Politics – Matthew Yglesias proves that doves, too, bury their heads in the sand.
Wow! That's all I can say after reading this book review, and it was written by an assistant editor of The New Republic.
TNR certainly believes in trying to stand up and defend the title, 'liberal'. That, I believe, is a losing battle. Otherwise the review was dead on.
The one true lodestone of these type of people, 'Modern Liberals', I call them, using the term coined by Evan Sayet, is MORAL EQUIVOCATION between good and evil, between terrorists and their victims. They just can't hep' it!
Some people can not be negotiated with and I wish this country would wake up.Terrorists,Iran.Libya and on and on.We "negotiated" with North Korea and guess what? A nut has the nuclear weapon.
Hmmm. The facts would seem to indicate the the failures so far w/all the aforementioned nations is a complete lack of reasonable negotiation and an over-reliance on the rhetoric of 'the Duke' without the common sense actions required to back it up. You guys slam diplomacy and defend W's failures on every front as somehow better than having some morals and principles and respect for international law. Fact is, W couldn't anti-pacifist his way out of a wet paper bag.
Why yes, Grrr. We could just sit down over tea and cookies and convince the tyrants of the world to "just play nice".
Worked well for Neville Chamberlain didn't it?
Never said any such thing. Please see my "ninny headed clodpate" comment below.
My derision for the policies you endorse has nothing to do with pacifism, but the deplorable level of arrogant ignorance inherent in them.
Whether you know what policies I endorse is debatable.
Diplomacy without strength is useless.
The West has been "negotiating" with Iran since they were caught with their secret nuclear program. The result? An increase in their uranium enrichment efforts. I think concerted economic strength might convince them to accept a different path towards "peaceful nuclear technology".
I do like "ninny headed clodpate". Rolls off the tongue, don't you think?
I never defended "W's" failures to any degree of which there are many.Using North Korea as an example, "we" meaning the U.S. negotiated in good faith even agreeing to shipments of tons of grain and oil to feed it's starving masses for vague promises.
I consider this well more than reasonable negotiation and don't consider that arrogant nor ignorant except they now have nuclear weapons and that is a fact.
Grrr
ROFLMAO
You believe that people that have a religious attitude that they will rule the world and kill all Jews in the process can be negotiated with. Ever since Muhammad people have tried to negotiate with them. There is a book "The Truth about Muhammad" by Robert Spencer. It is fully footnoted and gives references to the Islamic texts to support everything he says. It is a Islamic version of the life of Muhammad. These people will NEVER negotiate in good faith.
"Liberal internationalism" that places its hopes in multilateralism, international institutions, and a restrained role for the United States in international affairs.
This sounds good to me. Better then the serial killer foreign policy of Republican administrations.
Some doves dutifully bury their heads in ponds... and think of themselves as righteous civil disobedients.
I guess acting independently and excessively makes more sense to you.
Not at all excessively, particularly given the likely consequences of not acting... our Iraq actions truly were the sort for which the age old axiom was coined: "A stitch in time saves nine"
Given the sort of hoodlums and hoodlum states that continue to inflict casualties on us in hopes of defeating us at our own ballot box, how can you justify your conclusion... unless you happen to think that those are freedom fighters inflicting casualties on us.
The ones with the greatest casualties being inflicted on them are the Iraqi people. And the majority of those casualties are being inflicted on them by the current US admin and its short-sighted, bordering on glaringly ignorant, policies.
That is not true. The vast majority of those casualties are being inflicted on them by their fellow Arabs/Muslims.
walden3
"Liberal internationalism" that places its hopes in multilateralism, international institutions, and a restrained role for the United States in international affairs.
This sounds good to me. Better then the serial killer foreign policy of Republican administrations.
What a foolish idea. How do you negotiate with people who only want you dead or converted. Since Muhammad that has been their ONLY political concept. Remember that in Islam religious and political concepts are the same.
