This past week I have been circulating a petition to get an anti-war statement on the April 4 ballot here in Milwaukee. Most people are very receptive but the number one reason I have been given for not signing is that "I don't think the US shuold withdraw immediately." The argument usual follows that now that the US is in Iraq "we" need to fix things because imagine how had things will be if "we" leave. My initial retort is a question, do you think that the US is doing anything good in Iraq? The nice liberal imperialists usually say no but if "we" leave things will be worse. At this point then they are arguing that this is bad, and I am against the war, but it needs to continue because the US will eventually do good.
Most of these folks are Democrats. They are the half solution/imperialist crowd. The world is a bad place and the US miltary is a tool that needs to be used every once in awhile to fix things. I fear them more than the pro-war crowd. At least with them they say I am racist and we should kill "them" all or Saddam was bad and the President lied but this is a good war because US power is a force for good, at least for me. These are arguments that are easily refuted and the majority in the end will reject. But the liberal imperialists will constantly shift arguments because in the end they don't trust the masses and they want "thier" expensive car, phony co-op, crunchy ass lifestyle to be defended by force.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Honestly, I think this is the reason why the "withdrawl now" crowd isn't respected even by democrats. By calling anti-war citizens imperialists just because they don't support an immediate withdrawl is quite harmful to your cause. If you weren't so shrill all the time, I think the Democratic leadership and the American public writ large would be far sympathetic to the "withdrawl now" crowd.
Last week, you basically argued that it's more or less the duty of an anti-war activist to wish for the defeat of the US military in Iraq, even if it means that Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq operation would take the country over. You have to realize that this result would be the worst strategic disaster in US history, including the fact that Zarqawi has openly stated that he wants to expand his jihad to neighboring countries. Would you rather this happen just so the radical left can claim a big "I told you so"?
Now, I signed your ballot last week not because I agreed at all with your overall objectives, but I think that since this is a democratic country and all, the anti-war position (as well as the pro-war one) should be represented.
-Land
http://urbanempire.blogspot.com
we had a debate hre at cornell about how to support the troops during the invasion. cornell democrats took the stance you've mentioned here as the generic anti-war-lets-not-pull-out-yet-moderate stance. the cornell republicans sang the same tune mclellan, rove, bush and all the other thugs sing. the cornell libertarians proposed we leave now as a staunch Nozick-ist libertarian understandts pre-emptive war as a breech of basic privacy, self-expression, liberty principles. the socialists were there and expressed the imperialist PROCLIVITY (really the best word for it as it is not merely an easiyl traceable tendency, but an innate desire to plunder and profit) of the US, and Iraq as one of many many bloody interventions. the latter also called for the troops out now.
Concern:
What the F *cough* are the Democrats thinking? I understand the you broke it you fix it notion. however, the fallacy here lies in supposition that there will be a civil war once we leave. notice the implicit goodness we bring in such a thought. i dont understand this because the US enters in Civil Wars or has incited them in the past without this "fix it" clause. Chileans have only recently been relieved of pinochet, a saddam-light propped up by the CIA in 73'. the notion was "you vote, we break it, you fix it, you get Fu *cough*ed. "
If we leave now they will maintain this bloodbath. If we stay they will maintain this bloodbath. However, ever since the fucking shock and awe campaign in march of 2003, resentment towards the shockers and awers, has risen dramatically.
the notion that the left would want the US-led invasion to fail miserably to pull the guilt card, the man-you-blew-it card is intellectulaly irresponsible and no progressive should have to take such a criticism. why? Well, probably because anti-war means just that, one who opposes war at least this war. unfortunately the black and white thought derived from the bipolar system, ass vs. animalwithbigass, is no detrimental to, wait for it, 3rd and 4th and Nth opinions on a subject. the world, this country, is not so black and white, or rather blue and red in reality, and more normatively, should not let itself be so absolutist either way.
the answer as to how to suport the troops is not to blind the mind with Realist jargon: war, terror, "its hard work", 9-11, post 9-11, patriotic and so on. the answer is to pull out. its like when you stab a person, you dont leave the knife in longer, hoping it will keep the blood in the body. there is the growing pain, the worsening of general wellness, the shit, this not positive and must leave before a hemmorage.
i want to believe the democrats can get off the centrist bandwagon soon, so they can save some lives in iraq.
oh yea, i get to vote in the mexican election next year. fuck bush. he's not my president. im voting for Obrador. i love when the candidate's name means "worker".....
I've reconsidered my position now that I have heard such arguments. Your right the Democrats weren't imperialists in the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc... I think that the US should stay in Haiti too because their just about to fix things there.
