Skip to main content

View Diary: Why you should switch to John Edwards (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why you should reconsider (not switch) (0+ / 0-)

    I know most of you here would rather troll rate me till I die, but I think anyone who supports Edwards needs to think long and hard about the AUMF. (don't stop reading here an flame me, read the rest)

    Please realize that for a lot of us who aren't true believers, the war is an important issue, not merely a cudgel used to bash Edwards. By many estimates one million Iraqis have been killed during this conflict and upwards of 20,000 American troops have been injured in battle. Those are staggering numbers. Put away your support of Edwards for a second and grapple with those numbers. I don't keep brining up his AUMF vote to bash Edwards; this issue matters to me deeply. While I am still leaning towards Edwards (yes, feel free to doubt my sincerity), that support will come without any forgiveness. Some mistakes are too big to deserve forgiveness. I can move on, but I won't forgive. He says he accepts responsibility. But what does that mean? He hasn't had to give up a limb or a loved one. Words like those are always empty to me.

    Moving on would be easier, but I can't get past this MTP interview in February.

    SEN. EDWARDS: Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multiethnic, complicated society that’s suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It’s a security imperative. It is in America’s national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

    (End videotape)

    MR. RUSSERT: Do you think that was naive?

    SEN. EDWARDS: No, I think that had, had Saddam, who’s—had the war in Iraq been executed the way that it should have been executed, I think there would be a much greater likelihood of there being a democratic Iraq. I think we would still see at least some symptoms of what we’re seeing raging on the ground in Iraq right now. But no, I think there was some potential for a democracy in Iraq.

    He doesn't think democracy building is naive? After all we've been through, he can't acknowledge that this idea of exporting democracy at gunpoint is a bad idea? Don't parse his words to make a case against my post. Read his answer and tell me what your true thoughts are. Big deal if some Obama assholes jump on any little doubt you may show on this one topic. Doesn't atleast give you some pause?

    "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

    by crazymoloch on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:14:05 PM PST

    •  Thats far from a trollable posting (0+ / 0-)

      Its an honest reason you have problems with edwards.. which is debate and EXACtLY what i hoped people would post.

      I disagree on your base assumption though. Democracy certainly was possible in Iraq. Should we have not freed the Germans? Those under soviet domination? et al? The reason we dont have Democracy in iraq was that the Iraq war was never about democracy. It was about oil, corruption, and power. If we'd won the war, turned over administration to the UN , recognised whatever government hte Iraqis legitimately elected and left we'd have a successful Iraq now and, frankly, a very hard time winning the next election. But you can rely on the evil and corruption of the right so we have what we have.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

      by cdreid on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:31:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you sure you're separting your love ... (0+ / 0-)

        .... for you candidate from what you truly believe?

        Let's start with my problems.

        Democracy certainly was possible in Iraq.

        - If you believe this, then going to war was the right thing to do. The formal military battle was over in a matter of days. At that point, the cost in life could easily have justified the end - democracy. But it isn't that simple. Democracy was possible, but the cost was going to be horrendous. A multi-ethnic nation country with strong sectarian identity cannot possibly qualify as a country that could achieve democracy without significant bloodshed. The ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia showed us as much.

        Should we have not freed the Germans? Those under soviet domination? et al?

        This quote scares me. Who did we free from Soviet domination? We tried in Korea and Vietnam, but realized realized that the price was too steep. Instead, we let the Soviet Union collapse under is own weight. Also, don't you feel silly invoking WWII to justify exporting democracy through war? Isn't this what Bush has been doing for the last five years.

        If we'd won the war, turned over administration to the UN , recognised whatever government hte Iraqis legitimately elected and left we'd have a successful Iraq now and, frankly, a very hard time winning the next election.

        If you truly believe this, JE's AUMF vote was the right one. However, I don't think you'll find any historical example to back up this fantasyland view. This grossly simplistic view ignores the historical animosities between the Shia, Sunni and Kurds, as well as the fact that the Shia and Kurds has been murderously victimized for years under a largely Sunni apparatus. I'm sorry. I just can't believe you buy this.

        cdreid: Are you atleast spinning some of these things subconsciously? You said democracy would was possible (without mass casualties), the WWII was apt precedent and that everything would have worked out if we'd left the country after defeating Saddam's military.

        "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

        by crazymoloch on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:49:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your logic is laughable (0+ / 0-)

          and your comprehension of history astonishingly lacking.

          You should look up a thing called the "Korean war". We won it due to the brilliance of this fellow named Macarthur. I have Korean friends who are kinda glad they didnt live under Soviet/Chinese domination thanks.

          WE failed in viet nam for the very reason we're failing in iraq. We were never about "the people". The viet nam war was about propping up an incompetant, corrupt government at all costs and feeding the military industrial complex along with right wing chickenhawk fantasies of war.

          It was the pressure of trying to maintain the cold war via a corrupt economic system that caused the fall of the Soviet union. Whatever nutty world you live in at least i would hope that concept is available there.

