12 Points of American Liberal Hypocrisy

[Dunenewt]

Well he does have a point.

If Czechoslovakia or Poland did something in 1933, they would have sorted out the problem.  If France did something anytime upto 1936 they could have sorted out the problem.  If the Allies gave the White Russians more help in the Russian revolution we wouldn't have had the consequential problems.

[Anathema]

Nothing particulary wrong with what you said Dunenewt, except that both France and England promised Czechoslovakia help if Hitler would attack them. (not trying to put the blame on country for anything, just setting something straight)

Most of the Whites in the Russian civil war weren't really better then Lenin and his ilk. In fact the Whites were comprised of czarists, moderate leftists, ordinary nationalists etc, Russia would have ended up in anarchy if the Reds would have lost.

[Dunenewt]

Yeah but we were in no real position to do anything due to rearming taking too long but i accept we should have done something sooner.

[Edric O]

And besides, blaming the bolsheviks for the rise of their enemies (the nazis) is utterly stupid. By that logic, America is to blame for the rise of the terrorists, or the builders of the Twin Towers are to blame for the WTC attacks.

Sure, if there had been no communists, there wouldn't have been anyone for Hitler to fight against. But that's like saying that if there had been no America, there wouldn't have been anyone for Bin Laden to fight against...

[Wolf]

I think that, right now, many Americans are torn which way to go politically. 30% of registered American voters are Independents. And, more or less, they really havn't committed to one side of another, yet. What I think contributes to this is the readiness of some individuals (I wont name names, now) to lump together anyone who disagrees with them to the opposing political pole. I think my philosophies are pretty centrist, and may lean left or right now and then, but if I were to, say, endorse the war on Iraq, I immediately become a Republican conservative. First off, not all Republicans are conservatives. Many are plain moderate. And the same goes for Democrats. Now, what if I did the opposite, and criticized Bush for not pursuing the diplomacy necessary to acquire a UN mandate? Well, I am obviously a bleeding-heart liberal.

My point is that this eagerness of people who are totally immersed in one political philosophy or the other to categorize people who disagree with them on certain points as members of the other side contribute less to actual political debate and more to political apathy. You know, they just can't choose what side to pick because they're sick of both of 'em! People get tired of anti-war protestors calling them blinded, Bush-loving sheep just because they acknowledge that the downfall of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. They get tired being called disloyal, or anti-American when they say that Bush should have pursued this campaign within the UN. And its not just on the Iraqi issue, but other issues as well. Its not just in America, but other nations as well. The desire of some to polarize politics is causing the downfall of classic liberal and conservative blocs. In America, the two parties, Democrat and Republican, are slowly becoming less powerful, and sooner or later, moderates will be the prevailing school of thought; drifting from "conservative" to "liberal" ideals and back again not because of loyalty, but because of what they feel is right. Perhaps, in the end, this is a good thing.

[SurlyPIG]

1.  They love Kerry's 'war hero' status, and criticize Bush for his military service.  Yet they never cared that Clinton fled the country to avoid military service.  They even made excuses for Clinton.  If a 'war hero' is an important characteristic for a president, then why did they defend a draft dodger?  Answer:  Hypocrisy.

2. They are furious that George Bush used a single image from 9/11 where 3000 US Citizens died.  Yet applaud Kerry's exploitation of Vietnam for political gain like a Barnum & Bailey circus.  Kerry frequently showing photos of him during Vietnam where 55,000 US Citizens died.  3000 dead at 9/11.  55,000 dead at Vietnam.  And they criticize Bush?  LOL.  unbelievable hypocrisy.

3.  They claim to hate war and always talk about "peace" yet endorse a man who fought a war and killed women.  They criticize Bush for sending troops to war, but embrace Kerry who pulled the trigger.  And they are peace-lovers?  rofl.  I'd call them habitual two-faced liars?

I don't even want to LOOK at the rest, but I just had to bite on these three.

