Some observations during this political season, for the outspoken left

[John D Harris]

Here are some observations I have made over the last several months and years, about the left. While they have valid ideas and policy wants the logic and reasoning use to promote the ideas lacks intellectual honesty.

1)We've all heard and read many times on this board, and in political conversations with others in RL, the fear/complants/yeah verely loathing of President Bush being an Evangelical Christian. (This board is full of threads suporting my statement) Yet, nairy a peep has been uttered by the same folks over John Kerry's quoting Bible verses in the debates, something I don't believe anyone will find President Bush has done. John Kerry quoted Bible verses, that if President Bush had quoted, he (President Bush) would have been accused of being a Bible thumper and trying to MAKE everybody follow his religious views. There is a discontect here in the logic, during this campaign, and the as far back as I can remember Democratic canidates have spoken in churches, John Kerry is doing it today, during church services. Not speaches about religious subjects but political speaches about political subjects. Where is the seperation of church and state for those on the left?

2)We've all heard and read about how the Republicans use dirty tricks to disrupt the opponets political meetings and campaigns, yet not a peep out of the left when several Bush campaign headquarters has been vandlized. Last friday Ann Coulter had pies thrown at her during a speach she was giving, people may not like what she says, that is fine, but to disprupt a speach is childish no matter if you agree with the speaker or not. Anybody that would knowing go to an opponets speach with the INTENT to disrupt it deserves what they get. There has been said and a belief professed that the right are a bunch of hate-mungers and dangerous gun-totters (just take the time to listen to many of those outspoken people on the left), yet during the Impeachment hearings of President Clinton activists(sp?) on the left called for the killing, shooting, and stoning of the families of politicans on the right. Oh the activists later came out and said they were joking, but anybody that is intellectualy honest knows that if the same type or simular things had been said by somebody on the right even with a "poop-eat'n grin" on their, there is noway the left would have allowed them to say they were just joking. If there is any doubt to this fact just look at Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, 90% of what either of them say is tounge-in-cheek, designed to make people think and look at their views.

3)There is lots of talk about by-partisan this or by-partisan that, but all the by-partisan stuff only seems to come up when the left wants the right to compromise on an issue they want. If the right wants to do something and the left disagrees with it, there sure as "HALE" is hot, is zero talk of by-partisan compromise, why is that? Well in my 43 years of life I've run into many people like that and I can say without exception it is because of childish inmaturity(sp?)

4)There has been lots of blaiming from the left of President Bush for Enron, and Companies that through the leadership of the companies have caused the companies to fail/or illegal activities to transpire(sp?) Even though the companies are located hundreds if not thousands of miles away form where president Bush is at, and there is zero evidence that President Bush had any contact or meetings of sufficant length to be able to discuss any conspiracy with the company board members. Yet where is the cry from the left when there is evidence that a democratic adminstration actively took part in paving the way for Enron to do business in India? A busines adventure that the facts have show lead to, or at the very least was a major contributing factor the the colapse of Enron.

5)On the international front. There has been lots of noise made about the World Court, how many are willing to have your leaders brought up before the World Court, for activities of companies and gov't officals for the UN Oil for food program? After all if President Bush is resposnable for the activities of people he has little or no cantact with then the sam logic must be applied to to the leaders of other countries. Show me you are willing to submit your leaders to the World Court before you come complaining to me about the leaders of my country not willing to be involed with the World Court! I have NO/ZERO/NADDA problem with the leaders of other countries not being tried in the World Court, because I don't want the World Court to have any authority over the leaders of my Nation. Anybody wanting my nation to submitt to the World Court had better show me they are willing to and do submit to the World Court first.

