What Could I Have Said to My Manhattan, Liberal, Kool-Aid Drinking Friend?

[Stephanie]

He said, regardless of everything else, we should admit that the fact that Iraqis voted makes it all worth it. He said, in five years, if they make a success of democracy in Iraq, I hope all my protesting friends will admit that Bush was right.

I was dumbfounded. I talked about PNAC and Iran and Syria and North Korea. He said they will never do any of that because they don't have the troops. He said, you have to admit, we have eliminated two of the most despotic regimes on the planet. Whether Bush lied or not. And I could not argue him down.

What would you have said? Keep in mind you are speaking to one of the most progressive, intelligent, of Democrats. He's just not obsessive like us. Am I wearing Bush-hating blinders?

[eleny]

1. Hand him one of these and walk away

http://www.dior.whs.mil/forms/DD0004.pdf

[Stephanie]

5. Bookmarked and thanks for the thought but does not apply

He is too old, and the concept is inconceivable. People Like Us don't enlist!

[eleny]

23. Maybe he could give it to a younger relative...

...since he feels so darned strong about it being worth it. Heck, we might even be going in to Venezuela. Plenty of action on the horizon and after all, it's all worth it.

[Downtown Hound]

2. Does he really think that this is a democracy?

It's a fundamentalist Islamic state. Also, does he know that an Iraqi is 2.5 times more likely to die in Iraq now than they were under Saddam's rule? It's very arrogant to say that it was all worth it when you're not the one dying and suffering.

[Stephanie]

6. I said that we've created a fundamentalist Islamic state, and he said

We don't know that yet.

I said what about the thousands of Iraqis we've killed, and he said it didn't compare to the 1.1 million Saddam killed. (and I asked for a cite for that, and he said he read it somewhere)

[Downtown Hound]

11. The 1.1. million were killed by U.S. sanctions

not Saddam himself.

[hughee99]

25. Weren't those U.N. sanctions? n/t

[Downtown Hound]

28. Officially yes,

but it was the work of the United States in keeping them there for so long. For years, France, Russia, and Germany wanted to ease them, but the U.S. wouldn't let them. This was back in the days that these countries actually listened to us, so they didn't try and fight us very hard. So it may have had the U.N. stamp, but it was really the work of the U.S.

[tcfrogs]

7. Just for documentations sake

Where do you get the 2.5x statistic? I'm a natural cynic, and I'd prefer to see where you got that stat from.

[Downtown Hound]

10. Harper's magazine

January issue.

[Downtown Hound]

14. And just for you, here it is:

http://www.harpers.org/HarpersIndex2005-01.html

[tcfrogs]

16. Cool, thanks

I just don't like to see random stats being thrown around without documentation.

[Czolgosz]

51. I just love when someone has facts on their finger tips like that! n/m

[diamond14]

3. sad....here's a Kool-Aid Poster....

[depakid]

4. He should read Rober Sheer's piece in the LA Times

Law of Unintended Consequences
Careful what you wish for in Iraq.

<snip>

The final returns from the Iraqi election are not in, but it seems clear that the slate headed by the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution is going to have a clear majority in the new constitutional assembly. This is a classic example of how, in the real world, there is a lot more gray than an administration that sees everything in black and white wants to admit.

After all, Rice can call Iran's hyper-conservative religious leaders "loathsome," and Cheney can claim, paternally, that the United States knows many "responsible Iraqis," but the fact is that deeply religious Shiites with strong ties to each other will be in control in both Iraq and Iran.

And if what the mullahs have wrought in Basra and other parts of Iraq is any indication, the cause of human rights is in deep trouble — particularly for women, who enjoyed freedoms in the secular world of Saddam Hussein that are denied under fundamentalist Islamic law. Those photos of Iraqi women dressed in identical shrouds lined up to vote for candidates handpicked by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani were, to say the least, an ambiguous advertisement for democracy.