1. OF COURSE Billy was a coward.  He was too afraid to inhale, heck he was too afraid to go past third base with Monica.  He was a cowardly man with not a shred of pride, but that's why people loved him.  I loved that he wasn't arrogant or egotistical.  He had no guts, but he had no ego, pride, or arrogance to get in the way of making good decisions.  And he was smart, undeniably smarter than bush because he was self-made as opposed to bought and pushed through by daddy and his alumni, and despite all of it, his teachers squeaked him through with Ds.  And the funny thing is, I don't think he even KNOWS he's dumb.  Maybe he really thinks he actually he made it through Yale on his own merit.  Bush is a bad mix of cowardess, pride, arrogance, stupidity, obliviousness, and ignorance.  That's not to say he is by nature a bad person, he would probably make a good character actor or something (I bet he does a mean Clint Eastwood) but I just don't think those qualities are good in the leader of the most powerful military force that has ever existed.  Clinton was much better suited for the job.  He may have been quite ignorant or oblivious of some things but he had a little common sense and a lot of caution in him.

2. First, notice how you do the same thing you're complaining about (how bush "used" images from 9/11 but Kerry "exploited" the Vietnam War).  Second, do ya think it might have something to do with the different nature of the events?  One being a recent massacre of innocent civilians, the other being an actively initiated war fought with consenting, signed-off soldiers that happened four decades ago?

3. Let me get this straight...according to you, a German soldier that joined the military so as not to starve in WWII is worse than Hitler?  Yeesh.  You're making this too easy.  BTW, how do you know Kerry killed women in Vietnam?  At any rate people RESPECT Kerry for actually having the balls to answer his country's call, put his money where his mouth is and get in the foxholes.  The closest thing Bush did to that was get in daddy's secret club at Yale.  Kerry's done the war thing.  He's seen the death firsthand.  They know he's not going to be a hell of a lot more sparing than Bush.  He may be proud like Bush, but he isn't a coward like Bush.  He can actually back up his military roots.  The trouble with Bush is that he loooooves the militaristic image.  I can't even count the number of times I've seen him make appearances where he was dressed up like a soldier, going to a battleship or sitting in the back of a hummer and generally acting like he's a bonafied gung-ho GI when he didn't really do a damn thing in terms of military service.  He made the quickest rise in rank despite never once serving in combat and getting 25% on his air force entrance exam.  And so WHAT if Kerry was an officer, that's like, what, the second/third-lowest rank in the army?  He was actually there...He's seen the consequences of bad orders, so obviously he'd be less likely to make them.

[emprworm]

"3. Let me get this straight...according to you, a German soldier that joined the military so as not to starve in WWII is worse than Hitler?

[danielsh]

Going through some of these replies, I came upon Matt's comments about just war. Sorry if I'm wandering off-topic, but that deserves to be addressed. War, by its nature, is unjust. The polity convinces the people that its cause is just and good, but only in order to serve its own interests. I'm more an American history guy than anything else, so I would look at our participation in wars over our history: every major war we have ever fought was for domination. Sometimes we can justify that domination, as in the case of the Civil War (socioeconomic control over the South eventually lead to African-American civil rights), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

What is most dangerous about the war in Iraq is that we were almost trying to make up for Vietnam. After World War II, the entire American nation was under the impression that there could indeed be such a thing as a just war. That became a part of our ideology and lead to such beauties as Korea and 'Nam. But modern history is inclined to question those wars, thus damaging the idea that America can do no wrong and hurting politicians' chances of being able to start wars. If we don't acknowledge, immediately, that war is inherently unjust, then this new version of Manifest Destiny (we're spreading our democracy to the poor, uncivilized Muslim nations for their own good) could become a part of the American mindset for decades. Not just with some people, but with all people. We might walk out of this conflict in Iraq thinking, "We got rid of the dictator, rebuilt the country, and started them on the path to democracy. War must have been the best solution!" And that is a terrifying thought.

