Changes

== Liberals and Saddam ==

== Liberals and Saddam ==

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

:::Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies.  --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is an undeniable fact.  In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy.  No one else shared thier views.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

 

Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies.  --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

 

::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position.  You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position.  You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

 

 

::..who really supports the troops?  Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War.  The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc.  But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''.  Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]

:::AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War.  The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc.  But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''.  Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]

::::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned.  And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you.  Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue.  No exit plan = poorly planned.  And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]].  Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned.  And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you.  Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue.  No exit plan = poorly planned.  And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan.  And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so.  But we all know the truth of that matter...

We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

:::::As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war.  Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed.  Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan.  And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so.  But we all know the truth of that matter...

:::::The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too.  Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states.  But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on.  It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions.  Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing.  The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war.  Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells.  It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed.  Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

:::::So then, what do we do?  Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too.  Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states.  But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on.  It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions.  Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

:::::: Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

So then, what do we do?  Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

:Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons  (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

::::::: A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying?  Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq?  Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply.  Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

:::::::: So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan?  Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms.  [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan?  Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms.  [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack.  And then that would justify everything.  But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD?  Why did they wait too long?  They knew and they did nothing!"  Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack.  And then that would justify everything.  But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD?  Why did they wait too long?  They knew and they did nothing!"  Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic?  [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic?  [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it.  I'm not even going to try.  But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen.  George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like.  He knew it in 1991.  W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

:It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it.  I'm not even going to try.  But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen.  George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like.  He knew it in 1991.  W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

And let's not forget... Saddam was contained.  His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance.  Time was our ally here.  We lost that ally like we did the rest of them.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:And let's not forget... Saddam was contained.  His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance.  Time was our ally here.  We lost that ally like we did the rest of them.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it.  Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior.  It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it.  Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior.  It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in Europe ==

==Liberals in Europe ==