The issue I agree with dubya on (at least in premise)

[truhavoc]

I have been thinking as of late, how was it that so many people drank the kool aid and voted for the idiot that is our president? Also I've been formulating my list of 100 suggestions to pass on to democratic leaders to hopefully help us win in the future. The issue of this election was obviously terrorism/Iraq, which is where Kerry inevitably lost. The people just did not believe his sentiment about the mishandling of the war because Kerry still believed in the cause...and that showed through the veneer of Kerry's "tough talk" about the war. The problem I feel was the focus of the campaign, focusing on the mistakes of the presidency thus far with a primary focus on Iraq. We all knew, and I am guessing the vast majority of the American public knew, that many mistakes were (and still are) made with the handling of the war. This should have been shown in more concrete terms as a sum of calculated mistakes made by the administration. Instead we were made out to be merely the anti-war party, and our opinions were disregarded by many.
I think some of us had difficulty formulating good rebuttals for the Iraq war, because I feel that there were justifications for war that liberals would have accepted. I think we would all like to do whatever it takes to help the citizens of the world. I could repeat the right wing talking points of how horrible of a man Saddam was, but we all know them. I think that 80% of democrats would have supported a war against Iraq if it was framed as freeing the oppressed from the oppressor, and all other options were exhausted. I think the world would have had an easier time joining us if we would have presented the "freedom" message instead of the "mushroom cloud" message.
I am a student of IR and Political Science, and I am fully aware of the theory of democratic peace. I feel that it has holes, but that it could greatly help in these times of religious radicals of all ilks. I find it funny how now Bush seems to want to liberalize the world, and all the while allow his base to return America to the 19th century. I for one will always at least on some level support actions to give freedom to the oppressed, however I am having a hard time distinguishing if this president is only using the freedom excuse as a mere smokescreen. I am curious how many on DU have similar sentiments?

[aMurder.com]

1. Bush "Freedom"

Isn't really "freedom." I'm disgusted.

[truhavoc]

2. I agree

We should first distinguish what the oppressed would rather have as their form of gov't.

[punpirate]

3. Would you please explain on what issue...

... it is you agree with Bush? You never, definitively, say what that issue is. That is, after all, your thread title.

Cheers.

[truhavoc]

7. The theme of the inauguration, "spreading freedom"

You know....the most current excuse for why we are in this war...

[punpirate]

25. The Bushies aren't interested in spreading freedom....

It's merely a buzz phrase to rally the masses domestically. The rest of the world (and a significant portion of the American populace) knows this to be empty rhetoric to mask imperial ambitions.

If you say you agree with Bush in this matter, you risk being aligned with a policy which is ultimately corrupt and misleading, i.e., the word "freedom" in Bush's mouth is meant as a deception, rather than as a profound and honest sentiment. If Bush understood "freedom" in the ways most other people understand it, he would not be trying to overthrow democratically-elected governments, for example. That's where my confusion with your statement lies.

Cheers.

[jdj]

31. Pakistan. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. Uzbekistan. and others.

These are some of our allies who are reknowned for massive human rights violations.

Obviously the poster has not heard about all the be-headings in Saudi Arabia in the past month. Gov't sanctioned beheadings.

It's pathetic when people confuse the spin with the real aim of this war.

Who was it that said there are two reasons for everything, a good reason and the real reason.

The good reason is "spreading freedom".
The real reason is oil.

[truhavoc]

40. Never said that I believe the spin, I agree with the premise

of spreading freedom by any means necessary. We need to call out that the actions of this administration are not spreading freedom, only creating more problems.

"Obviously the poster has not heard about all the be-headings in Saudi Arabia in the past month. Gov't sanctioned beheadings."

I am insulted by the blind statements that you make without having even the slightest justification. I support the oppressed being freed from the oppressors in all circumstances...regardless of the continent and regardless of the "national interests". National interests are the very same reasons why we supported Saddam against Iran.

[gater]

4. Freedom means nothing if not seized by the populace.

We can not bring it or give it to people. They must take it and mold it until it is their own freedom.
I avoid any confusion by pretty much standing against everything Mr. Bush and his ilk have done, and plan to do!

