Liberal Reading Assignment #1

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 497 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:40 pm:        I think Strawberry has the right idea. Liberals need to become familiar with the truth. As a result I have posted the following link. No, I didn't write it Notehead, Nohero, Nosmoking...et al. I made sure to give credit as best as I could too, just so you can't complain and sidetrack the issues as you read the truth. Here is a link to an article from the National Review posted today January 24, 2005, 7:43A.M, entitled “The Civil Rights of Iraqis” It’s a struggle we’ve been through. By Steven Vincent http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/vincent200501240 743.asp I strongly recommend that MOL posters, especially those liberal, anti war, pro-insurgent, and most of all Bush haters read it. The article highlights two events and then compares them. It makes one exceptionally aware of the dramatic difference the left in our country has when it comes to Civil Rights. I can only hope that liberals will feel uncomfortable after reading it. If you don’t, I’d like you to listen to, or actually read the President’s Inaugural Address. You might then gain awareness of what he is referring to when he speaks of Liberty and Freedom. Be grateful we have such liberty in our free country. I would then like to review your comments.   mwoodwalk Citizen Username: Mwoodwalk Post Number: 280 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:55 pm:        Face, I'm sympathetic to the argument, and agree with its conclusions, but find that the trouble is that there are no concrete examples to back up the supposed indifference of the American left to the struggle in Iraq to establish a democratic system and the willingness of the left to characterize these thugs as "insurgents". I know such examples abound, but the writer has failed to include them (something that is rather common w/ NRO articles--unlike regular NR articles, which aren't under the same time pressures.) This unfortunately takes away from the persuasive value of the piece.   Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 454 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 11:21 pm:        First of all, the issue wouldn't have been sidetracked if you had not tried to fob off someone else work as your own. Second, I *did* respond to the issues that you raised in that post, and you did not respond. As far as the NRO article goes, I will read it now, but before I do: I wonder out loud if you extend the same courtesy to fellow posters who post links to the NY Times and such?   Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 456 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:11 am:        Having read the article, here is my criticism of it: I think that the author leaves out a very important distinction: the struggle for civil rights in the United States was internal; it was not catalyzed by an outside state but by the actions of people within the country. Civil rights in Iraq have been catalyzed by an outside power, in the form of Coalition forces. I think that the author does not make a distinction between the respective goals of Iraqi insurgency and resistance to civil rights in the American South. The primary goal in the American situation was the denial of civil rights; while that may be the goal for some of the more extreme Islamist insurgent groups, overwhelmingly the goal of insurgent groups is to avoid American, and Western as a whole, influence over them. The response to this could be to declare that insurgents' only reason to oppose American influence is to avoid the proliferation of freedom, but this is mere rhetoric. In reality, we have little useful idea about what actually motivates these groups in Iraq. But we can ask ourselves: is it more likely that Iraqi insurgents seek to deny women the right to vote and dress, or do they simply want America out of their country? And we have no idea how many of these insurgents actually want a Baathist regime reinstated: as an alienated public with a sensationalist news media, all we get are the most extreme cases. Furthermore, the author uses only one concrete example to compare Iraqi insurgency to the civil rights movement; the only other connections are rhetorical and ill-concieved. For example, what reactionary regime did the Ku Klux Klan seek to reinstate? Bear in mind that these are only criticisms of the article and the author: Rights abuses are to be decried, but I do not think that the comparison to the Civil Rights Movement holds any water. I think that it is sensationalist comparison, designed to force aquiesence using a universal and unassailable cause. The human rights abuses performed in Iraq were and still are inexcusable. The author is correct when he states that this abuse is intolerable. However, criticism of the efforts against it do not amount to apoligeticism for their occurrence. American Leftism is not the same as Pro-Iraqi Insurgency, nor is criticism of actions by the administration the same as approval of abuses. The author incorrectly presupposes that they are. As an example: I wonder how many more people would be more satisfied with the effort to bring civil rights to Iraq if it had not originally been contrived under the pretense of self-defense: I'm talking about truthfulness and consistency. Remember that the civil rights of Iraqis were mentioned only in passing when Colin Powell addressed the UN, yet have become the principal goal of Coalition action now that it uncertain that Iraq ever actually threatened us: it serves a political purpose by deflecting criticism in the name of human rights. In essence, a noble cause is being used as a shield and a bludgeon. EDIT: I realize from this I may appear uncaring about civil rights abuses in Iraq; that's a whole different thread. I restricted my comments to a response to the article posted by Face.   Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1186 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:04 am:        Where's the beef? Show me prominent liberals who support the insurgency. Show me liberals who are not horrified by beheadings and attackes on poll workers and the Iraqi police. Where will this guy be after the election when the Sunni minority is being systematically excluded from setting policy? Why is he not advocating for similar invasions of every other country that oppresses minorities and women? How about imposing democracy through the barrel of a gun, like the Soviets imposed communism in Eastern Europe? Right wingers can only set up straw men to knock down, can only understand simple situations and fail to appreciate complex situations. Liberals understand the complexity of the situation, and the complexity of the solutions. Bush and his simplistic conservative cabal created a total mess on the ground with an ill-conceived invasion. All Americans have to work together to find a way to help the Iraqis create a new future for themselves.   Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5089 Registered: 4-1998 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:15 am:        This is a bogus reading assignment. One need not be a liberal to speak up against the mishandling of the war nor need be a conservative to know we can't cut and run.   Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1765 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:56 am:        I guess they forgot their "Leaders" own words during the 2000 campaign. "During college Al Gore wrote a book, I read a book".   Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 500 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:11 am:        So you say there are “no concrete examples to back up the supposed indifference of the American left to the struggle in Iraq to establish a democratic system and the willingness of the left to characterize these thugs as "insurgents.” How about we begin with the widespread misuse of the word insurgent, or as Michael Moore has suggested, “freedom fighters” or “minute men”. My dictionary defines insurgent as 1,) Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government. Or, 2.) Rebelling against the leadership of a political party. Isn’t that what the KKK used to do? Yet they were never referred to as “insurgents,” or “freedom fighters”, or “minute men”. Or perhaps you can show me an example where members of the KKK were referred to as insurgents. Why not? Is it because the liberal media chooses to tone down the war on terrorism, using alternative words that are weaker to describe the terrorists in Iraq? Why would they do such a thing? The supposed Iraqi insurgents, as they have been repeatedly referred to by the liberal media, are nothing more than terrorists just as the KKK was. Many of them aren’t even Iraqi citizens they come from other countries in the Middle East. They are there to stop the people of Iraq from achieving liberty. They wish to prevent at all costs a democracy from taking hold in the Middle East.   Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5090 Registered: 4-1998 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:38 am:        It's a typical ploy by regressives to define Democrats widely by pointing at leftists fringe elements. However, most Dems are centrists, just like most Reps. Insurgents = bad guys/terrorists. Got it. Thanks. Try discussing an issue sometime rather than poking little sticks into your voodoo doll collection. It's more interesting.   Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5091 Registered: 4-1998 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:58 am:        And lest there be any misunderstanding about where I'm coming from, here I am in Feb. '03 discussing the war. You'll note I wasn't exactly against going into Iraq. However, at that point I thought we had competent people who weren't stretching the truth to make the case for war. As a citizen, I appreciate candor first, even before competency.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1931 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:11 am:        Vincent says the "silence of the Left" is "perplexing" -- but he assumes his premise of the Iraqi conflict being similar to the American civil-rights movement. The differences are legion, as some have noted above. I can't have much of a discussion with anyone who refers to the entire liberal movement as "the Michael Moore crowd."   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1932 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:13 am:        And the idea of liberals needing to "become familiar with the truth" is patently hypocritical when coming from any supporter of the most secretive and dishonest administration in the history of this country.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3045 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:59 am:        I will give you that liberals might be more vocal in the fight for civil rights in Iraq (and freedom, market economy, etc) if that was the #1 reason given for going into Iraq rather than #4. But I must say the relative silence on what was a remarkably successful election and transition in Afghanistan (given the circumstances) that resulted from a war that the Left ostensibly supported is noteworthy. There is no celebration or urgent support for any democratic movements -- in the Balkans, no handwringing over continued Haitian failure, the Sudan peace-treaty with continued persecutions going on, and no outward concern about that nut Mugabe -- that I see anywhere on the Left except for a chance to take a whack at Bush when and if the Left focuses upon these countries. I know this goes beyond the article cited. Sorry if it's drift, but the Left seems to view the war and in this case people's freedom and civil rights strictly as a political opportunity rather than the core belief it is supposed to be for them regardless of how the situation evolved. It's understandable that there's disagreements as to how we got involved, but that's over.   Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1187 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:11 pm:        Based on what cjc says, and on this other interesting article from National Review, looks like we will be going to war all over the globe--real soon, too. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bennett200501250747.asp Interesting how it was liberals who believed in using war to instill democracy in Southeast Asia, and now it is conservatives who believe in using war to instill democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. When will we ever learn?   lumpynose Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 1094 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:38 pm:        New rules to MOL: 1) no opinions please 2) only issue discussion 3) no playing with voodoo dolls Got it Face?