aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
aquapub said:I had a debate recently with an anti-war liberal here that really seemed to capture why the left is so wrong, so often on national security, and it all comes down to correct statement of the facts and correct terminology. If you state the facts correctly, there usually is little to debate.
At the core of the left's anti-war thesis is a series of gross disortions about who the enemies really are, what they are after, and what they should be called.
Goobieman said:Just curious - In 1991, what role did Israel play in the coalition that kicked Saddam out of Kuwait?
None?
So, it can be argued that his missile attacks in Israeli civilains suring the 1991 Gulf War were "self defense", because...?
Conflict said:What concern is this of American taxpayers and soldiers/marines?
Where does our constitution state that we exist to police the world?
aquapub said:I had a debate recently with an anti-war liberal here that really seemed to capture why the left is so wrong, so often on national security, and it all comes down to correct statement of the facts and correct terminology. If you state the facts correctly, there usually is little to debate.
At the core of the left's anti-war thesis is a series of gross disortions about who the enemies really are, what they are after, and what they should be called.
Conflict said:What concern is this of American taxpayers and soldiers/marines?
Where does our constitution state that we exist to police the world?
Absolutely false.earthworm said:Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago.
Like the Bible, it should NOT be adhered to literally.
Goobieman said:Absolutely false.
Every word of the Constitution was written (in English) with a specific, verifiable intent, and it was written in such a way to cover every situation imaginable.
If you don't like what the Constitution lets you/prevebts you from doing, see Article V. Change the words, don't ignore them.
Did I say that? I dont remember saying that. Wait -- I'll look again.earthworm said:You must be smoking far too much pot:mrgreen: is you think the Constitution (as originally written) is a perfect or infallible instrument.
So... whats the problem?Over the long term, such is not possible and as you should know , many amendments have been written and many more are certain to follow in the future..
But that's not hat you said, You said that "Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Like the Bible, it should NOT be adhered to literally."Far from arguing that the Constitution is "bad", it is NOT; the fact that it can be changed and improved over the years is good.
aquapub said:I had a debate recently with an anti-war liberal
correct terminology.
Gardener said:I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.
As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents. If you are obfuscating these distinctions, you may be as guilty of distortion as those you accuse of such, since there is a difference between terrorism and guerilla war. Both extremes tend towards distortion, though, as idealogues of the far right often fail to distinguish between terrorism and guerilla war, while those of the extreme left fail to distinguish between police action and terrorism (the hackneyed charge of "state terrorism"). Both are distorting the definition to advance their political agenda.
Gardener said:I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.
As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents. If you are obfuscating these distinctions, you may be as guilty of distortion as those you accuse of such, since there is a difference between terrorism and guerilla war. Both extremes tend towards distortion, though, as idealogues of the far right often fail to distinguish between terrorism and guerilla war, while those of the extreme left fail to distinguish between police action and terrorism (the hackneyed charge of "state terrorism"). Both are distorting the definition to advance their political agenda.
Yes, I know what liberals allegedly stand for. I also know what people who always call themselves liberals actually do in office.Gardener said:Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.
MOST American liberals are leftists.Gardener said:I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.
As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents.
Goobieman said:MOST American liberals are leftists.
Those that are not are usually some form of libertarian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?