6)Still on the inertnational front. There has been lots, ("Hale" I'm being nice here) complaining about the war on Iraq, complants that the USA went alone, tell that to the other countries that have troops there. Tell that to Spain which suffered a terrorist attack Because they had troops there! Tell that to our(USA) allies downunder that had nearly 200 killed in a terrorist attack (Bali), because their nation had sent troops to Iraq. Tell that to the UK whose intel and law enforcement has stop and thwarted several terrorist activies. There have been complants about the war being for Oil, yet no evidence has been presented to suport that asumption. Oh, there has been accusations presented, but accusations are not evidence. Evidence would be show where, when, and the testimony of people involved in any meetings where it was discused that the USA should go to war for Oil, Zero evidence has been presented to suport the assumption. Even if the war was for Oil, and make NO mistake there will come a time that there will be a war for Oil, why is that wrong? Does not everybody use Oil and products from Oil? Did the computer you are viewing this on just spring in to being or was oil refined for the plastic used in the computer? What about the energy used to make to components of the computer where they just willed into being or was Oil burned/Electrcity made that ran the machinery used in the manufacturing of the pieces parts for your computer?
If Oil is not a good reason what is? Humanitarian reasons? Tell that to the Rhowandians(sp?) the world stood by while there was genocide going on. Nations that have a history of colonizing the area. We all know, or it has at least been professed that colonialism is/was a great evil and must be attoned for, but the very nations that would be considered guilty of this colonialism did nothing or at the very most vurtualy nothing. Nations that the "colonailism was evil crowd" blame (for the colonialism), and therefore have a compeling national interest (attonement for the colonization) did nothing. Where is the condemnation for those nations that stood by while people where being killed? What about the current sitation in the Sudan? We have learned there is Oil there, as well as a Humanitarian crisis, but where are the nations of the world on the Sudan? Why are they not running to help? Sending troops to stop the killing? It would seem that if there is Oil involved then it is OK to sit idealy by and alow Humans to die, lest somebody accuse any Nation willing to solve the problem of doing so only for Oil. Well I don't know about anybody else but as for me and my family, I would rather have on my conscience(sp?) that killings and torture of fellow humans was stopped as a by product of a war for Oil, then to Know Killings were alowed to continue, because a war for Oil didn't look good to some.

[Azred]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 6)Still on the inertnational front. There has been lots, ("Hale" I'm being nice here) complaining about the war on Iraq, complants that the USA went alone, tell that to the other countries that have troops there. Tell that to Spain which suffered a terrorist attack Because they had troops there! Tell that to our(USA) allies downunder that had nearly 200 killed in a terrorist attack (Bali), because their nation had sent troops to Iraq. Tell that to the UK whose intel and law enforcement has stop and thwarted several terrorist activies. There have been complants about the war being for Oil, yet no evidence has been presented to suport that asumption. Oh, there has been accusations presented, but accusations are not evidence. Evidence would be show where, when, and the testimony of people involved in any meetings where it was discused that the USA should go to war for Oil, Zero evidence has been presented to suport the assumption. Even if the war was for Oil, and make NO mistake there will come a time that there will be a war for Oil, why is that wrong? Does not everybody use Oil and products from Oil? Did the computer you are viewing this on just spring in to being or was oil refined for the plastic used in the computer? What about the energy used to make to components of the computer where they just willed into being or was Oil burned/Electrcity made that ran the machinery used in the manufacturing of the pieces parts for your computer? If Oil is not a good reason what is? Humanitarian reasons? Tell that to the Rhowandians(sp?) the world stood by while there was genocide going on. Nations that have a history of colonizing the area. We all know, or it has at least been professed that colonialism is/was a great evil and must be attoned for, but the very nations that would be considered guilty of this colonialism did nothing or at the very most vurtualy nothing. Nations that the "colonailism was evil crowd" blame (for the colonialism), and therefore have a compeling national interest (attonement for the colonization) did nothing. Where is the condemnation for those nations that stood by while people where being killed? What about the current sitation in the Sudan? We have learned there is Oil there, as well as a Humanitarian crisis, but where are the nations of the world on the Sudan? Why are they not running to help? Sending troops to stop the killing? It would seem that if there is Oil involved then it is OK to sit idealy by and alow Humans to die, lest somebody accuse any Nation willing to solve the problem of doing so only for Oil. Well I don't know about anybody else but as for me and my family, I would rather have on my conscience(sp?) that killings and torture of fellow humans was stopped as a by product of a war for Oil, then to Know Killings were alowed to continue, because a war for Oil didn't look good to some.