<snip>

What we are witnessing here is a startling application of the law of unintended consequences: A U.S. president who is intent on breaching the wall between church and state in his own country on issues such as birth control and the "sanctity of marriage" has now used the world's most powerful military to pave the way for a new Muslim theocracy in the heart of the Arab world. Furthermore, Bush has unwittingly strengthened the hand of Iran, a nation allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction and supporting global terrorism.

[Stephanie]

13. That's great, thanks. Link >

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/thenation/20050208/cm_thenation/20050221scheere0208_1

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Counting your votes before the hatch?

I'll wait for the outcome of this "election", Five years from now might be a more appropriate time to evaluate our grand and glorious
march to freedom.

[dolstein]

9. Actually, your friend is right

If, in a few years, Iraq is a stable, thriving democracy, then I believe the American public will conclude that the war WAS worth it. You may not agree with that assessment, but I'm pretty confident you'll be outnumbered.

I suppose that you and other DU'ers can spend your time hoping that the new Iraqi government collapses, but personally I'm hoping for the best.

[Stephanie]

18. America was sold a war of necessity - Iraq had WMDs aimed at us

There was no talk of liberation. No one gave a rat's ass about Iraqi democracy.

I am not hoping that the Iraqi govt collapses, but I AM hoping that the future of MY country is not based on LIES and DECEPTION. I don't like a govt that initiates illegal wars based on false evidence because they want to play a game of RISK in the Mideast. Forgive me if I am stupid, but I think this kind of deception is WRONG.

[fujiyama]

26. Wow

That was a conceited remark. I love the "You and other DUers" part as though all of us are hoping for a failure just to have some bizarre "we told you so" moment. Guess what? A majority of DUers are not so petty. There is no joy in saying that after over 1500 GIs and ~150k Iraqis are dead.

Frankly this whole spectacle of an "election" makes nothing worth it. Perhaps you and a majority of Americans aren't really paying even the slightest bit of attention to the news. Daily suicide bombings and marine fatalities are what dominate Iraq. perhaps the "election" gave Iraqis hope, but that really is meaningless when even walking outside is a risk to your life.

I suppose though in the end "it will all be worth it". It's amazing how ignorant people can be. You can justify it and excuse this ignorance all you want, but I'm tired of it. I remember once speaking to someone a few months after the Afghanistan invasion (which did initially have some justification), and the guy said "aren't they a democracy now?". It is laughable what a pack of lies everyone has bought, but I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise considering how sheepish the media has kept a majority of Americans (and certain DUers as well).

[LeftCoast]

27. I just have to wonder why you continue to post on this board

Have you EVER, even once, supported anything like a progressive agenda? In all the posts I've seen you make, you always seem to be expressing the RW view point. Just wondering why you feel the need to continue?

[dolstein]

57. I post because there needs to be at least one voice of reason

I'm just stating the obvious -- if in five years Iraq is a stable democracy, most Americans will conclude that the war was worth it. Of course YOU might not think it was worth it. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether most Americans will think it was worth it.

Oh, and I support plenty of progressive policies. I believe the tax code should be more progressive. I believe the minimum wage should be raised. I believe we should spend more in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, our manufacturing sector and in finding cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. I think all of these are progressive policies.

You seem to be under the impression that unless you're a pacifist, you can't be a progressive. I have news for you. FDR wasn't a pacifist. Truman wasn't a pacifist. JFK wasn't a pacifist. LBJ wasn't a pacifist. Clinton wasn't a pacifist. My foreign policy views are far more consistent with those of the greatest Democratic leaders of the past century that yours are, and yet you have the nerve to question my progressive credentials. Frankly, I think your beef is with the Democratic Party, not me.

[LeftCoast]

61. Pacifism

I don't know why you would think I'm a pacifist. I'm not. I do, however, know when a boondoggle is a boondoggle and those I cannot support. I find it laughable that you think there is even the remotest possibility that in 5 years (hell, lets make it ten) Iraq will be a stable democracy. If by some miracle it does happen, then possibly 'most' Americans will feel the (by that time) $1 Trillion and 5,000 dead US soldiers will be worth it.

