posted on October 2, 2004 08:15:01 PM
That really hits on a point that nobody has much bothered to talk about, but that I think is very real. The hardest of the hard-lefties love to talk about Iraqi casualties: This many Iraqi soldiers died in that battle, that many Iraqi civilians were reported killed in this attack. It deeply offends these folks that Americans are more concerned about fallen soldiers than we are about fallen enemy civilians.
It’s kind of a dirty little secret, but there’s no sense denying it: the American people value American lives more than we value the lives of citizens of other countries. “Well, we shouldn’t,” assert the “progressives,” and I can’t really argue with them. But the fact that we shouldn’t doesn’t change the fact that we do. This is why George W. Bush’s “we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” message resonates so strongly with the American people. Given the choice between a car bomb in Baghdad and one in Baltimore, we’re going to choose Baghdad every time.
Does this make us bad people? Not really. It’s a universal truth. If somebody has to suffer, we’d rather it be somebody far away from us, somebody we’ve never met, somebody with a funny name, somebody we can’t relate to. And this isn’t uniquely American. It’s true all over the world.
The “progressives” insist, of course, that nobody has to suffer. They insist that if we just do what they say, that everybody will be happy and no one will fight. I don’t think any mainstream American, Republican or Democrat, buys into that line of bull.
[i]To understand the American south’s role on defence, it’s helpful to look at what political scientist Walter Russell Mead calls the “Jacksonian tradition” in foreign affairs. Because when Zell Miller - a Democrat from Georgia who is deeply unhappy with his party on matters of national defence - delivered the keynote address at the Republican national convention, he spoke in the purest tones of Jacksonian America.
Jacksonians (as Mead explains in this interview) aren’t very interested in foreign affairs, but respond vigorously to threats:
“[The idea is]: Don’t bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can ... When somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don’t believe in limited wars. They don’t believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don’t worry about casualties on the other side. That’s their problem. They shouldn’t have started the war if they didn’t want casualties.”[/i]
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on October 3, 2004 06:18:10 AM
Poobear, if you're so confident about bush...why do you start so many threads against Kerry and the Democrats......makes you look desperate and scared to me. TEN just on this page alone!
If bush's going to win like you, linda, and twelve say, again, why are you guys in here fighting for him so much
?????????????????????????????????????????
posted on October 3, 2004 09:46:12 AM
The difference between Progressive Liberals like myself and middle America's thought process regarding casualties of war are as follows.
1) We would rather not have deaths altogether, whether in Bagdad or in Baltimore. Why should anyone die if matters can be handled in a peaceful process. Bear, you have always come across as an individual who enjoys the action of fighting a war. I may be wrong in that assessment, so perhaps you could explain this. Do you believe it is better to resolve disputes through diplomatic means, or do you prefer the action of war?
2) We understand and the meaning of planning and strategy. Bush had no plan beyond attack and capture Hussein. He didn't care how he did it, or at what cost, but he has proven he is not fit as a Commander in Chief if he cannot plan beyond one objective. A good leader understands that planning a war goes beyond pre-planning and staging an attack. A good leader also understands that war should only be used as a last resort. Bush didn't exhaust all strategies, he had only one strategy which left no room for error, and unfortunately error has been the major reason for the mass deaths of innocent civilians, American Soldiers, and American workers in Iraq.
3) The Jacksonian ideal of don't bother others unless they bother you, or if they attack you seems a bit outdated. Even as a progressive liberal, seeing things in this sort of "black and white" way is dangerous. It is important for our leader to understand the definition of a true threat over a grudge match. Bush chose the latter instead of finishing the job on the most important threat... Osama and monitoring countries like North Korea. Bush has allowed North Korea to use the power of nuclear weapons dictate negotiations instead of working to ensure the safety of America by not allowing North Korea to become the threat that it is.
Bush should simply walk away from the Presidency. He is unfit to command this country, especially in foreign affairs. He proved his worth on Thursday night, when his only platform was his "I am a war President" attitude. You cannot control the world with a hard fist and expect the rest of the world to conform. The Nazi's couldn't do it, so what makes George W. think he can do it? The real threat in this world is the lack of focus and leadership that the strongest country has to lead other countries to fight terrorism. Nobody wants to follow the village idiot on a crusade, only to come back in body bags.
posted on October 3, 2004 11:48:18 AM
Face it, Bear, the liberal apologists would rather promote their own opinions than listen to and understand the positions of others.
posted on October 3, 2004 02:29:56 PM
And how many pro kerry or anti Bush topics are on any page at any given time? Tell me that craw.
Rusty, you need to awaken from you dream, and face the facts.
The main thing that has stopped further terrorist attacks on the US is the battle in Iraq. They are concentration their forces there because it is easier for them.
DO you understand the following concept:
“[The idea is]: Don’t bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can ... When somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don’t believe in limited wars. They don’t believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don’t worry about casualties on the other side. That’s their problem. They shouldn’t have started the war if they didn’t want casualties.
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