I actually could care less if the Democrats become an anti-war party. I hope they don't. What I want is the US to get the fuck out of every country they have their bloody/dirty mits in because then people might have a chance to at least get rid of the locals that are treating them like serfs.
The US is THE most powerful imperialist country in the world today. It's empire is the largest in human history. It is a new kind of empire but an empire all the same. It's ruling class wants countries/people to sell their stuff for cheap and buy its stuff for expensive dollars. They do this through banks, large manufacturing companies and other sorted enterprises. If you don't play with these folks then you lose access to US markets. If you try to redistribute your wealth you get isolated and pressure is put on other countries to limit their markets to you. If this fails you get subterfuge, assasination or invasion. This has happened so many times with Democrat and Republican support I will not list.
Once again, Kerry's position was more troops not no war.
US OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
I am always glad to hear Anton's calm, reasoned approach to these issues. It helps to give me strength when the Right wingers claim that leftists are Anti-American. Thank god Anton's not adding any fuel to that fire.
To get more to the point. I support pulling out the troops now. But I don't have a lot of confidence in that position. It just doesn't seem any more disasterous than our current course. It seems to me that a) there's ALREADY a civil war going on, so our leaving isn't going to be the cause of one, b) the longer we stay in there, killing and being killed, the weaker we will be as a nation.
However.
I think many of the oh-so-evil Democrats that Anton rails against have another thought in mind that troubles them when considering a withdrawal. The reasoning goes like this: 1) Afganistan was allowed to descend into a chaotic nation where someone like Osama Bin Laden could flourish and plot his attacks on the US.
2)Pulling out of Iraq would leave it in a similar state of chaos, with many similar actors
So therefore, 3) we have to figure a way out of Iraq that doesn't just leave them to spiral into complete chaos.
I think this is an honorable and reasonable line of thinking. I would like to hear Anton's response. But whatever direction our debate goes here, I would agree with Lj that it is counterproductive to label all Dems as pro-imperalism jerks who only care about their SUVs and comfortable lifestyles.
Some of those jerks have lost sons and daughters to this war. Show some respect.
IFstone (anony because I can't remember my password)
Anti-american; if that means being against killing 3 million southeast Asians, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran and Guatemala (54), Chile (73), Nicaragua (90), Haiti (03), supporting every type of despot imagineable in every part of the world for corporate profit and sometimes just for thought of future gain then guilty as charged. Hmmm I thought free speech was an "American" value anyway and using such names was a way to silence people?
I think getting rid of nations is a good idea, that's why I am not a Democrat ora nationalist. Internationalists actually think that the nation state is a way to exploit and divide people, why do people on one side of the border of Canada or Mexico pay more or less for labor or health care, by Scott I think it's because of the nation state. Let's get rid of "America" and then maybe we can get some equality.
A little history about Afghanistan: there once was a liberal Democrat President named Jimmy Carter. He thought that he could get re-elected if he revived the Cold War by hypeing the Soviet invasion of a country on thier border that was being threatened by Jihadis. Said liberal then supported said Jihadis in Afghanistan so that said Jihadis eventually came to power. Osama and his buddies came to power BECAUSE OF LIBERAL INTERVENTION. It's called blowback and the more you meddle the more you can expect 9/11's.
Jimmy Carter also had a murderous liberal friend in Iran that he help arm to the teeth called the Shah. Said hated Shah was so close to Jimmy that Jimmy visited and toasted him in Tehran as a great democrat! This enraged Iranians so that they now have a nickname for the US; the Great Satan. I think we should meddle more in Iran's affairs so they don't get nukes, don't you? I wonder why they think they need nukes in the first place?
Let Iraqis worry about thier government and resources, the US plan of putting Saddam in power, invading Iraq and weakening his regime and then removing him from power doesn't seem to be working very well.
The Democratic party may have a few people in it that think that they are not imperialists but if they think that they have the right to say what government should or shouldn't be in power and are willing to support the US army or any other arm of US power to that end then they are plain and simply imperialists. What else would call your self, peace-keepers?
IF Stone said
"there's ALREADY a civil war going on, so our leaving isn't going to be the cause of one, b) the longer we stay in there, killing and being killed, the weaker we will be as a nation."
1) So the immediate cause of the civil war isn't the US invasion?
2) We want strong nation so that we can????? Exploit others? impose our values like the death penalty, Madonna and Christianity?, invade Nicaragua again?
I am not throwing around the anti-american phrase as a slur, I am simply wondering if by your inflamed rhetoric you are opening yourself up to an attack. The right do use terms like that, and when a left blog paints 99 percent of the american public as imperialists who want to oppress others, it seems to me the left blog is vulnerable to that sort of attack.