[WillieWoohah]

12. I disagree

Your formulation assumes that "the people" are a monolithic entity who speak with one voice. What about cases where a minority group within a country (e.g. Kurds in Iraq, East Timorese in Indonesia, Tutsis in Rwanda, Muslims in the former Yugoslavia) are facing genocide at the hands of the majority? It's a bit callous to see them slaughtered and say "if you want freedom, take it for yourself".

Don't we have a moral obligation to come to their aid, even if it means fighting the "oppressor" majority in those countries? For example, if we had intervened in Rwanda to stop genocide there, it would have been against the wishes of the majority, but since they were the ones doing the killing, I'm tempted to say that they have forfeited their right to object.

I would have supported the Iraq War 100% if it was about freeing the Kurds from Saddam, even if I knew that the current mess would arise. If a country participates in genocide against it's citizens it forfeits it's right to national sovereignty. Isn't that the meaning of "crime against humanity"? That other nations can view an attack on human dignity as an attack on themselves and take forceful action to intervene?

[gater]

19. O.K. How 'bout if we wait for the oppressed to ask us for help,

or start the process on their own first. Like the Kurds after Iraq War 1, ( who we hosed). Then how 'bout we promise not to establish a permanent military presence in the counties we "help"? We should not charge in like the World Police...that's why a whole lot of people on this rock hate us. Our track record sucks!

[WillieWoohah]

38. The Kurds did ask us in 2002

The Kurdish democratic movement actually did appeal to the general public in Western countries to support the Iraq War. There was a public statement to that effect from Birham Salih back in 2002. He basically said that the no-fly zones could not be policed indefinitely and that every time they had been eased (e.g. 1995) it had resulted in violence and atrocities towards Kurds. It was probably the one thing that could have made me pro-Iraq War, were it not for the cynical power motives behind it.

[truhavoc]

41. I agree completely

When an opportunity arises take it, and if there isn't an opportunity then use our resources stopping genocide in places like the Sudan.

[durutti]

30. You're conflating two different issues.

We need to distinguish between a.) humanitarian intervention and b.) regime change.

Humanitarian intervention is aimed at preventing massive atrocities. This can theoretically be the right course of action in certain circumstances.

Regime change is aimed at removing a government and replacing it with another. This is never acceptable, because it violates the right of nations to self-determination and sovereignty. Liberation cannot truly be imposed from without. Barring countervailing factors, regime change creates only puppets of those doing the changing.

Humanitarian intervention in practice is much the same, and must be under current social and economic conditions. I'm unaware of any genuine humanitarian intervention in history.

One must also remember that states always justify their actions on humanitarian grounds, or else on grounds of self-defense. In both cases, these motives rarely reflect reality.

Now, you use the example of the Kurds. Why attack just Iraq? Why not Turkey as well, since that state has committed similar crimes against them? Further, relevant questions to ask would be: is U.S. intervention actually likely to improve the situation? How likely is it that it will do more harm than good? And in any case, there's no reason why such action needs to take place unilaterally or without a UN mandate.

Furthermore, the U.S. supported Hussein when he allegedly committed genocide against the Kurds. The same people still support Turkey. These people surely can't be trusted to improve the situation.

So the question that should be asked is not, "Has Iraq committed genocide?" but rather "Is Iraq about to commit genocide again, and if so, can we do anything to prevent it without causing even more harm?"

There is the matter, of course, of Hussein going unpunished for his actions. But many criminals remain unmolested for their crimes -- some of them Americans. In a better, more equitable world, then we would seek justice done in every case. But in this world, there are all kinds of double standards. We can't protect demand the prosecution of tinpot dictators while Henry Kissinger stays protected within American borders.

[WillieWoohah]

39. Sorry, I am keeping them distinct

I recognise the difference between humanitarian intervention and regime change. I oppose the war in Iraq because it is the latter, however if it was the former I might support it.

[jdj]

32. Gee, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia then.

The Saudi citizens are some of the most oppressed people in the world, far more oppressed than Iraqis under Hussein.
Why, why, why...

[WillieWoohah]

37. Invading Saudi Arabia would destroy the world economy

How much suffering and misery (especially in developing nations) would occur if a massive disruption to the world's oil supplies led the econmies of first world countries into free-fall? Also, you can always argue that certain countries are better targets because they will create domino effects that will cause other countries to undergo progressive reform. In any case, I'm not try to defend the Iraq invasion, because I don't agree with the motives or conduct behind it, I'm just saying that armed intervention is sometimes justified

[truhavoc]

18. I think we have reached days where it is harder to seize freedom

This is not the 18th century, governments have even more powerful ways of enforcing oppression. I think there should be a gauge to tell if people really would like to be freed from their supposed oppressors, and also there needs to be a way to turn over power to them quickly to let them mold it into their own.