An excellent point here. There are many current places in the world where factions are fighting and no one is willing to send in even one soldier to stop the abuses and killings. If we (America) and a handful of allies were to send in troops to quiet the situation then our detractors would immediately begin screaming that we were waging a "war of colonial expansion" or some such nonsense.
Suppose China decides to take back Taiwan by any means necessary. Who would stop them? Who could stop them? Who should stop them?

My reaction to the "no war for oil" supporters has always been this: if the war were for oil then where is my $0.50 per gallon gasoline ($0.13 per liter)?

I usually don't pay any attention to our detractors; they are beneath my notice. We may not be perfect, but we're the best there is for now. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

[quote]Originally posted by Azred:

Suppose China decides to take back Taiwan by any means necessary. Who would stop them? Who could stop them? Who should stop them?

Let's hope that never happens, if it does the only way to stop it is NUKES, we can't make bullets as fast as China can make babies

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Ann Coulter had pies thrown at her?!

I don't care how busy I am... I need to start reading the entire newspaper again.

[Stratos]

I don't know if I fit into the "Left" you are refering to, but anyway...

Originally posted by John D Harris: 5)On the international front. There has been lots of noise made about the World Court, how many are willing to have your leaders brought up before the World Court, for activities of companies and gov't officals for the UN Oil for food program? After all if President Bush is resposnable for the activities of people he has little or no cantact with then the sam logic must be applied to to the leaders of other countries. Show me you are willing to submit your leaders to the World Court before you come complaining to me about the leaders of my country not willing to be involed with the World Court! I have NO/ZERO/NADDA problem with the leaders of other countries not being tried in the World Court, because I don't want the World Court to have any authority over the leaders of my Nation. Anybody wanting my nation to submitt to the World Court had better show me they are willing to and do submit to the World Court first.

I assume you mean the International Criminal Court. In that case, many countries HAVE signed on and agreed to it's terms.

6)Still on the inertnational front. There has been lots, ("Hale" I'm being nice here) complaining about the war on Iraq, complants that the USA went alone, tell that to the other countries that have troops there. Tell that to Spain which suffered a terrorist attack Because they had troops there! Tell that to our(USA) allies downunder that had nearly 200 killed in a terrorist attack (Bali), because their nation had sent troops to Iraq. Tell that to the UK whose intel and law enforcement has stop and thwarted several terrorist activies.

European intelligence service and law enforcement has been thwarting terrorist atttacks way before the war in Iraq, or even 9/11.

There have been complants about the war being for Oil, yet no evidence has been presented to suport that asumption. Oh, there has been accusations presented, but accusations are not evidence. Evidence would be show where, when, and the testimony of people involved in any meetings where it was discused that the USA should go to war for Oil, Zero evidence has been presented to suport the assumption. Even if the war was for Oil, and make NO mistake there will come a time that there will be a war for Oil, why is that wrong? Does not everybody use Oil and products from Oil? Did the computer you are viewing this on just spring in to being or was oil refined for the plastic used in the computer? What about the energy used to make to components of the computer where they just willed into being or was Oil burned/Electrcity made that ran the machinery used in the manufacturing of the pieces parts for your computer?

The war haven't been just for oil, but it's most likely been in the background. Anyone who seriously believed that the Coalition invaded Iraq just to steal and ship out their oil should have their head examined. Nonetheless, the Middle East is a very oil rich region, and our society is running on oil, literally. A democratic (or at least Western friendly) ME will be a better guarantee for a steady oil supply, not to mentioned the pressure on and threat to Israel will be lessened.

If Oil is not a good reason what is? Humanitarian reasons? Tell that to the Rhowandians(sp?) the world stood by while there was genocide going on. Nations that have a history of colonizing the area. We all know, or it has at least been professed that colonialism is/was a great evil and must be attoned for, but the very nations that would be considered guilty of this colonialism did nothing or at the very most vurtualy nothing. Nations that the "colonailism was evil crowd" blame (for the colonialism), and therefore have a compeling national interest (attonement for the colonization) did nothing. Where is the condemnation for those nations that stood by while people where being killed? What about the current sitation in the Sudan? We have learned there is Oil there, as well as a Humanitarian crisis, but where are the nations of the world on the Sudan? Why are they not running to help? Sending troops to stop the killing? It would seem that if there is Oil involved then it is OK to sit idealy by and alow Humans to die, lest somebody accuse any Nation willing to solve the problem of doing so only for Oil. Well I don't know about anybody else but as for me and my family, I would rather have on my conscience(sp?) that killings and torture of fellow humans was stopped as a by product of a war for Oil, then to Know Killings were alowed to continue, because a war for Oil didn't look good to some.

