things are as wrong as some here are saying.

To be fair, I can see your point about loving America enough to point out its faults. There are plenty of things I find fault with (although from my perspective it is things liberals would defend). The trouble is that the way liberals are doing it sounds possibly traitorous. For example, the best that could be done in answer to the question is say "but, I do love America," with incredable lack of details. However, it is not without extensive details of what is not liked.

In the end, however, you might have to come to the conclusion that "Your America" probably doesn't exist anymore other than the East and West Coast in major cities. My ideal doesn't either, but it feels closer to it than it has in several decades.

[ March 10, 2005, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Occassional, I've heard some of the right wing political pundits say some of the stuff you're saying -- about how liberals are HOPING that things go wrong (with the economy, Iraq, etc.) and how they are traitors because they criticize the Administration during a war. I know that one of them (Rush) went gave a speech to that effect to some troops.

All I have to say on it is that the attempts to demonize me will not make me go away or be silent when I see things that I think are wrong. If you'd care to actually go through the issues and talk about perspectives on them, I think we could have an interesting dialog. But it'd first have to start by you ceasing the name calling BS and demonstrate at least a willingness to listen to the reasons why I don't like some of the things that you may think are real successes. I do believe that there's much to discuss or ponder and that many of the disagreements are at the level of philosophies and ideals -- a realm where results (good or bad) are somewhat less critical to the discussion. The upshot being that I'm not going to be happy with some of the things our Administration is doing even if with 100 years of hindsight I was forced to admit that they worked out just fine.

I can understand how that might be tough to swallow when you feel like you can point to a string of successful projects, and how you and others might assume that I'm just being a partisan liberal sniping at your guy 'cuz he's not my guy. But if you'd care to explore the reasons more deeply, I think you might find that I (and others like me) have legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with which party is in power, but rather how the power is being used. And how it reflects on America in general or me, as a citizen of this country.

Up to you.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Bob, why do you hate America?

quote:

---

The trouble is that the way liberals are doing it sounds possibly traitorous.

For example, the best that could be done in answer to the question is say "but, I do love America," with incredable lack of details. However, it is not without extensive details of what is not liked.

---

Send me the loyalty oath form now. I see the error of my ways.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
edit: to Occasional

Your apparently inane definition of traitorous reveals, I think, how little your know about what it means to be a patriot.

[ March 10, 2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I think I was pretty specific in saying what I value about America and why my family came here. Freedom from tyrany and a say in what my government does. A government that does not lie to me. The bill of rights and due process under the law. A sense of being the "good guys" on the international scene. My anger is precisely because some of the things I love about America are being threatened.

If you can't see anything positive about America in my posts other than a vague "I still love America," then you aren't really paying any attention to me, and aren't worth trying to convince. (It stunned me that you could even ask the question after my two posts on the topic.)
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Mr. Squicky--you are correct, but I find that I rise to the bait anyway because the charge is so personally offensive. It's all I can do not to stoop to their level.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
But I guess it's pretty easy for everyone to ignore aspectre's bulls*&^.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
For what it's worth, I can say lots of positive things about this country and its government. I can say far, far fewer positive things about the current administration.

I take solace in the fact that even if "my America" only exists in large cities and along the coasts, that accounts for more than half of the population of the country, and more than two thirds of its total production. The remainder simply isn't worth all that much.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Until those people want to eat something.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Dag, I disagree, but, on second thought, maybe this isn't the most appropriate place for me to explain why.

[ March 10, 2005, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Icarus,
From my perspective, it's just silly to get angry/offended by things like that. It's a choice to get angry and I don't see why you would give someone (especailly someone like Occ or aspectre) that kind of power over you.

It's like I've said before to you specifically. You've established yourself here. People know you. Heck, what you wrote in this thread makes Occ's accusation look stupid. People whose opinions matter didn't read it and think "Wow, Icarus must hate America." They thought "Occ sure is using some nutty, irresponsible tactics. He's way off base." You don't even need to say anything directly about the accusation. You've already won.

---

I, personally, lose some respect for people who take things that don't deserve respect seriously. To me, it's shows a small lack in discernment and self-control. It looks sort of like you're arguing with a 12-year old and putting them on an equal level. But then again, I've been told I approach arguments more like a robot than a human being, so there you go.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Dag, I disagree, but, on second thought, maybe this isn't the most appropriate place for me to explain why.

---

Ic, which one were you disagreeing with? I'm envisioning something like "that's what the 30-40% who voted for Bush in those states are for" in response to the food concern.
 

---

Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
 
For what it's worth, Dag, I think of aspectre in pretty much the same way I think of Occasional.

They both talk out of their asses most of the time.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
It's hard to say what will happen to the Democratic party, but I am willing to bet it'll depend a lot on what they do in the next three years leading up to the 2008 election.

I find it hard to believe they will disappear or even fall much below where they are now. Bush doesn't have the commanding lead that the conservatives would like to believe. FDR won his second term with over 400 electoral votes, he virtually crushed his opponents into the ground. Likewise towards the end of his second term, the Republican party barely existed. They had like 10 seats in the house and maybe one in the senate. Roosevelt's blunders brought them back into power, but the fact that the Republicans are back on top today shows that anything can happen really.

And the gap between Republicans and Democrats today really is razor thin, which means anything could happen. If the Democrats smarten up and clarify their message, they will make some major gains, especially of the Republicans keep at their hate mongering against the Democrats, and MOST especially if the President drives our financial state into the ground like he is.
 

---