I believe being a progressive means looking at reality and basing your policies on facts. Lets leave the faith-based policy formation to the Republicans...

[SpiralHawk]

34. A needless war based on a lie can come to no good

Good does not grow in the manure of lies.

[OneTwentyoNine]

42. Vietnam has a strong thriving economy,was it worth 58,202 American lives?

Might be if your some fucking corporation trying make another BILLION in a country that used to be off limits.Might be if your a chickenhawk and never got within 10,000 miles of the place.

David

[dolstein]

59. And you believe we'll lose 58,202 in Iraq?

Not going to happen.

Sorry, but not ever military conflict is Vietnam.

[cry baby]

43. The end doesn't justify the means. n/t

[dolstein]

58. That works for a bumper sticker, but it's not a governing philosophy

After all, if FDR and LBJ had lived by that, we might never have gotten the New Deal and the Great Society. You'd be amazed at the number of underhanded and downright scuzzy things that have been done to advance the cause of liberalism. If you think people like FDR and LBJ were angels, think again.

And hey, what about World War II? We firebombed Tokyo. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died. We dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We did some incredibly ugly thinks to bring WWII to an end.

[Jamastiene]

12. You could have pointed out

that there were accounts of violence against people who tried to vote and also that the whole place is a ticking time bomb that explodes on a daily basis. It would help to point out that we vote here too, but that doesn't mean the election is counted fairly or that all citizens who are eligible to vote get to vote. A nice question would be, "Wonder how many went to vote, but didn't make to the polling place because they were attacked or scrubbed from the registrar before getting a chance to vote?

[ginnyinWI]

15. It was a war of aggression,

and that is the worst crime you can commit according to international law. It doesn't matter if part of it turned out ok--Bush is a war criminal for committing a war crime. The end does not justify the means--and besides, there is going to be a lot more negative fallout over this than positive--just think of how many jihadist muslims have been recruited because of what Bush did.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

19. Yup. Another 500 years of Crusades. If we last that long. Many more dead.

The US has never created or allowed 'democracy.'
Not even in this country.

Either a country is benefiting the US power elite or it is a target for destabilization, poverty, starvation, terror, death squads, coups, war, etc.

That is history and will remain so.

There is no democracy coming from the White House. We are far more likely to have the water, air, oceans, and crops all turned toxic and nuclear power plants spring up like mushrooms that are deadly for 5 billion years.

Or a nuclear exchange that wipes us all out faster.

Anyone who thinks the act of voting has something to do with 'democracy' is deluded or naive.

[lostnfound]

17. 1. Shiite theocracy 2. Women very subjugated 3. Iran next (see article)

Iraq Shiite theocracy: no longer "if" but "how much"
http://www.underreported.com/index.php

includes links to "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." and "The next domino: Iran or Syria?".

A recent thread on DU spoke about women in Iraq being deeply upset that they are now receiving threats about not wearing a veil, etc. and are fearing for their loss of freedom.

[gumby]

20. We vote in the USA, and our votes don't count either.

Jimmeny, this romance with "voting" has worn out it's luster.

The kind of "voting" Bush offers is worse than a joke. Really. It's the worst kind of propaganda. It keeps the trappings of "democracy" as a smoke-screen for totalitarianism.

Just like the people in Iraq used to "elect" Saddam, now the people in the US "elect" Bush, or "elect" Bush's counterpart in Iraq.

There are NO elections now, only quaint rituals.

[thefloyd]

21. Bush was not right

Bush's whole idea about "spreading democracy" was not the reason for Bush's war. Spreading Democracy is an excuse and a convienient argument for no weapons of mass destruction. Also, there were no terrosists in Iraq so I am not sure how freedom will fight terroism. Also, freedom will not spread just because the neighbor has it. I am also not convinced the democracy will last if Iraqi Citizens did not rise up and fight on their own.

