<p>I really am not going debate in a situation where I see a clear, long term pattern of rampant attacks on others, particularly when those who are whining are the biggest perps of saying extreme, edgy, insulting things to others. It is comical for a person who frequently gets called out for being rude to claim to be insulted, particularly when no insult was launched or intended (in the real world, anyway). </p>
<p>Just like on a childhood playground, it is the quintessential bully who can dish it out all over the place but not take it. And even if no one is really giving it to the bully, he or she will cry and claim a slight whenever it isn’t going their way.</p>
<p>Sometimes when we feel that we are insulted for no good reason, it is helpful to put pride aside, and on a calmer day, analyze why we REALLY feel the way we do.</p>
<p>Mapesy: “it dismays me when posters attach negative labels to groups of people. We’re all just Americans who care very much about our country.”</p>
<p>I reread the excerpts from my posts and still feel good about them. Post 197 is a great clarification for anyone who needs it, and your post above rewords the very things I said. We agree on that.</p>
<p>“Your statements imply that liberals—a group that includes BedHead—are somehow responsible for contributing to US military and Iraqi civilian deaths”
Liberals, or anyone else, who are a part of the anti-war din which rings in the ears of those we are trying to fight, and encourages them. But I didn’t imply it. I came right out and said it, because it is true. And I also said that of course that was not intended. And I added in post 197 that those launching and supporting the war could be (and have been) blamed for military and civilian deaths, but the same principle applies. It really is common sense. Just like there are consequences to sending young men into war, so are there consequences to joining a huge, loud anti-war effort once our men are on the ground. Just because someone finds that insulting doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And whining and complaining that patriotism has been questioned, when it hasn’t, doesn’t hide the truth either.</p>
<p>It amazes me that so much negativity has been openly and incessantly launched against war supporters by anti-war liberals for being responsible for military and civilian deaths (“Bush lied. Thousands died”), but if someone DARES even point out that protesting the war can also contribute, well then it is OK to attack them personally? Or claim insult? I disagree.</p>
<p>Basically, you either need to be a respectful debater, like you are mapesy, or be able to take at least an honest dialogue without complaining if you choose to bully others.</p>
<p>Spidey, I love debating those who hold differing points of view, but as I said before: It dismays me when posters attach negative labels to groups of people. And, yes, that applies to both liberals and conservatives.</p>
<p>Which labels did I apply? I’m not for slapping labels on people, so if I did, show me where. How do you feel, then, about the labels attached to me in post 186?</p>
<p>Spidey, Thanks for further clarifying your remarks. </p>
<p>When you say “…this despite every effort by the liberal left and mainstream media to undermine the effort at every turn, contributing to insurgent zeal and therefore US military and Iraqi civilian deaths…” without further explanation, it sounds to me like you’re arbitrarily ascribing an extremely unflattering label to all liberals.</p>
<p>However, when you explain your point of view as you did in a later post, it’s part of an honest debate. Whether or not I agree with you, I can respect that.</p>
<p>I do of course believe that the liberal side has seemed to do a lot of throwing around accusations that the conservative side is somehow OK with either civilian or military deaths. I think that if my original statement needs clarification, it is because it is uncommon to have that reality addressed. Protesting the war can encourage the enemy, despite it being unintentional. Everything has consequences. Every time we act, and every time we choose not to. It is not uncommon to cause the very thing we are trying to avoid. I think that is just the way life works sometimes.</p>
<p>Hindoo: “You are the voice of reason, spideygirl. … I, for one, fly into manic rages and make things up as I go along. On occasion, at least!”</p>
<p>I don’t agree. You are really polite. I would even have you over for dinner and debate you in person. I’d just do the dishes alone and let you sit and watch. :)</p>
<p>This is a very good description of unintended consequences. And it is very applicable to the prosecution of this war which was fought to democratize Iraq and thereby give us an ally in the region. Instead, it has strengthened terribly Iran’s power in the region. It has hastened the development of emboldened Al Qaeda in that country. This is just common sense.</p>
<p>Mapesy did a very good – and polite – job of describing the way in which you were incredibly insulting to my patriotism and those of others. I am actually a moderate, on many issues not particularly liberal, though based on my opposition to the war alone some people – I suspect perhaps people like you – would cast me as a liberal.</p>
<p>This is a democracy. The soldiers who fight our wars would know, you surely would say, that they are fighting to support our freedoms to speak out against our government when we feel in our conscience that that government has erred. You, on the other hand, would gag the effort to speak out and make the scurrilous claim that by so doing we are fighting the soldiers. You would decline our right thereby to protest with honor and patriotism, suggesting instead that protests were dishonorable and unpatriotic. If you can’t see how this is insulting, there is no point in having a conversation with you. And it is you who bully, by adopting such a position.</p>