The genocide in Rwanda is a failure by many political actors.

As for Sudan, how are you gonna stop the killings there? Thwarting the goverment? Democracy building in the Middle East is a bumpy road indeed, but it would be even worst in Africa. The risk of running in without a plan is that you would just be turning the tables around, the formerly oppressed would take revenge on their former oppressor. If you go in and interfer with such deep rooted conflicts such as those in Africa, you're really open Pandora's box, and you should be pretty darn sure you know what you're doing. An oppressive regime like that one in Sudan is just the top of an iceberg. Underneath you have you have religious and ethnical conflicts that run deep.

The ideal would be if the Africans solved their problems on their own. The AU (African Union) is trying to do exactly this as we speak (or type).

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Here are some observations I have made over the last several months and years, about the left. While they have valid ideas and policy wants the logic and reasoning use to promote the ideas lacks intellectual honesty.

Note that while I may be outspoken left-wing, I'm doing it from a European perspective, which is different from an American one. Also, I think Kerry isn't all that leftwing by my standards, but he's the closest candidate with an actual winning chance to the left there is. If I was an American, and depending on the political "colour" of the state overall, I'd prefer a different candidate.

1)We've all heard and read many times on this board, and in political conversations with others in RL, the fear/complants/yeah verely loathing of President Bush being an Evangelical Christian. (This board is full of threads suporting my statement) Yet, nairy a peep has been uttered by the same folks over John Kerry's quoting Bible verses in the debates, something I don't believe anyone will find President Bush has done. John Kerry quoted Bible verses, that if President Bush had quoted, he (President Bush) would have been accused of being a Bible thumper and trying to MAKE everybody follow his religious views. There is a discontect here in the logic, during this campaign, and the as far back as I can remember Democratic canidates have spoken in churches, John Kerry is doing it today, during church services. Not speaches about religious subjects but political speaches about political subjects. Where is the seperation of church and state for those on the left?

I'm completely atheist myself (I don't even feel the need to force those "beliefs" on anyone, and actually strongly reject the term "atheist" in itself, as it implies that not believing in a God actually merits a seperate word), though I will admit I feel uncomfortable when some of the more extreme and politically controversial issues are being discussed with a strong undertone of religion instead of a more rational approach (gay marriage, abortion, you name it). I couldn't really care less if candidates use a religious template for their overall, more "mainstream" policies though. To illustrate this, our own prime minister is an outspoken Christian - and while he may have certain thoughts regarding abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, drug laws etc, he realises a clear majority disagrees with his sentiments, and in result he doesn't flaunder with those beliefs and mostly uses the Christian schtick to preach compassion and trying to instill better norms and values in general. I feel that this is the best way to deal with religion anno 2004, but obviously, the situation in the US is wholly different from that in The Netherlands. The closest thing we've got to hardcore Christian conservatives is a political movement called the SGP, and they've got 2, sometimes 3 seats out of a potential 150, tops.
I realise there's a substantial part of the US's citizens who cherishes the comfort of religion and the traditional longing for a status quo that comes with it, and that's the obviously main reason politicians are so public about their religious beliefs over there during campaigns - as there are enough people who actually care about a candidate's religious beliefs. Many of them will be drawn to Bush for his background and flamboyant dweeping with God, so John Kerry is mostly trying to fight Bush at his own game with his Bible quoting et all (while I don't directly doubt his Catholic beliefs, I do believe there's a certain level of opportunism involved in his attitude regarding this - at least with Bush, I don't get the feeling it's as much of a calculated move as that it is genuine). I have to admit I can't really recall that many instances of Kerry actually mentioning his faith (the only time I can recall is when he mentioned his Catholic beliefs to discuss his stance on abortions), but it's basically part of the entire political game that's being played. I'm certainly an advocate of secularism, but unfortunately, it seems it's simply impossible in the US to leave religion out of the election campaigns or someone's actual policies or general attitude.
So do I worry if Kerry quotes from the Bible? Not really - in a true utopia, quoting from the Bible should be no different than quoting from any other source that operates as a moral compass, whether it's Confucius or an X-Men comic. Do I worry if Bush does the same thing? Again, no. What if Kerry wants to reshape a certain aspect of the nation in a controversial and archaiic Catholic image? I bloody well hope that the Democratic Party will keep him in check if that ever occurs. And let's not even touch that question with a ten feet pole in a Bush situation...
Either way, if the candidates keep their religious beliefs subtle and for the largest part isolated from their future policies in a non-forceful manner (especially on controversial issues), you won't hear a thing from me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

