I remember when Denny said that Democrats arguing against the war in Iraq were traitors for opposing Bush the War-Time President. It was a very Libertarian moment, labeling dissent against the President as treachery. He has, ever since Obama was elected, realized that dissent is a very healthy and important thing and exercises his non-traitorous right to dissent at every opportunity.
That wasn't the case I was making. If you wanted the war over fast, protesting it was the worst thing to do. The PR from that side egged on the insurgents. I've been opposed to the war in Afghanistan all along. I've posted I don't know what a victory would look like and asked people like you to explain that outcome to me. Yet, here we are, still there, and I'm not posting daily about my opposition to the war there. I do oppose it. I don't want to see us get involved anywhere. Not syria, not libya, not afghanistan, not iraq, not anywhere. Is that plain enough for you?
You very specifically used the term "traitors" and linked it to opposing a President in wartime, in addition to claiming that it gave confidence to the enemy. Many references to "Hanoi Jane" and many pictures of Jane Fonda linked. So, were you a traitor for opposing the war in Afghanistan?
Right. I do think it's treasonous to put party politics (e.g. republicans out to stop all Obama's agenda!) over our troops that are on the battlefield. Treason is aiding and abetting the enemy, and the extreme levels of protest did aid and abet. No, I am not a traitor because I am not calling Obama a war criminal, saying the troops are evil, rooting for us to loose so Obama looks bad, etc.
Of course, you realize that you are far more likely to see what Democrats do as "partisan" and therefore treasonous than what you or Republicans do, right? We always see the side we sympathize more with as reasonable (or, at least, not malicious). There was plenty of Democratic opposition to the war based on the flimsy merits or principles over whether war is a good road to go down...were those people (whomever they were; we don't have to debate specific individuals) okay in your book? Also, why is it only in war time? Is putting party politics ahead of the country and, say, economic recovery okay? Rooting for economic catastrophe so Obama looks bad? Calling Obama a double-agent who's trying to destroy America? Do those rate on your treason-meter?
So the "republicans out to stop all Obama's agenda" doesn't ring true to you? Or do you not agree with me that they are to a large degree (as democrats did to Bush)? It isn't about opposition to war, it's about rooting for the enemy to win, to gloat when we lose a battle, etc. But get this. I think republicans or conservatives would be treasonous to root against the troops because it makes Obama look bad. On the other hand, republicans voted for Obama 2-1 in the Senate vote to fund his ambitions, which makes it a bipartisan effort. It is only in war time that you can aid the enemy to defeat our military. Is that a sort of "duh" question and answer? All the anti Bush or Obama rhetoric is fine and part of the way we do things.
So, Saddam is the only dictator in the entire world that we helped in the past, and therefore Iraq was the only country we needed to wreck, according to the Denny Doctrine? Are you sure of that? Because we've helped a lot of dictators over the years. barfo
So you don't feel that Democrats who opposed the war based on the merits of the case for war (or lack thereof, in their opinion), or due to principles like non-intervention or pacifism, were traitorous? I agree that some Democrats played politics with the war, for partisan gain. But what about those against the war who weren't doing that?
I think reparations are due in a lot of places. It doesn't make sense to go into Iran to overthrow the Shah. The Iranians did that on their own. I'm not talking about trading with or even arming these dictators. I'm talking about the CIA giving them Intel to defeat an enemy in a war. Or the dictator using those weapons outside of the war and against his own people.
There weren't that many. Kucinich. A few others perhaps. But anyone who voted for the war resolution and spoke out about how they saw the Intel and that Saddam had to be remove? You bet. You remember tdizzle? I encouraged him to post his daily antiwar blog-like posts. Even gave him his own sub forum for it. I didn't suggest he was being a traitor.
To this day, ~40% of the people think the invasion was not a mistake. But back then? The problem you have is that more than 23% are claiming they disapproved initially. Liars, every one of them.
And these people, in particular, are well documented: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Eventually. Maybe the Iraqis would have eventually overthrown Saddam? Why not wait like we did in Iran? According to the Denny Doctrine, should we have gone into Iran years ago to overthrow the Shah? Yeah, I'm just sure that Iraq is unique in that. Certainly the CIA has otherwise behaved itself admirably around the globe. barfo
We did wait. Sanctions for 10 years, no fly zones, encouraged rebellion. The result was Saddam's imperial guard and army massacred people, and he gassed entire towns. He took the oil for food money and built palaces while his people suffered for lack of food and medicine. And we were the ones buying most of his oil. Iran overthrew the Shah, but he was dying anyway. Jimmy Carter gave him asylum here and the result was a year+ hostage crisis and poor relations with Iran ever since. If anything, barfo, you fuel my argument. Thanks. I don't say we stop with Iraq, but each situation is also unique. You don't have to overthrow a dictator that's long dead and a democratically elected government is in place now. Instead, we might consider trading on favorable terms with them, giving them assistance to build hospitals and schools and that sort of thing. I ultimately want all the troops home. Most can come home now, in fact. But you can't set up a Hitler and concentration camps and then walk away from it. We have a moral obligation to right that sort of wrong. So I always said we should go into Iraq and arrest Saddam and leave. That's not what we did. It is what GHW Bush did in Panama, though. Panama seems to be our friends now.
He wasn't always dying. Doesn't the Denny Doctrine say we have gone in with guns ablazing sometime before he got old and weak? The Denny Doctrine says we have a moral obligation to make things worse for anyone we've harmed. I expect you'd make reparations to the Native Americans by giving everyone on the reservation free meth. It's vastly different than what we did. Yet you seem to support what we did. barfo