Not that I think it would phase you. I mean, "let's get rid of 'America'" ... whew!
Anton's history lesson, to be fair, left my argument smashed flat as a bug on the windshield of the People's Limosine, but I wonder if there's any chance at all he might show some understanding of why people don't want to create another circa 2000 Afghanistan. Yes, there's a history that the US should take responsibility for, but in fact after Reagan we (and that other imperial state, the USSR) did pull out of Afghanistan (mostly) and look what happened. Maybe you would agree that some sort of multi-lateral, non-US-led approach would be worth trying in Iraq? Or are institutions like the UN and NATO too corrupted by the imperialist system? I am serious, not trying to be sarcastic. At least not much.
You have to have some patience with the rest of us Anton. This brave new world of no nations, no power, no security, no ... governance? is a little hard for some of us to Imagine.
IFs
OT makes some great points. I agree that trying to "fix" the problem seems more likely to just lead to more problems. Who was it that said, "the only way to disarm is to disarm" ...? But I do think if we're going to have some consensus as a country (not that that seems to matter to our 35% President) about what to do in Iraq, we're going to have to at least acknowledge the concerns of those who aren't saying US out Now.
I'm curious as to whether lj has any more thoughts.
IFs
Afghanistan circa 2000 was created by around 150 years of imperial meddling, British, Soviet, US/Pakistani/Saudi. The more do gooders, and most of this had nothing to do with do gooding, got involved the farther the life expectancy went down there. But I don't think this was the cause of the Cole, the Africa bombings, Bali, 9/11, Madrid, London, etc...
The cause is imperial policy. The British and US have thought of the region in the LJ/Henry Kissinger school of Realpolitik, in other words, a place to play Risk. The problem is that about a billion people have to live by the outcomes of such games. Not to say that they are playing for fun, there are real economic and political interests at stake.
In the "game" the British, French and later the US want a weak Arab nation so that the interests-at first transit (the Suez Canal) and later oil could not be used against specific western interests. They did this by drawing wacky borders and creating the Emirates. They also did it by arming Israel to the teeth and playing Persian against Arab, Arab against Kurd and on and on.
In the post WWII period this meant arming the most reactionary of regimes that would keep the oil flowing at low cost. At first this meant overthrowing regimes that showed even the least amount of nationalist impulse (read: they wanted to nationalize oil) such as in Iran and Iraq. Later this became impossible because the world was in revolt and overt acts of invasion and coup making enflamed people so much they started joing communist parties and such. So the policy began to evolve into an alliance with "modernizers" who sprinkled a little wealth here and there but in the end would pump oil on demand in times of crisis. The Iranians and Saudis were central to this arrangement. The problems really started to occur in the late 1960's and 1970's when US policy towards Israel became so aggregious that even the Sheiks/Shahs and Colonels who ruled could not stomach such imperial meddling. This led to the strengthening of OPEC and the embargo.
Power was thus shifting and the US global position was weakening relative to other industrial powers who had since rebulit and were now competing with the US industrially. The US thus decided to take a more agressive stance and decided to arm many in the region, to the chagrin of Isreal in return for a weaker OPEC. This was primarily done through the Saudis, the Emirates and Iran. In 1979 the strategy showed it limits because as Samuel Huntington and others have shown when you "modernize" forces are unleashed that threaten the system.
I refer to the Iranian revolution and the coming to power of radical Islam.
In the case of the Middle East this meant that conservative forces that hated the alliance with the West could now emerge, thus the rise of Islamic radicalism.
The Jihadis are a reation to all these machinations and the more the US and the West meddle by allying with regimes that don't want to share the oil wealth the more 9/11's will happen. The Jihadis are reacting to a sense of impotency. They see a civilization that once was progressive in a scientific and technological sense fall behind decadent barbarians who worship beer, boobs and shiny things (I'm actually a fan). They blame the psuedo religous modernizers who now run their country for this. The US and others they blame for keeping them in power.
If you want to be safer examine Western alliances and imperialism not call for more meddling.
The right is always going to be on the attack. I welcome their attacks. Because we can and will win that debate. Liberals will always shift to the right because they believe in the capitalist system and historically they have more in common with the right/capitalists then with the left/levelers.
United with us! You have nothing to lose but your Volvo!
We need oil and if the nature loving tree fucking bitchs will not let us get oil from places in the U.S. then iraq is the perfect place to get it. So we should stay there tell we get all of the oil.
i love wall mart.
Post a Comment