Our biggest stuggle is with the nature of man to hold on to what he knows, and also his nature to maintain power with everything in his being.

[gater]

20. You spoke that more better than me. And I agree.

[GreenArrow]

33. there's a bit of irony

in that many of the same places now slated to be "freed" were "freed" by previous expansionist powers with imperial ambitions. We'll be as successful as they were.

[Oversea Visitor]

5. The real problems I see

is that Americans are trap by the Iraq war issue. It is wrong, the war is wrong, the reasons for it, are not ground enough to invade a country.

I believe lots of Americans cannot accept this truth. It wont go away.
It will always be a dark stain on the US reputation. It will be written in history.

[GreenArrow]

34. "lots of Americans cannot accept this truth"

No they cannot. They do not wish to admit that they were fooled, so it's much easier to go on believing the lie. And if they actively supported and sold this wholy manufactured war, like our Secretary of State designate, there is no point in admiting the truth now, even when all lies have been exposed. Better keep on.

[neebob]

6. So what it is that you agree with Bush on?

Giving freedom to the oppressed? If that's it, what exactly makes you think he gives a shit about that?

[truhavoc]

9. I said in premise

and also qualify that you cannot be sure if his "freedom" excuse is not part of a smokescreen.

[neebob]

14. I noticed "in premise" after I posted.

I just can't even force myself to say I agree with someone who's lying. I also think the idea of spreading freedom is incredibly arrogant. Freeing from oppression? Okay, that has some potential.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Not me

That war is WRONG. I don't care anymore why we are there. It never really mattered anyway. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but I would never have supported a war to take out an evil leader. I just don't see that as our responsibility. To those who do, the obvious question is who's next? North Korea? And when do we stop? Why is it our responsibilty to rid the world of evil dictators?

How about the war on poverty? How about a war on health care? Or education? Or outsourcing? Or election fraud?

I have always believed we should focus the majority of our resources on domestic issues. Let's take care of our own before we go halfway around the world to invade a country that never asked for our help in the first place.

[truhavoc]

13. I just can't agree, you sound like a repug from the mid-90's

"I have always believed we should focus the majority of our resources on domestic issues."

I think there should be a war of poverty, world wide. I think we should reach out to our fellow man and make sure that all have the best life possible. It is not our responsibility, just in the same way that donating to a charity is not a responsibility, but that does not mean that it would not be the right thing to do.

We have just all be lured into this idea by our elected leaders that we are limited in what we can get done. Why not do all that you have suggested? Why not work with the world to TRULY make a difference?

I am unsure where to end, but I don't think we can shy away from the mission. I am not coming at this from a post 9/11 protect america idea, I am coming at this from a idea that I would have supported for decades.

[manic expression]

17. We would be able to

make the world better if we were not bogged down in an unjustified, wrong, illegal and imperialist war for the worst of reasons. We should be stopping the genocide in Sudan, or putting pressure on regimes to improve human rights (or improving ours), or sending as much aid as possible to the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami, or anything that is a good cause.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I am a die hard pacifist

and a life long Democrat. No way could I sound like a repug from the mid 90s, even if I tried. LOL

It was not our business to take out Sadaam or to force democracy upon the Iraqis. They didn't even ask us for our help! shrub and co. took it upon themselves to wage war and invade a country and don't forget - kill innocent citizens - for what? I don't think anyone knows. To assume they are doing this as part of a larger mission to be benevolent and to work with the world to make a difference is just nothing but horse pucky.

Every penny we spend on that war is a penny that could have gone to education or health care or to save social security (if you believe it needs saving, but that's another issue entirely) right here in this country. I find it shameful that we have spent so many billions of dollars on that war when we have homeless people right here in the US who need our help, and hungry children, and senior citizens who can't afford health care, and unemployed workers due to outsourcing. I could go on and on but I think you get the point.

Why not truly make a difference right here at home for a change?