2)We've all heard and read about how the Republicans use dirty tricks to disrupt the opponets political meetings and campaigns, yet not a peep out of the left when several Bush campaign headquarters has been vandlized. Last friday Ann Coulter had pies thrown at her during a speach she was giving, people may not like what she says, that is fine, but to disprupt a speach is childish no matter if you agree with the speaker or not. Anybody that would knowing go to an opponets speach with the INTENT to disrupt it deserves what they get. There has been said and a belief professed that the right are a bunch of hate-mungers and dangerous gun-totters (just take the time to listen to many of those outspoken people on the left), yet during the Impeachment hearings of President Clinton activists(sp?) on the left called for the killing, shooting, and stoning of the families of politicans on the right. Oh the activists later came out and said they were joking, but anybody that is intellectualy honest knows that if the same type or simular things had been said by somebody on the right even with a "poop-eat'n grin" on their, there is noway the left would have allowed them to say they were just joking. If there is any doubt to this fact just look at Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, 90% of what either of them say is tounge-in-cheek, designed to make people think and look at their views.

Erm... I suppose this bit could have easily been said by a disgruntled liberal, with the arguments reversed, of course. If anything, the finger-pointing is a bit childish (hey, ever actually listened to the words coming out of Ann Coulter's mouth, when it isn't covered with pieces of pie? She could have been a liberal by your definition, bar the fact that she slanders them at every possible opportunity, of course ). Really John, this is the kind of ranting that could damage one's credibility, how sound the rest of one's argument may be.

4)There has been lots of blaiming from the left of President Bush for Enron, and Companies that through the leadership of the companies have caused the companies to fail/or illegal activities to transpire(sp?) Even though the companies are located hundreds if not thousands of miles away form where president Bush is at, and there is zero evidence that President Bush had any contact or meetings of sufficant length to be able to discuss any conspiracy with the company board members. Yet where is the cry from the left when there is evidence that a democratic adminstration actively took part in paving the way for Enron to do business in India? A busines adventure that the facts have show lead to, or at the very least was a major contributing factor the the colapse of Enron.

I never really followed the Enron circus, though I do feel that any judging of this case is the kind of thing that should transcend party affiliations - if people can be pointed out to be directly involved in all this, they deserve to be blamed; whether they're Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Oompa Loompas, or whatever.

Maybe I'll answer your other points later on, but really, for all of your efforts, I haven't seen anything in your post so far that actually appeals to my own attitude towards these subjects. Of course, I don't really fit your definition of a "lefty" either, I suppose...

[ 10-24-2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Dreamer128]

On point 6. I believe The European Union has spend millions of Euros to sponsor a Peaceforce from the African Union. It is also working on a Battlegroup that can be deployed in Africa in the near future. Also, as early as August did the EU send a team of militairy and civilian experts to assess ways of implenting a possible ceasefire.