I really think it's time to put together a contingent of these liberal diplomats and doves then send them to Afghanistan to negotiate with the Taliban and even Ben Ladin, if he's alive and will talk with them. Give them a few vehicles, water, food,maps and other supplies and a lot of white flags. Then point them in the right direction. We and the rest of the world can wait with bated breaths the results of their amazing diplomatic tact to bring peace and prosperity to the earth. Yeah, right they'll be lucky if they get back with their heads. lol
Non-violence and passivity are not the same thing. See Mandela, Tutu, King and Ghandi.
True. Passivity is sitting back and cheerleading for idiocy because that's what the idiot-box vidnotizes you into doing. The general mob mentality of America, driven by the MSM and an entrenched and inherently arrogant nationalism, no matter how bloodthirsty, violent, and reactionary, is passivity at it's finest. It's so much easier on the brain to just kill off the other side rather than question our own role as opportunistic antagonists. That would require some less than passive thought processes.
Aggressive passivity huh?
Allowing yourself to be manipulated by your own ignorance is always the height of passivity. That's why they're called sheeple.
People are manipulated by their ignorance everyday. An' we are all ignorant. So in a way, we all manipulate ourselves to commit good and bad actions by using our ignorance as justification for our behavior.
I've known some mighty violent people that were ignorant. However, their reasoning for their ignorance and behaviour was in their personal belief system. I think alQuida and the religious zealots that go to Allah via suicide bombings would fit that bill easily.
Least we forget:The 9-11 NYC twin towers hits were done by religious/nationalistic suicide bombers that had been manipulated and motivated by a strong anti-American philosophy that left no room for a counter opinion.
That is another case of collateral damage caused by war.
So you have non-violent sheeple and violent sheeple.
It has been my experience that the violent sheeple have little use for the non-violent sheeple except to manipulate them into providing excuses.
It is unfortunate,but it is the way of the world.
There we go-blame the US.: "It's so much easier on the brain to just kill off the other side rather than question our own role as opportunistic antagonists."
Riiight. It's our fault that the US spent money and lives to help the mujahadeen drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan and then they turned us?
In the long term 9/11 probably wouldn't have been launched from there had the Soviets prevailed.
Also in the long term, Afghanistan was a major factor in allowing the freedom of many former "states".
What would the "passive" (non-interference) outcome have been?
Let's evaluate how many long-term successes have resulted from our activism: the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Ngo Din Dhiem, bin-Laden, Pinochet, Noriega, Pol Pot (can you think of any):
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld...
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/hermansept97.htm
http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladic...
There must be a balance between interventionism and "diplomacy"
If you believe that diplomacy and appeasement can handle every international problem, you are sadly mistaken - history has shown that over and over. Remember the British and French governments between 1933 and 1939 and the Munich Agreement?
Reckless interventionism is not the solution either
Not a member? Sign-up today!
romeohoover1968
MacBookForMe
monicadozy
seohunk
alamala
conarakjung
Endoscopy
MichaelRhodente
Daylight
originalpranker
asolious
zaph22
TOD396
tanglang
icono1
Silverghost
ranchhand
TonyByron
rimbaud
Debbie
AlphaGnosis
Wolfie2007
jackson.gianna
jimdoze
aidan.genesis
luke.evas
bugluver
nostalgia
Stephen Johnson
tbkennedy53
hurr1
ZiegfeldGirl
joeeddie
rdy2rck
grungeplunge
mcarpentry
cherev
askripko
free77
Dicax_Maximus
lawrencee
Iris-Iris
svensun
pc25
libsRfunny
CactusAnnie
birddog54
BoBo in Texas
64)
Vote
So, this guy is another idiot who advocates "diplomacy" with terrorists. He's exactly the kind of stooge terrorists love. Bin Laden was emboldened by the Clinton approach: tuck tail and run. Bush's policy has the bastard holed up in a cave, if he's alive at all, and his henchmen on the run.
You mean Bill "the only pres to launch military strikes on AlQuaeda prior to 9/11" Clinton?
