Skip to main content

View Diary: Pro-war people were wrong (309 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Straw man (none)
    Defending the principle of going to war to rid Saddam of his WMD is a straw man argument, as I suggest at bopnews. It's obvious now, as it was before the war, that there are better things to do with our resources if we cared about proliferation. Like focus on Pakistan, and finishing the Afghan war.

    We'd be a lot better off trying to figure out the real reasons BushCo went to war, assessing those reasons on the merits (some of them do have merit, even if they could be accomplished by more effective means), and finding a solution that can address those real reasons rather than trying to continue to defend the WMD excuse.

    •  From a fellow bopster (4.00)
      The key point in Marcy's piece is that there were real reasons the neo-cons wanted to go into Iraq. These reasons were, in fact, stated - but in places that only right wingers were going to read. And no one believed that policy would go from right wing think tank to implementation, by passing the entire mechanism of conversation. Or at least, no one with enough credibility to stop it.

      And this is what is important: the right wing has been destroying the conversation, destroying discourse, with a relentless attack on universities and the press - to make it conform to their idea of what universities and the press should be for: to teach the dogma promulgated by a few "elite" thinkers. This is, of course, traceable as an idea to Leo Strauss - the real founder of the neocon philosophy, such as it is.

      This process - of unvetted, and untested, policy being imposed isn't new. It is how we got "supply side economics" - which was cobbled together by a bunch of jorunalists out of some work done by Mundell - and sold for completely different reasons.

      Politics as product doesn't work, and Iraq is the culminating example that it is time for this particular order to come to an end. It's had almost 25 years, and all it has managed to do is borrow its way to the point where it needs to go questing for wars to keep itself going.

      •  Let's not leave out 9/11 (4.00)
        Perhaps I am being naive, but I don't think this administration could have pushed this war through without 9/11. They wanted to do it before 9/11, but it was the nationalist response to 9/11 and its intimidating effect on the moderate liberal to moderate conservative center and indeed the whole SCLM that made this possible. I remember when Katha Pollitt wrote that Nation column objecting to her daughter flying the American flag and saying it was the flag of war and imperialism (I'm quoting from memory here but something like that), I thought she'd gone overboard. I thought the flying of flags in my neighborhood was a healthy patriotic response. Now I'm inclined to think she was right and I was wrong, adn that there was a line connecting the flying of those flags and the invasion of Iraq. What do people think?
        •  9-11 (none)
          I think you're absolutely right.
        •  I struggled with that (none)
          on the one hand - if "we" don't fly the flag - we cede a powerful symbol to the far right - I don't want to do that - damnit it's my flag too - and should be a symbol of all that's right with this nation - one I love enough to stand up for...

          in 10/03 or so Doonsebury had a great cartoon where the liberal radio host is happy that the flag was once again a symbol for all americans, not just republicans - the conservative in the strip was taken aback and said something like "yeah, yeah, it's great - but, um - we may want it back..."

          Symbols are tricky things - and if, upon looking down my block - my flag is seen as an endorsement of their policy - then, well, yeeeargh.  I have the same problem with my faith - symbols of Christianity have been co-opted by the far right.  I don't want to give them up - but I also don't want to be percieved as endorsing them.  Something I struggle with.

          On the flag  - I settled on flying the 13 star circle flag, along side either a Don't tread on me or a POW/MIA flag.  I find this deepens the symbolism.  This IS the greatest nation on eath - flaws and all - but the ideals and values that make the US so great are sadly the very things the Bush administration is currently trampling.

          Time to take our country - and it's symbols - back.

          the only thing that trickles down in a trickle down economy... is the bill.

          by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Sun Apr 18, 2004 at 03:23:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not the flag per se (none)
            I wasn't so much interested in the flying of the flag itself, but what sentiment it was conveying. My sense at the time was that it was conveying a sense of civic solidarity at a moment of tragedy, uncertainty and challenge. What I came to feel is that sentiment was there but mixed with a rather chauvinistic nationalism embodied in the sentiment "This IS the greatest nation on earth", a statement that if taken to its logical conclusions implies the Bush foreign policy of granting priority to the policies of the greatest nation on earth. The US is one good nation among many and should behave as such.
        •  Keep the flag, dump the President (none)

          In a just world, the American flag, under which British imperialism was repelled twice, slaves were freed, Europe liberated and Germany and Japan redeemed, would not be property of the Right.  Crimes were committed as well, but that goes for every flag on the face of the earth.  If life were fair, Bush's flag would be the axe and fasces, not the Stars and Stripes.

          It's bad enough that the right wing has the White House, the Congress, most of the States and is one Justice from getting the Supreme Court.  Must we also surrender our flag to them?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site