I have encountered this when debating whether or not WWII was morally ambiguous. The popular response is, "Of course not! Hitler was removed from power." To this I respond, "Could there not have been a better way---one that didn't involve war?" Usually, I'm told, "Obviously not. Sometimes, war for a just cause is necessary." If this becomes our attitude for the next 50--100 years, then which war will we be fighting next?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Going through some of these replies, I came upon Matt's comments about just war. Sorry if I'm wandering off-topic, but that deserves to be addressed. War, by its nature, is unjust. The polity convinces the people that its cause is just and good, but only in order to serve its own interests. I'm more an American history guy than anything else, so I would look at our participation in wars over our history: every major war we have ever fought was for domination. Sometimes we can justify that domination, as in the case of the Civil War (socioeconomic control over the South eventually lead to African-American civil rights), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

What is most dangerous about the war in Iraq is that we were almost trying to make up for Vietnam. After World War II, the entire American nation was under the impression that there could indeed be such a thing as a just war. That became a part of our ideology and lead to such beauties as Korea and 'Nam. But modern history is inclined to question those wars, thus damaging the idea that America can do no wrong and hurting politicians' chances of being able to start wars. If we don't acknowledge, immediately, that war is inherently unjust, then this new version of Manifest Destiny (we're spreading our democracy to the poor, uncivilized Muslim nations for their own good) could become a part of the American mindset for decades. Not just with some people, but with all people. We might walk out of this conflict in Iraq thinking, "We got rid of the dictator, rebuilt the country, and started them on the path to democracy. War must have been the best solution!" And that is a terrifying thought.

I have encountered this when debating whether or not WWII was morally ambiguous. The popular response is, "Of course not! Hitler was removed from power." To this I respond, "Could there not have been a better way---one that didn't involve war?" Usually, I'm told, "Obviously not. Sometimes, war for a just cause is necessary." If this becomes our attitude for the next 50--100 years, then which war will we be fighting next?

Tell me why you feel that there is a peaceful solution to most if not all conflicts?

You choose to ignore the 12 + years of Iraq ignoring the UN sanctions against it.... is sanctions not a peaceful alternative? .... what about warning and inspections?.... arent they peaceful solutions?... what do you think about it not helping?

If a weed is growing in your yard... you can wait for it to die or you can pluck

[danielsh]

That's a classic conservative mindset: the ends justify the means. I'll be the first to admit that the ends of the Iraq war appear, at this early stage, to be praiseworthy. But war was not the answer. Why did we not encourage pockets of resistance within Iraq itself? Why did we not spend more time looking for a more effective solution? Why do we still refuse to work with some of the stronger nations of the world to rebuild? And in the case of both World War II and the Iraqi war, why wasn't the conflict about human rights? In the early years of WWII, America tried to ignore the issue of Jewish oppression. We did not involve ourselves until our economic interests in Asia were threatened, and did not provide military support until our security was threatened. Even during and after the war, aggrandizement of national power was a primary goal. Why else did we drop the two atomic bombs? Why else did we work so hard to secure ourselves as a world power? When it comes to Iraq, if we cared so much about Iraqi human rights, then why did we talk about WMDs? And if we're truly working for the benefit of the Iraqis now, then why are we handing reconstruction contracts to Bush's buddies without any bidding? Rather than find the best provider of a certain service, we're just letting some of the Good Ol' Boys handle it.

The answers to those questions are linked. Our actions in WWII and Iraq were not altruistic. We did not look for alternative solutions in either situation because doing so would not have allowed us to benefit from the wars. (One of which, by the way, we started on false pretenses.) We do not go to war because it is just, but because it is easy (for the politicians) and because it is profitable, and we never have.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why did we not encourage pockets of resistance within Iraq itself?

So you agree force is necessary?

And on another note... it seems that the people who advocate peaceful alternatives... dont really suggest anything worthwhile.... because if they DID then we wouldnt be going to war....

If there was an easier way to win a war besides ACTUALLY going to war.. then WHO wouldnt do that?

[Wolf]

Well, I'd like to respectfully disagree with Dan on the point that the United States did not encourage pockets of resistance within Iraq. I had the pleasure of listening to a speech given by Bob Baer, a long-time CIA veteran. He spent 8 years in Iraq trying to foment resistance against Saddam Hussein, and mobilized the Kurdish minority (20-30% of the population) to rise up against Saddam. In fact, Dan, the Kurds became a serious pocket of resistance, as they mobilized their own personal militaries, and were a clear threat to Saddam. The only thing that kept the Kurds in check was Iranian interference, since the Kurds had to fight the Iranians at their backs before they could fight Iraq at their fronts. Mr. Baer is only one of many operatives that were sent to Iraq in that time to foment resistence, and it never really happened. Beyond the Kurds, there was nothing America could do to shake the simple terror that Saddam elicited amongst the other 70-80% of the population.