[quiet.american]

22. Tyranny by choice IS better, I guess

So -- we went to war based on a tissue of lies, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, lost thousands of our soldiers, created thousands more physically and mentally wounded veterans, brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians most of them women and children -- and we're not finished yet, even if our troops ever get to come home, depleted uranium anyone? -- increased terrorist activity exponentially, violated international law, failed to make the U.S. any safer in "the war on terror" -- all so that the Iraqis could replace a secular tyranny with a theocratic one? Sounds like a winner to me!

(Sorry, but a little girl cowering and covered in her parents' blood will never be worth it to me. Nor a father walking down the street with the body of his toddler raised in his arms before him. When I first saw the photo, I couldn't believe what I was looking at -- the little body in the blood-spattered clothes was intact, but the child's head had been blown off... not worth it. Won't ever be worth it to me.)

[sandnsea]

24. Yeah, Iraq/Iran was a good idea too

And supporing bin laden against Russia. And a list of proxy wars you could probably remember if you thought for a minute. And other regimes we decided to overthrow that turned out worse than what we started with.

American Amnesia. Your friend's got it. That's all.

[w4rma]

29. Tell him to remember the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Also tell him that fundamentalist Muslims with strong ties to Iran are writing the Constitution.

Conclude with the fact that our resources have been squandered to expand Iran's power, if it really is a democracy.

And if, to prevent the earlier case, the GOP leadership installs another figurehead dictator, as Saddam was, then our resources have been squandered on *nothing*.

[VOX]

30. PRIORITIES! A sham election in Iraq, or Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda?

Would your Manhattan friend trade the "regime change" in Iraq for the capture of Osama, and the neutralizing of al Qaeda? What are this country's priorities?

If the Taliban was so despotically taboo, why did Bush give the Taliban $43 million in aid in 2001?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/28/1012/80773

Yes, it is true that these two regimes were horrifyingly despotic. Now, how many more are there like them, or worse, on the planet? When does it stop?

Did we really go into Afghanistan and Iraq for altrustic reasons? That's certainly not the way that it was marketed to the American public!

[RogueTrooper]

31. The two most despotic regimes

( in my opinion ) are Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

[applegrove]

32. Say this new democratic religion is what democrats have wanted

Say this new democratic religion is what democrats have wanted for eons and what Republicans and the right wing refused to do. To support democracies even if the founding parties were not capitalist. That all that matters is that the democratic system be supported and that any other system (strong men, totalitarians) be stopped.

Say - it feels good to find a new religion. Cause that is what it is!! They are just undoing (with the Brits) what they did in Iraq and Iran. They stopped democracy in that part of the world in the 1950s. Because they wanted the oil money and the better deals they could get with emirs, shaws, strong men, etc. etc.

Democracy has worked in places like Nicaragua. The right wing was so wrong for so long. Saw there error and needed to "push the party off a cliff" in order to start anew and scramble for the moral high ground. Which they think is theirs. But which - history will prove - has always belonged to the Democrats.

The republicans figured that there was no future for them unless they tied captalism to democracy. Which is where the Democrats have always been.


Then read this for more information on how they try to recreate themselves (100 years after the British Conservatives did). Take some gravol and read this. Because it helps to explain why the freepers start to screatch any time you mention Hitler as an example of right wing nationalism. Also shows that they have rejected 'guilt' for the more modern (?) idea of 'pride'. It also explains that the neocons didn't actually come up with anything new - even though they want to take credit for being intellectuals they weren't the ones doing the thinking. They make the "problem" with Hitler one of "shame" as opposed to Hitler's little problem with sociopathy and baiting others.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/198cdapm.asp


"BENJAMIN DISRAELI--TWICE PRIME minister of Great Britain, romantic novelist, inventor of modern conservatism--was a neocon in the plain sense of the word, a "new conservative" who began his career on the left. Conservative thinking dates to the dawn of organized society, but modern conservatism--a mass movement, a philosophy not for aristocrats and the rich but for everybody--was Disraeli's creation. That modern conservatism should have been invented by a 19th-century neocon is thought provoking. More surprising:His redefinition of conservatism is still fresh, and his political philosophy has never been more apt.

