(no subject)
Aug. 30th, 2005 10:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockAn interesting piece on the difference in perspective on Iraq on the Right and Left:
The right (broadly speaking) can’t fathom why the left is driven into fits of rage over every Abu Ghraib, every Gitmo, every secret rendition, every breach of civil liberties, every shifting rationale for war, every soldier and civilian killed in that war, every Bush platitude in support of it, every attempt to squelch dissent. They see the left's protestations as appeasement of a ruthless enemy. For the left (broadly speaking), America’s moral strength is of paramount importance; without it, all the brute force in the world won’t keep us safe, defeat our enemies, and preserve our role as the world’s moral leader.....
War hawks squeal about America-haters and traitors, heaping scorn on the so-called “blame America first" crowd, but they fail to comprehend that the left reserves the deepest disdain for those who squander our moral authority. The scars of a terrorist attack heal and we are sadder but stronger for having lived through it. When our moral leadership is compromised by people draped in the American flag, America is weakened. The loss of our moral compass leaves us rudderless, open to attacks on our character and our basic decency. And nothing makes our enemies prouder. They can't kill us all, but if they permanently stain our dignity, they've done irreparable harm to America.
And a Jesse at Pandagon discusses this same basic idea in regards to Dennis Prager's latest yap:
A note to Dennis Prager: don't feed me this shit.
You don't think there's a fucking right to be anti-war. If you did, you'd realize that the mainstream of the anti-war movement believes that the terrorists are evil, but their evilness does not justify our fuckups. Our actions are not made de facto good or positive by the fact that they are targeted against people who are evil if said actions either increase the threat from evil or are evil themselves (see Abu Ghraib, for instance).
Even if every single anti-war person wore a shirt at all times that said "terrorism is evil", they would still be accused of being traitors to the nation because they opposed the action we were taking to "get them". It's not my fucking job as an opponent of the war to make sure that your delicate little sensibilities are massaged, that your he-man mega-Christian "I'm fighting the war on the homefront" ass can live out your fantasies of not fighting in World War II.
The right (broadly speaking) can’t fathom why the left is driven into fits of rage over every Abu Ghraib, every Gitmo, every secret rendition, every breach of civil liberties, every shifting rationale for war, every soldier and civilian killed in that war, every Bush platitude in support of it, every attempt to squelch dissent. They see the left's protestations as appeasement of a ruthless enemy. For the left (broadly speaking), America’s moral strength is of paramount importance; without it, all the brute force in the world won’t keep us safe, defeat our enemies, and preserve our role as the world’s moral leader.....
War hawks squeal about America-haters and traitors, heaping scorn on the so-called “blame America first" crowd, but they fail to comprehend that the left reserves the deepest disdain for those who squander our moral authority. The scars of a terrorist attack heal and we are sadder but stronger for having lived through it. When our moral leadership is compromised by people draped in the American flag, America is weakened. The loss of our moral compass leaves us rudderless, open to attacks on our character and our basic decency. And nothing makes our enemies prouder. They can't kill us all, but if they permanently stain our dignity, they've done irreparable harm to America.
And a Jesse at Pandagon discusses this same basic idea in regards to Dennis Prager's latest yap:
A note to Dennis Prager: don't feed me this shit.
You don't think there's a fucking right to be anti-war. If you did, you'd realize that the mainstream of the anti-war movement believes that the terrorists are evil, but their evilness does not justify our fuckups. Our actions are not made de facto good or positive by the fact that they are targeted against people who are evil if said actions either increase the threat from evil or are evil themselves (see Abu Ghraib, for instance).
Even if every single anti-war person wore a shirt at all times that said "terrorism is evil", they would still be accused of being traitors to the nation because they opposed the action we were taking to "get them". It's not my fucking job as an opponent of the war to make sure that your delicate little sensibilities are massaged, that your he-man mega-Christian "I'm fighting the war on the homefront" ass can live out your fantasies of not fighting in World War II.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-01 06:31 pm (UTC)For the record, Dennis Prager is Jewish.
They can't kill us all, but if they permanently stain our dignity, they've done irreparable harm to America.
I'd respond that I'd rather "stain my [country's] dignity" than end up dead.
I think it would be a lot more intellectually honest to simply say that "The Left opposes American power unless the there is no possibility that any one any where could perceive that America has some ulterior goal."
The goal, as I surmise from various Leftie anti-war positions typically includes such things as natural resources (oil), puppet governments, Zionist appeasement, etc.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-01 09:08 pm (UTC)And I'd ask why it needs to be an either or discussion? Are you saying there are no other options than doing away with those values we hold most dear in order to feel "safe"?
I think it would be a lot more intellectually honest to simply say that "The Left opposes American power unless the there is no possibility that any one any where could perceive that America has some ulterior goal."
And I think that would be a ridiculous overstatement. Unless, of course, you view the political landscape of being made up of individuals capable of promoting only one of two options, either irrational overreaction, dishonesty and incompetant, brutal militarism or some tree-hugging, bleeding heart appeasement and complacency strategy. If it's an either or situation I can see why you'd say that. But the Left is arguing, or at least the two that I'm quoting, that there have always been more options available to us that weren't taken into consideration simply because they didn't fit into the world view of this administration.