          We won the Iraq war. We lost the occupation. We lost the occupation because it was just that, an occupation, and our goals were never remotely related to democracy or helping Iraqis. Left to their own devices the "iraqis" would have divided into the three nations they rightly are. I posted that years ago on DKOS btw and the CW, which you're good at spouting, was that "we must maintain Iraq as a nation thats just crazy!".

          JE voted the wrong way. He learned from it. Apparently you're so hyperpartisan and lost in your own bubble  that reality rarely intervenes though so i'll leave you to your delusions about southerners all being racist, my uncle amongst others risking their lives in Korea being foolish, et al.

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

          by cdreid on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:24:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow..... this conversation turned south quickly (0+ / 0-)

            We won the Korean war? Wikipedia isn't great but its something your generation is accustomed to reading. Unlike Vietnam, which ended is defeat, Korea ended in stalemate.

            WE failed in viet nam for the very reason we're failing in iraq. We were never about "the people". The viet nam war was about propping up an incompetant, corrupt government at all costs and feeding the military industrial complex along with right wing chickenhawk fantasies of war.

            So Vietnam was both eminently winnable and the right fight? All we had to do was not listen to right wing chicken hawks? FYE

            We won the Iraq war. We lost the occupation. We lost the occupation because it was just that, an occupation, and our goals were never remotely related to democracy or helping Iraqis. Left to their own devices the "iraqis" would have divided into the three nations they rightly are. I posted that years ago on DKOS btw and the CW, which you're good at spouting, was that "we must maintain Iraq as a nation thats just crazy!".

            We've gotten back to the Edwardsian tactic of taking my words and overdrawing conclusions. I never said that Iraq had to or should have been maintained as one nation. Where did you get that? I said there was underlying tensions between between the three dominant sectarian groups, nothing beyond.

            Now lets get to your fantasyland scenario. We leave after the initial military victory and everyone happily organizes themselves into three nations? The city of Baghdad and the surrounding metro area account for 40% of Iraqs population. As such, the problem with you fantasyland scenario is that Baghdad is a community with many integrated neighborhoods. Shia and Sunni lived together (used to), with many mixed marriages to boot. Any partition would have involved tearing up communities at gunpoint and considerable bloodshed in Baghdad. The partition of India (which created Pakistan and Bangladesh) gives you an idea of how violent this process is.

            JE voted the wrong way. He learned from it. Apparently you're so hyperpartisan and lost in your own bubble  that reality rarely intervenes though so i'll leave you to your delusions about southerners all being racist, my uncle amongst others risking their lives in Korea being foolish, et al.

            Again, we're putting words in my mouth. I'm a racist and I denigrated the sacrifice of your uncle (and called him a racist too). Sheesh! Grow up. So, I'm not a true believer like you. Big deal. I courteously explained why I'll never be an Edwards true believer. If you look back, you'll see that you jumped out and attacked me, not the other way around. Does the hyperpartisan label stick to the person with no candidate or the true believer?

            You cited Korea (not really, it just happened to be only example of us freeing someone Soveit domination) as a justification for exporting democracy at gunpoint. I think the results of the Korean war speak otherwise.  

            "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

            by crazymoloch on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 10:09:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again you've gone round the bend (0+ / 0-)

              The chinese and russians kicked us OUT of korea. We had LOST. Our aim was to stop them from, through puppets, overrunning Korea. MacArthur devised one of the most brillant strategies in history and crushed their advance into south Korea. I ran a korean restaurant whos family was very happy about that fact. I rented an apartment from another family who was very happy about that fact. The Korean war was a surrogate for a direct Nato/Communist ground war. Our pilots flew against soviet and chinese pilots. Chinese tanks. Soviet weapons.

              That you have to spin what i said as supporting viet nam pretty much makes clear how weak your argument and knowledge are. We werent in viet nam to support the people. IF the vietnamese people had wanted us there and supported our "assistance" then it would have been a just war and yes, we would have won. However as the reality was otherwise we should not have been there and  thus lost. But spin away.

              In your "solution" for Iraq you do what 99% of the pundits and theorists due. You insist on control. Because the lil brown people certainly dont have the right to control their destiny. All rights are individual and inate. Including the right to determine your governance or even if you Are governed. It is this sick egotistical Kissingerite view of the world and people that causes death destruction and war. IF the people of Iraq wanted Saddam removed AND we were willing to do so then that was a just action. It does not give us the right to control their destiny or assume power over them. We have killed perhaps a million Iraqis and destroyed the lives of far more in order to "help them and stop them from killing each other in sectarian strife!!". I'm fucking when a father looks down at the eviscerated body of his five year old daughter he is so appreciateive. You dont help people gain their inate human rights by taking them yourself. Last i heard Indian and Pakistan didnt have millions dead and millions more living as refugees. Golly what a horrible solution that was "allowing" people to determine their own destiny.

              I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

              by cdreid on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 04:44:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site