[neebob]

28. I agree with proud2Blib (in premise)

The way to build a great society is to take care of people. By focusing on domestic issues, we would not only create a truly admirable system that others would want to emulate, but also be too busy to meddle in other countries' affairs and create problems that need policing.

By "meddling," I mean the things our governments do that have profit, acquisition, or power motives and are not about taking care of people. I'm all for spending money to improve the lives of people in other countries, provided we're not also meddling.

If we took care of our own, so to speak, we'd have enough wealth to go around the world and then some.

[truhavoc]

42. This is a process that I would agree with

"If we took care of our own, so to speak, we'd have enough wealth to go around the world and then some."

I just don't support the isolationist ideas that got America into trouble before WWII, I think we need to be proactive in the world. As long as our goals are to increase our standing at home so that we are more capable of spreading wealth and freedom abroad, then I find this to be suitable policy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. Our first obligation

is to our own. I was livid when I read the touch feely stories of soldiers helping to build schools for Iraqi children. What about our kids? I can show those soldiers crumbling schools and hungry kids 10 minutes from where I live.

And you are right, we are meddling in Iraq. Anyone who really believes we are spreading harmony and good will (and democracy - yeah, right!) to the Iraqi people has been drinking the PNAC kool-aid for too long. shrub does not have a compassionate bone in his body. His agenda is power, not benevolence. Wake up America!! Anyone out there who really believes we are helping the Iraqi people, contact me and I have some nice ocean front property here in the midwest I can get you a great deal on.

[GreenArrow]

35. there's an old saying, "get the beam out of your own eye

before you try to remove the splinter from someone elses". We have a lot of work to do here, and are in no moral position to impose our values on anyone else when we don't live up to them ourselves.

Spending as much on "defense" as the next eight countries combined just doesn't get it, and is nothing to be proud of.

[KG]

10. first rule - govertments lie

you badly misunderstand what is really going on.

bringing liberty to oppressed people is the last thing on the bushco agenda - this war is all about stealing resources. all wars are about stealing resources.

[truhavoc]

15. I'm not saying that they don't lie

I just said I agree with the premise, not the practice the way it has been performed.

[KG]

24. the premise is false and disingenuous

i fail to see what there is to agree with about anything the BFEE says.

[manic expression]

11. Ah, yes, "the freedom"

"Ah, the freedom. Look, we have the gas-line freedom, the looting freedom, the killing freedom, the rape freedom, the hash-smoking freedom. I don't know what to do with all this freedom."
-Akeel, 26 year-old Baghdad resident, on life in occupied Iraq

(source: "The Freedom" by Christian Parenti)

[truhavoc]

16. Seems like libertarian freedom

I would not say that Iraq was the best example to institute my idea of freeing the oppressed, I am just saying that it is a goal that should be considered. Also I am not trying to imply in the least that Bush Co has did a single thing wrt this war correctly.

[manic expression]

21. OK

I think I understand where you're coming from better. Look, it's not about what someone says, it's about what they do. Bush is actively destroying freedom in America. He supports regimes which are oppressive and horrible. He murders and kills and destroys. His words have no effect on him.
One glaring example of this is Hitler, who proclaimed that Germany was bringing "freedom" to the countries they were invading. Words are only that: words. Look at the meaning behind them. The meaning behind Bush's bile on "freedom" is that he means nothing of what he says on this subject, and he means disgusting and base intentions (and actions).

[GreenArrow]

36. simple rule of thumb

take whatever Bush says and apply the opposite.

Example: Freedom = Slavery
Compassion = callousness and cruelty
Honor = lying, cheating, and thieving.

And so on...

[journalist3072]

23. Spreading freedom

Of course spreading freedom is a good idea. With Bush, the problem is with the messenger.

Bush is the last person on earth who has any moral ground to talk about spreading freedom. After all, he is the man who 'won' the presidency twice by voter suppression, and he is the first 'President' (using that term loosely with him) to be chosen by the Supreme Court.

Also, I find it curious that he can talk about freedom in places like Iraq, but where was he and his fellow Republican hawks during the apartheid movement? It was Dick Cheney who voted AGAINST a resolution in the Congress which called for the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. He didn't want to take a stand against apartheid.

So I guess they only want to talk about freedom for some people, not all.