<p>208 in no way represents my posts or thoughts accutately.</p>
<p>Once again, despite the repetitive and unwarranted claim that anyone was insulting or questioning anyone’s patriotism, I will refer to my previous posts to yet again address this tiresome matter. Many posts ago I ceased any new debates (when reason would not stop the personal attacks and made-up claims).</p>
<p>We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.</p>
<p>Mapesy showed fair play and a consistently intelligent approach to political debate when she summarized the situation as it is:</p>
<p>“it’s part of an honest debate. Whether or not I agree with you, I can respect that.”</p>
<p>^^^ Not really all that scary at all - unless it is hyped into that realm by an author with an agenda to scare.</p>
<p>
What the author fails to note is that the Iraqi Liberation Act was so non-controversial that it passed unanimously in the Senate and it was the Clinton administration which was the major instigating force behind it.</p>
<p>Its not scary if you agree with the foreign policy of preemption and democratic nation-building. Its scary when you dont agree, and when you have a presidential candidatewith a very good chance of winning the electionwho has foreign policy advisors who were members of the PNAC. Randy Scheunemann, for example, is McCains national security advisor. Mr. Scheunemann was one of the directors of the PNAC. Also serving as advisors to McCain are Bill Kristol (PNAC founder), Gary Schmitt (PNAC president), Robert Kagan (PNAC director), and James Woolsey (PNAC signatory).</p>
<p>I thought the United States might move away from the doctrine of preemption espoused by the PNAC after the Iraq debacle (didnt we learn anything?), but the article by Condoleezza Rice in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs doused those hopes completely. She made it perfectly clear the United States will continue its policy of preemption and nation-building into the future. </p>
<p>John McCains choice of advisors leaves no doubt about the direction his foreign policy will take if he is elected.</p>
<p>Well, it was too scary an agenda for President Bush and his people. The first President Bush I am talking about – father of the current one. Led by people like Brent Scowcroft, he knew that this was a dangerously utopian framework for foreign policy and that the vision destined to fail. And when this notion was proposed as an overarching foreign policy framework in the first Bush Administration, it was viewed as lunatic by them. Oh, if only the son were like the father.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find it truly hilarious that FundingFather’s stock reaction is “well Clinton did it too” or “well, the Democrats voted for it too.” I don’t care who supports it; if it is wrong, it is wrong. If Obama proposed this idealogical ridiculously utopian and yet militaristic foreign policy that imagines we can shove democracy down the throat of the world at the end of the gun, I’d vote for Ron Paul. The fact that McCain has bought into it suggests to me he has learned nothing from the mistakes of the Bush II years. God, how I’d give anything if we could go back and make Bush II a carbon copy of Bush I. We would never have gone into Iraq in the manner and speed that we did. And even if we had eventually ended up going in because Saddam had done something verifiably beyond the pale, Bush I’s team would have had the whole world with us.</p>
<p>You see, I don’t have FundingFather’s “us good, them bad” partisan scoring mechanism so firmly in place.</p>
<p>In this election, though, foreign policy realism is with Obama and McCain betrays a bizarre foreign policy utopianism: force, force, and more force. True conservatives should be appalled with McCain.</p>
<p>Me too, BedHead. (I actually looked to see if Obama has any former PNAC principals in advisory capacities in his campaign, but I didn’t see any names that I recognize.) </p>
<p>If McCain is elected president, I can’t help but wonder what this dangerous, misguided hegemonic policy will ultimately cost the United States. And you can bet it will come with a heavy price. Every hegemonic wannabe in modern history has been defeated. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The American Conservative ran a great piece a few years back about the dangers of hegemony. It might be in our best interests (and those of our children) to pay close attention:</p>
<p>A true conservative may be appalled by McCain but there is no way they can jump over him and vote for Nobama. The other option is to not vote which is, in essence, a vote for Nobama also…</p>
<p>Well, whether or not the true conservative understands he will thereby sacrifice his principles and good sense voting for McCain, he has of course every right to vote as he pleases.</p>
<p>Of course he is. Just not in a liberal sense. Sorry. Rampant liberalism scares me. I like to hold on to what little bit of money I have left. I don’t want it going to some crack whore on welfare. (only mild sarcasm) Not thrilled about the war either but we’re kinda stuck on that one.</p>
<p>“A true conservative may be appalled by McCain but there is no way they can jump over him and vote for Nobama …”</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right! And by the same token, it would make no sense whatsover for a Hillary Clinton supporter to transfer his/her support to McSame. Not if policy and issues meant anything at all to them.</p>