Conservatism is the most powerful and electric force in the American intellectual landscape. Young people no longer discover the left and get excited; they are far more likely to get their intellectual kicks discovering and experimenting with conservatism. But what exactly do conservatives believe? How do they resolve the seeming paradox that so many conservatives revere the past yet are also progressives, determined to move this nation forward and let it grow, stretch, and inhabit more and more of its own best self? Disraeli produced a definition of conservatism that resolves the problem. It is so terse and compelling, it ranks as a milestone of political thought.

....."

[orpupilofnature57]

33. Tell him he's not a real democrat, that PROGRESSIVE word

proves it,progressive is a blurring ,ambiguous piece of neutralizing shit, just like u.s spreading misery under the guise of democracy.

[Stephanie]

39. progressive was MY word

and I don't really get your point

[Czolgosz]

62. We don't like the term "progressive"? I use that term to describe myself

all the time. I think "progressive" is much more accurate than "liberal" vs. "conservative."

Liberal means (1) having political or social views favoring reform and (2) tolerant of change.

Conservative means (1) tending to oppose change, (2) restrained in style, (3) moderate or cautious, (4) tending to conserve or preserve, as in the conservative use of natural resources, (5) of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures, i.e., not radical.

When you hear Shrub wanting to "reform" Social Security, "reform" public education, "reform" the civil justice system, "reform" the VA, etc. He is employing liberal means to achieve a reactionary goal. That's not conservative in any way, shape, or form.

When I advocate in favor of (1) let's not fuck up Social Security -- it's a good program that needs adjusting not killing, (2) let's not fuck up our civil justice system which was one of the principal reasons we broke from England in the 1700s and which has served as a model for the world, (3) let's please don't fuck up our public school system, etc. Those are all very conservative positions.

The "liberal" vs. "conservative" dichotomy no longer works because liberalism vs. conservatism is basically a debate about how to reach a destination and, basically, liberals have won that debate. The debate is no longer about how to reach the destination; it's now about what the destination should be. "Progressive" vs. "reactionary" are far more useful terms in that debate.

[CWebster]

35. Making the world safe for Democracy

has always been the cover to make it palatable for the masses. Truth be told, we need to control the natural resources of the Middle East. No oil, no pretense of a moral imperative.

Saddam kept everything under his thumb for us. It was only when he wouldn't act in our "interests" that regime change became necessary. Another iron-fisted government with Saddam-like forces-now clamping down on anti-US "insurgents", wears the kid gloves of a US spun yarn about Democracy.

[flobee1kenobi]

36. bush never wanted elections to happen

After the search for wmd's turned up nothing, the Iraqis wanted elections, and * said no. Then the Iraqis DEMANDED elections.

And now * is taking credit for them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42905-2003Jun27?language=printer

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/01/19/iraqi_shiites_demand_elections_in_peaceful_protest/

[CWebster]

37. Yes, I believe it was Sistani

You think the pundits will be discussing that fact on the Sunday morning talk shows?

[Donailin]

38. as we know only too well here in the US, elections don't mean squat

if the voters have a choice between bad and worse. Remind your friend we'e never leaving iraq, and that any "elected" official who doesn't capitualte to US interests will not govern for long.

[marcologico]

40. Tell him to stop reading the NYT and fools like Maureen Dowd. n/t

[Stephanie]

45. That's most likely the problem.

He's definitely a NYT kind of guy.

[leesa]

41. Well, for one Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone outside his borders

Neither was Afghanistan. The Taliban is still in power. Whoever did 9-11 is still unknown and not captured or tried.

We didn't go to war to spread democracy, we went because there was imminent threat of WMDs.

Why did you find this hard to argue against, the premise is entirely wrong. What we did was wrong morally and legally no matter what the outcome.

[Stephanie]

46. Because he said that despite all that, seeing the Iraqis lined up to vote

made it all worth it, and whether Bush lied or not, whether there were WMDs or not, seeing the Iraqis freed from Saddam and voting convinced him that Bush was right.