So again, the problem is with the messenger. One of the things that stands out in my mind is that on the night we invaded Iraq, I was listening to the radio, and I remember there was a report on the radio that said the United States had taken over Iraq radio airwaves with a message saying "This is the day you have waited for." (meaning liberation). And I don't recall the Iraqi people begging the United States to bomb the hell out of them, and kill innocent civilians.

[durutti]

26. Here's the problem...

First of all, it's worth pointing out that most elected Democrats did support the Iraq war, a fact conveniently brushed aside by liberals and conservatives alike.

Secondly, as Human Rights Watch argued in its 2004 World Report, there's no way the attack on Iraq could have been framed as a humanitarian intervention. A humanitarian intervention takes place in order to prevent specific, massive crimes. The Hussein regime wasn't committing such crimes. While it certainly had been guilty of them in the past, its human rights record in the recent past -- though still obviously terrible -- had improved significantly, as noted in the HRW report. Further, humanitarian interventions do not generally aim for "regime change".

Third, the spreading of liberal democracy is never to be accepted as a justification for war. I say this for a number of reasons.

I take it for granted that all forms of government constitute merely the rule of one class over another. Liberal democracy is just the standard form -- in rich countries, anyway -- of the rule of the propertied over everyone else. They maintain this rule through the financing of campaigns, control of the media, control of investment, and so on. Susbstantial room for debate is allowed only in those areas where competition between different sections of elites provides for no general consensus -- and as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated, this room is ever shrinking.

I also take it for granted that there must be periodic crises under capitalism and that, barring countervailing factors, these crises grow longer, harsher, and more frequent over time. Economic crises beget social crises, and the ruling class responds with repression. In cases where its rule is threatened, the ruling class turns to extreme repression and fascism.

Poor countries generally don't have a shot at being real, sovereign liberal democracies. The process of decolonization following WWII merely led to most of them becoming neocolonies, formally independent but economically still very much controlled by First World powers. The masses of these countries don't approve of this, of course, and so revolt; and the result is rule by quasi-fascist puppets like Pinochet.

So liberal democracy is not substantive democracy. It is democracy in form but not in content, and planted within it is the seed of fascism. So the argument that we need to "spread democracy" throughout the world is pretty weak. At best, we can hope for oligarchy in the global North and IMF and World Bank dictates in the South. There is no state in the world on which the U.S. can impose a qualitatively different kind of state.

Outrage against neoliberal policies has spread throughout Latin America, and is sharply increasing in West Asia. Consequently, we can expect many more Pinochet-style dictatorships in the future. This is what will materialize in Iraq, and it's what the Bush administration has intended all along. Just take a look at the kinds of characters they've supported in the past. Just take a look at some of their less-publicized policy statements, stating that they want the region to be governed by obedient "autocrats", by Americanized Saddams.

When they say "democracy", they really mean "capitalism". And in this context, that necessarily means dictatorship as well.

In closing, I would note that the sanctions had the effect of rendering the Iraqis dependent upon the regime. Had the sanctions been lifted, it's very likely that they would have done away with the tyrant themselves.

[gottaB]

27. I would have preferred to be discussing Kerry's inaugural address

There's something not right about comparing Bush's inaugural speech to Kerry/Edwards campaign positions. However, I do see your point. Thus far the strongest rebuttals to Bush's speech have come from the realist point of view. That's valuable, of course, but I think there's a need for Democrats to articulate an idealistic political narrative that will resonate with the American public.

Have you been over to the Agonist? For ages Sean-Paul Kelley has been talking about developing a visionary, overarching liberal foreign policy.

http://discuss.agonist.org/yabbse/index.php?board=29

I haven't contributed, though I did make an account there and do peruse the blog and forums now and then.

[neebob]

29. Too bad! You got this other bunch of lies and B.S. instead.

:)
On edit, I didn't mean to imply that Kerry's speech would have been a bunch of lies and B.S. I just meant this particular bunch of lies and B.S. delivered by El Dorko.

[truhavoc]

44. My statement would have been better suited in a much longer article

To better tie what I concluded with the actual actions of the campaign, to truly help make some sort of difference in the future.

Thanks for the link, I bookmarked it!

[Tony_Illinois]

43. No--I do not share that sentiment at all.

My view is simple:
1. The war we started was based on proven lies.
2. I am against starting wars against countries that are not a threat to us.
3. If the Iraqis wanted to dump Saddam Hussein, they could have done that in an indigenous movement.