[ 10-24-2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Stratos: As for Sudan, how are you gonna stop the killings there? Thwarting the goverment? Democracy building in the Middle East is a bumpy road indeed, but it would be even worst in Africa. The risk of running in without a plan is that you would just be turning the tables around, the formerly oppressed would take revenge on their former oppressor. If you go in and interfer with such deep rooted conflicts such as those in Africa, you're really open Pandora's box, and you should be pretty darn sure you know what you're doing. An oppressive regime like that one in Sudan is just the top of an iceberg. Underneath you have you have religious and ethnical conflicts that run deep. The ideal would be if the Africans solved their problems on their own. The AU (African Union) is trying to do exactly this as we speak (or type). [/QB]

Is it better to do nothing, then? Let them starve and kill each other until no one is left? Would it be worse to intervene or sit by and watch?
I have wrestled with this question, myself. I have stated before, both off-line and here, that in various situations we should all walk away and let two sides of a conflict settle it themselves. Although there is much wisdom in this decision which results in people being able to decide for themselves how much they wish to fight or resolve conflict, that still means we turn our back on wrongs being committed.
On the other hand, getting involved might not necessarily solve the situation; take Vietnam (for America) and Afghanistan (for Russia). These modern examples show that involvement by a superpower can result in nothing except a body count. Nevertheless, I doubt anyone would agree that becoming involved in WWII was a bad decision despite high casualties.
I finally decided that involvement was the lesser of two evils. Better to try and solve a situation than remain passive and allow it to continue. If this means sending troops into any situation to try and enforce enough peace to allow diplomacy to find a long-term solution then so be it. Eventually, factions will realize that if they fight then troops will come in and force an end to conflict, so they might as well go straight to the table and talk.

[ 10-24-2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: As for Sudan, how are you gonna stop the killings there? Thwarting the goverment? Democracy building in the Middle East is a bumpy road indeed, but it would be even worst in Africa. The risk of running in without a plan is that you would just be turning the tables around, the formerly oppressed would take revenge on their former oppressor. If you go in and interfer with such deep rooted conflicts such as those in Africa, you're really open Pandora's box, and you should be pretty darn sure you know what you're doing. An oppressive regime like that one in Sudan is just the top of an iceberg. Underneath you have you have religious and ethnical conflicts that run deep. The ideal would be if the Africans solved their problems on their own. The AU (African Union) is trying to do exactly this as we speak (or type).

Is it better to do nothing, then? Let them starve and kill each other until no one is left? Would it be worse to intervene or sit by and watch?
I have wrestled with this question, myself. I have stated before, both off-line and here, that in various situations we should all walk away and let two sides of a conflict settle it themselves. Although there is much wisdom in this decision which results in people being able to decide for themselves how much they wish to fight or resolve conflict, that still means we turn our back on wrongs being committed.
On the other hand, getting involved might not necessarily solve the situation; take Vietnam (for America) and Afghanistan (for Russia). These modern examples show that involvement by a superpower can result in nothing except a body count. Nevertheless, I doubt anyone would agree that becoming involved in WWII was a bad decision despite high casualties.
I finally decided that involvement was the lesser of two evils. Better to try and solve a situation than remain passive and allow it to continue. If this means sending troops into any situation to try and enforce enough peace to allow diplomacy to find a long-term solution then so be it. Eventually, factions will realize that if they fight then troops will come in and force an end to conflict, so they might as well go straight to the table and talk. [/QB][/QUOTE]I'm not against some form of intervention myself, in the case of Sudan I would regard it is necessary, but I would only support a military one if we had a clear idea about how to do it and what results to expect. We could always go in the point a gun at everyone, but unless we have a good idea on how to solve the conflict, we wont get anywhere. We can't stay there forever, and they would just continue their fighting after we left.

I've gotten the impression from media that UN, EU and USA have intentionally stepped back to allow the African Union a chance to prove itself. It's their turf. I recently read an article saying that they might increase the small military force they have in Sudan from around 300 to something like 1500. I have no idea exactly what they are doing there, though.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Stratos: We could always go in the point a gun at everyone, but unless we have a good idea on how to solve the conflict, we wont get anywhere. We can't stay there forever, and they would just continue their fighting after we left.

My point with stepping in forcefully was to make the parties sit down and talk between themselves until they find a solution. The only viable long-term solution must come from within the country rather than be enforced from outside, whether by the US, the UN, or anyone.
If warring factions are going to act like children then they should be treated like children.