Furthermore, to address "why wasn't the conflict about human rights?", well, to some degree, it was. Go look up transcripts of Bush's State of the Union addresses. He does mention, and, quite often, in fact, that human rights was an issue in this conflict. Sure, he dramatizes it, but nonetheless, it was a reason for our invasion.

As of right now, there are three valid objections to the Iraq war; 1) Not giving weapons inspectors enough to time to refute American intelligence. 2) Refusing to cooperate with the United Nations. And, 3), going into Iraq when other nations might actually be more dangerous threats.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for World War II, I feel that American action of some kind was justified since, had it not acted, Hitler would have been able to complete fortress Europe, and I can only imagine how all the Europeans here might feel. The Japanese would have ruled an empire spanning an Ocean, and America, the Last Allied Power, would be left alone, wedged between a feudalistic-imperalistic war machine, and a fascist dictatorship. Really, not an appealing situation for anyone (well, 'cept the Nazis). Now, I know you hate the "ends-justify-the-means-speech", Dan, but look at the the two worlds. Postwar w/ American involvement, or Postwar w/out American involvement? Which one is the better choice for humanity? Now, this might be debatable, but I think most people can come up with an answer to that question.

You might think some of America's actions in the war were unjustifiable; well, you're allowed to think that. People do bad things in war, some of them can never be justified. However, had America not acted in at least some capacity, humanity would have seen a dark age as never before. Especially if Hitler's scientists had been given time to correct their mistakes and effectively build the atomic bomb. Think I'm making this up? Go research the German atomic bomb project during WWII.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly, you are right about your last comment. We cannot let our attitude for the near-future be "War is okay.". However, this does not mean that American action in WWII was not justified; it probably was, not all of it, but the act of simply entering the war. Yet, we cannot allow this mind-set to prevail, solely for the reason that it is not good common sense. There was no other way in World War II, America waited three years for "another way", while most of Europe fell. Yet, I agree with you that we cannot let the idea that "Was is sometimes justified" or "War is okay" to prevail. This is a portion of what Eisenhower meant when he told us to "Beware the military industrial complex." Do not be so ready to go to war, and we will not be. However, I do not see that as a valid objection for American action in WWII.

[Anathema]

I remember a quote wich went something like "it's impossible to prepare for war and at the same time try to avoid one". I think it was Einstein, though I'm not sure.

[danielsh]

Force? Maybe, in extreme circumstances. All-out war? Never. I alluded to the reasons that we would go to war even if there were better solutions. It tends to foster patriotism, increase national faith in a leader, and improve a nation's economy. That may not have happened quite as expected, but Bush's pals are still going to make a killing from this. The reason that a person advocating peaceful alternatives has to be "extremely vague and ambigous" is that the events have already happened. I'm trying to propose an alternate solution, but I certainly cannot say, "We should have done exactly this, which would have led to exactly that, allowing us to do exactly the other thing." I'm not privy to all the intelligence about Iraq, nor am I a military strategist, nor am I a particularly brilliant man. That's why the President is supposed to be employing people with a handful of Ph.D.s and years of experience.

Matt, Baer did not work under this administration, as far as I can tell. Human rights issues may have been a part of the rhetoric, as they were with Afghanistan, but since we were lying about that, I think it's fair to guess that we may be lying about this, too. "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... but we fool me---we can't get fooled again," as our Fearless Leader said. How about "4) War is inherently unjust and a lazy solution to a more complex problem"? Why is that not a valid objection?

Yes, American action would have been justified, as long as it was not war. We should have stopped Hitler earlier; we should have funded the allies; we should have waged a war of intelligence; we should have encouraged rebellions in Nazi-controlled states; we should have done any number of things aside from war.