[Bridget Burke]

44. Tell him the war was illegal in the first place.

He has blood on his hands. Blood of Iraqis & Americans.

[Stephanie]

47. His answer to that is Saddam killed many more than we did

He said 1.1 million which I think must be wrong.

[CWebster]

49. Not to excuse Saddam

but aside from the many killed by sanctions, Iraq was involved in war and upheaval for many years, including the US war crime "The Highway of Death" to Saddam putting down US backed(at least in encouraging rhetoric) uprising of the Shias, which account for many dead Iraqis.

[Bridget Burke]

53. What's his source for that number?

Please--ask him.

[Stephanie]

55. I did - he "read it somewhere"

:shrug:

[blm]

48. Because Bush just replaced a SECULAR despot's government with an Islamic

fundamentalist government. Perfect for that upcoming Holy War as the rhetoric from both Christians and Muslims becomes ever more heated.

[Rebel_blogger]

50. How do you KNOW that the Iraqi government has been replaced ...

by an Islamic fundamentalist government? Also, if that is IN FACT what happens, why are you complaining about it? Isn't that what demoracy is? The people of the country choosing?

[Stephanie]

56. Ummm, because they just had an election and the Shiite majority won

And it's not a good thing, because that is exactly what we are fighting in the "war on terror" - radical Islamic fundamentalism. Ask George Bush, if you are confused.

[blm]

63. The complaint is that BushInc has spent the last few years DEMONIZING

Islamic fundamentalists and extremists, and his henchmen have done so as well in most every LEFT BEHIND believing Christian Church across America, and even on the news networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC.

You can't say the problem of terror lies with Islamic fundamentalism for the last 4 years while beating the wardrums and then be happy to replace a secular government with one that will rule as a fundamentalist Islamic state.

Sistani backed Bush into a corner on the election timetable knowing he had the numbers to take over. BushInc is spinning into THEIR victory for now, but, wait until more stories come out about the Christians in Iraq who already are going underground.

Democracy, my ass.

[BurtWorm]

52. It's too early to judge the Iraqi election as a success or failure.

It's too early to even know what the criteria are for judging its success. Is it enough that Iraqis braved the bombs of rebels to cast votes? For some it might be. Was it worth electing to have this war just for that "success?"

My other problem with your friend's line of reasoning is that how Bush got us to this ambiguous point does matter, if democracy matters. Your friend may be willing to sacrifice democracy for security of some kind (that we're not even sure we have). But this "presidency" ought to be troubling to anyone who has any belief at all in the prefection of democracy here in the US. Democracies cannot work if the government lies to them, because lying is a habit govenrments don't break easily, especially if they're rewarded with more power for it.

[Czolgosz]

54. I had a similar conversation with my brother. Here's what I said:

We have a model for taking out brutal dictators who are persecuting their own Muslim populations: (1) we work with the our traditional European allies, NATO, and the UN, (2) we use more limited and targeted air strikes, (3) we truly minimize the number of civilian casualties on the ground (instead of just paying lip service to minimizing civilian casualties while dropping thousands of blockbuster bombs in the middle of densely populated cities), and (4) we can create a democracy and still suffer no more than a handful of US casualties. If you doubt this model works, just google "slobodan milosevic."

If the election in Iraq yields a truly democratic and enlightened nation, I'll be the first to say that we succeeded, but still we will have succeeded at a higher price in US and Iraqi lives than we should have paid. But before we roll out the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner again, let's see how it turns out. Remember, in 1967 we had elections in Vietnam, and we know how well they turned out. Here's what the New York Times had to say about the Vietnamese elections in 1967 and see if it doesn't sound familiar:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 <1967> -- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

My brother's response was "I guess it's too early to roll out the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner."

[Norquist Nemesis]

60. I would have told him success are not credit to Bush

but to those who have been working to clean up the mess he made. At every turn, he's spouting 'resolve' and 'stay the course' while making bad decisions. Then he morphs what he says to put a positive spin giving himself credit for what others have done to pull this country's collective ass out of the fire in spite of him.