Yes, that would be Bill "the Empty Tent Bomber" Clinton.
So you do acknowledge that he was the only pres to launch military strikes on AlQuaeda prior to 9/11. That's a start, BB.
Too bad he didn't follow up with some effective action. Might have prevented 9/11.
He made what some would say was the right decision to not get us involved in offensive military action so close to a handover of executive power.
What was W's excuse, again?
"He made what some would say was the right decision to not get us involved in offensive military action so close to a handover of executive power."
Some would call that a lame excuse. Some would call it a monumental failure that led to the mass-murder of 3,000 Americans.
But I guess that putting a smack-down on the Taliban and al queda would have been "preemptive" and so illegal.
And again, on the subject of lame excuses, any blame you can try and put on Bubba for 9/11 goes triple for W. He took the snap and dropped the ball, big time. He's never found it, either.
"He took the snap and dropped the ball,..."
What snap? Did Bill give him a heads-up on this? (pssst W, bin laden is finalizing his plan to fly airplanes into the WTC.)
Billy was too worried about little willy's indiscretions to focus on protecting this country.
"any blame you can try and put on Bubba for 9/11 goes triple for W." Whatever. Your rubber, I'm glue... weak.
You want to go there and hold Bush responsible for all targeting too then?
"A young woman's severed head and torso and a small boy's body were pulled Tuesday from a smoking crater carved into the earth by four U.S. bombs, so powerful they yanked orange trees from their roots. But there was no sign of the man those bombs were aimed at: Saddam Hussein."
"An airstrike killed 14 people and wounded 16 during a wedding party, according to hospital officials in the unstable city of Falluja, but the U.S. military said its planes had targeted a terrorist safe house."
"An attack by the US just after midnight on Thursday in Fallujah has claimed the lives on nine civilians, three were children. Six others were wounded, hospital officials said."
"Two Iraqi women and two children were believed to have been killed in a U.S. air strike aimed at al Qaeda militants north of Baghdad on Thursday, the U.S. military said."
No, just for the emptiness of the gesture. If you'll recall it was at the same time as the Monica affair and in retrospect I think that most would agree that the timing was not entirely a coincidence.
Very well then, it's your moral compass it can steer you in whatever direction you wish.
"You want to go there and hold Bush responsible for all targeting too then?"
Not quite the same thing, walden. The terrorists dress as civilians, *specifically* target civilians and then run and hide among the civilians. All war crimes I believe.
The US often avoids striking known targets because of the possibility of civilian casualties. Your moral equivilancy is without basis.
Your attempts to justify the wanton murdering of innocent civilians in the name of nationalism are sickening. The inability to tell combatants from civilians is just another symptom of the complete strategic meltdown that this 'mission' has suffered from since it was first on the blackboard.
"Your attempts to justify the wanton murdering of innocent civilians in the name of nationalism are sickening."
Dude, you need to step away from the pipe. Seriously.
The US tries it's best to avoid civilian casualties. Terrorists try their best to maximize civilian casualties.
"The inability to tell combatants from civilians..." Golly Grrr, that wouldn't be because the terrorists dress like civilians and hide among civilians and use civilians as human shields would it?
News flash GRRR, Al qeada did not attack us until willy's administration. So obviously no other president would have attacked them. They did however attack us multiple times during his administration and the left seemed to be ok with the fact that he did nothing. In 1993 I (at the age of 12) was advocating hunting them down and killing all of them after they almost killed my mother in her office. What did good old willy do? Arrested the cell who planted the bomb. Ahh, how cute. The big bad pres arrested a few scary guys and locked them away.
Why did he not go after their leaders? The people who supported and trained them?
I guess when you're sitting in you big cumfy chair wih a cigar and a fat intern those thoughts just don't cross your mind.
As for W, had he attacked aq prior to 9/11 you liberals would be screaming pre-emptive war and warmonger then would have crucified him. What was he to do?