[Wolf]

I do not think that the CIA changes its priorities radically from administration to administration. Fomenting resistence in Iraq was a priority under Bush, then Clinton, and for a little bit, Bush again. Mr. Baer, indeed, left Iraq before the war started (he wouldn't be talking to us then, would he?), and he admitted that time might not change the situation over there. Eight years of being unable to oust Saddam through covert means is a clear indication that this is not a solution. Besides, if you acknowledge that, for the good of Saddam's people, that Saddam must be ousted, how may years would you have those people wait for covert operations to work, if the original purpose of ousting Saddam was to create good for those people? The logic doesn't follow, at the very least, that's what our administation believes.

Well, specific objections. The objection that war is inherently unjust is a fine objection, but I think I was referring to situation-sensitive ones for this specific case; Iraq.

[danielsh]

There's a modern fable that Howard Zinn likes to reference when discussing his anti-war philosophy. It goes something like this: An old man opens his door one day to find Tyranny standing outside. "Will you submit?" says Tyranny. The man says nothing, but steps aside. Tyranny moves in and spends years in the man's house---the man feeds him, clothes him, and serves him. Then Tyranny dies of food poisoning. The man drags his body outside, firmly shuts the door, and firmly says, "No."

It's better than war.

[Wolf]

Only in the example where the occupying force does not have the goal of genocide. Granted, the occupying force that just wants to strip your nation of natural resources and leave isn't that bad; but in the end you're all living poorly. That, and you assume that the only natural course of action for an occupation to take is to eventually die. This is not so, often, occupying forces may become assimilated into the occupied society, as what happened with India and northern Asian invading armies. A new culture was created. In colonial times, perhaps your example held true, in which assimilation was made impossible by separation of the occupier and occupied, and in which the occupied had the ability to revolt. In modern times, however, there is a difference.

Nazi Germany, when it invaded a country, did so for two reasons. According to my family, when German forces occupied their homeland of Greece, they did two different things. The Germans quickly swept through the countryside, occupying villages for no more than a week or two, stripped them of all resources, and left. The cities they held longer mainly for resupply/repair of their outbound forces heading to various fronts.

The other option was full-blown occupation, as we saw in France, as the Germans wished to subjugate the French people, as they wanted to do with the Russians and English. Now, perhaps this could still work in the realm of your example, but there was one problem. Some of the French are Jewish. If you are one of these unlucky bunch, you might not have to tolerate the short-term oppression, as Zinn illustrates, but you are herded into death camps for quick liquidation. In this scenario, no, Mr. Zinn, the occupied force does not win. Perhaps even in war, against the Nazi war machine, these same people would have died. But, yet, the might not have. If you are the target of genocide, and you submit, you most certainly die. If you are the target of genocide and you fight, you may or may not die. You may win, and save your people from the ignominy of defeat.

What Howard Zinn is saying to us is that being raped is the better alternative to being killed, and that this makes his position somehow morally justified. That is the problem I have with Zinn; allowing for rape is just as morally unjustified as allowing for death. Perhaps what Zinn says is true, yet, you might not necessarily be killed, and you might not necessarily have to kill. An example is the Cold War, in which, even though massive militaries were being built, neither side went to war. They avoided conflict, since they knew that conflict would most certainly result in destruction for everyone. Zinn refuses to acknowledge that, in taking the risk of being killed, you also may not be killed, and you are surely not raped. Perhaps you kill individuals on the other side, but did they not take the same risk as you in invasion?

[otheymzefedaykin]

The question is : WHO A SET UP SADDAM HUSSEN ?

America !

WHO A SET UP GUSTAVO PINOCHET ?

America !

Who sell weapons to Iraq in the 80's against Iran ?

America !

Who gave up the Kurds after the War of the Gulf?

America (and the others : France, UK Germany etc...But if Americains want all the time to say that is is them the liberators, well, the others are not responsible for the shit which they leave!)

Who is responsible for this attack in Spain?  There is not only Aznar!  It is amusing to type on the French, with racist, humiliating, heinous jokes!  You present to us a photograph of the cemeteries of Normandy by saying "the French have a short memory"! 

Short???  You believe that one has STILL a debt to pay?  We would have better done to leave America to the English!

Yes!  France surrender easily!  But it was France (with Great Britain, that Of Gaulle and me even which is the TRUE winner of the WWII) which declared in first, the War against the Nazi Germany!  The Americans them wait to be attacked (as the 9/11) to understand that they are not alone on ground!  The USA are r

[Wolf]

Wow. You remind me of a left-French version of Emprworm.

I think I've worked hard to dispel the myth that a nation's mistakes in the past do not invalidate the nation's future. If you want to say that America has no right to go into Iraq because America helped out Saddam in the past, that is like saying that Germany has no right to be anti-war because it started the last World War. Now, I'm not saying the war was right, but saying the war was wrong for that reason does not make sense. A nation must have the opportunity to correct its mistakes.

Now, if you want to condemn America for things it did in the past; fine. But your governments did not.

WHO SET UP VIETNAM AND HAD THE US FIGHT THE WAR FOR THEM?

France !

WHO COLONIZED HALF OF AFRICA AND LEFT IT THE POOREST, LEAST DEVELOPED PART OF THE WORLD?

France !

WHO HELPED THE UK INVADE THE SUEZ WITHOUT A UN MANDATE?

France !

At this point, I hope you can see that every nation has its share of blame. Every nation has done things that its not proud of, and were not justified. What's wrong is to say that nations, TODAY, must be condemnded for these things. That is wrong because it condemns a generation of people that DID NOT commit those deeds! It is illogical, because the people you are condemning are not the people who did what you are condemning them for, and it is immoral, because you condmen those who are essentially innocent of the crime you accuse them of. Which administrations left Saddam in power? Bush Sr. and Clinton -- not Bush Jr.

I hope, now, that people will focus their efforts on meaningful objections to the war rather than objections which 1) have neither a logical nor moral justification, and 2) do more to incite the other side against them than make an argument.

[SurlyPIG]

that was the Nazi defense at nuremburg:  "I was only following orders, sir!"

i just don't buy it, and neither did the tribunal, as that excuse was not grounds for aquittal

So if you were a German soldier when WWII broke out, I'm assuming that you would disobey orders and be prepared for you and your family to die.  Anything less would make you quite the hypocrit.

And I trust that if any number of US soldiers refused to participate in the Iraq war because they thought it was illegitimate, that you would support their decision, no?  After all...they are refusing to be the soldiers that were "just following orders" like German troops in WWII

Oh, and next time, don't duck my post.  Frankly I expected a little more than a Nazi comparison but I guess I should lower my expectations.

[danielsh]

Matt, I'm just trying to illustrate the myriad ways in which a tyrant can be opposed that do not involve war. I firmly believe that alternatives can always be found, and that "War is the health of the State." I have never said that good cannot come of it, but the ends do not justify the means.

[emprworm]

Matt, I'm just trying to illustrate the myriad ways in which a tyrant can be opposed that do not involve war. I firmly believe that alternatives can always be found, and that "War is the health of the State." I have never said that good cannot come of it, but the ends do not justify the means.

why not?  Are you not an atheist?  Do you not deny objective morality? Then on what basis are you saying something is objectively "wrong?"

you dont sound very consistent, Dan

[danielsh]

Relative morality has its limits. For example, when the state creates conflict to ensure its own power, and---in doing so---kills any number of soldiers and any number of innocents, it is doing demonstrable harm to other humans and to the world. I support relative morality, but it becomes objective when clear harm is being done to other people.

[emprworm]

Relative morality has its limits. For example, when the state creates conflict to ensure its own power, and---in doing so---kills any number of soldiers and any number of innocents, it is doing demonstrable harm to other humans and to the world. I support relative morality, but it becomes objective when clear harm is being done to other people.

so what is more harm?  500,000 dead or 10,000 dead?  Eventually you have to work with numbers when you start criticizing one action that leads to some deaths as "wrong" over another.

[Wolf]

When you begin measuring the "rightness" of an action by the number of people killed, you become a utilitarian. That's objective in that you simply measure the factual data at hand; its all numbers. However, is this moral?