Peace across the earth?

The left, a lofty single-minded folk, always thinking about how to bring peace across the earth. So it is with these kinds of posts at DailyKos by the ‘nutroots’: "Imagine a world without Israel,"

…obviously, liberal logic is at work here.

Yes, it is the Chomsky/Kos wing of the left I am talking about here and they may not represent you if you are merely a democrat. Not every democrat is a leftist after all. (But as we all know democrats who aren't leftists these days are less and less welcome in the party.)

The reality is that this post at DailyKos could also have been titled, "Imagine a world without America," because all the same liberal logic applies.

Imagine a world without Israel
by qrswave Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:41:50 PM PDT

Or is that not allowed?

Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.

There would be no more need for US AID or justification for Dimona.

We could bring down the Wall, send prisoners home, and families could be reunited.

We could dismantle checkpoints, open crossings, and pull down barbed wire fences.

There would be no more settlements or armed settlers because the people would be united.

We could replant trees and olive groves and rebuild battered cities.

No more suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.

No more targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.

Palestinians and Jews could live together and the world could address other issues.

What a simpler place this world would be

if there was no need for a Jewish majority - where there would otherwise be none.

Is it so hard to imagine?
There is little justification for 'imagining a world' without Israel. Instead, let's imagine a world without liberals. A world where no one makes excuses for terrorists, a world where the UN immediately condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for acts of terrorism, kidnapping, murder, etc, and commends Israel for their patience and restraint in the face of murderous aggression, instead of demanding that Israel negotiate with terrorists and surrender their throats to the Islamo-fascist knife.

Over and over again those who should know better demand that the good give up in the face of evil and stop fighting for the sake of a progressive concept of 'peace'. I'd blame it on moral relativism but it's not really relative at all. Relativism would at least tend to be neutral. This is in fact moral reversal, where good is called evil and evil is lauded as good.

It was Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." In this case the Noam Chomsky's, qrswave's, and the Markos Moulitsas's of the world actively denigrate the good and promote evil as if it were good. It's not surprising then that so much of the Kos/Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky/Air America progressives seem to align their thoughts with our enemies.

In this case imagining a world without Israel is something a nuclear Iran is actively planning.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Zionist regime is the root cause of problems of the Muslim nations.  ~Ahmadinejad's Blog
The liberal logic used to arrive at this very same conclusion is puzzling but no longer unexpected. Has there EVER been a UN resolution denouncing Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO? I'm not sure because I haven't found one yet. But I can instantaneously find numerous UN resolutions condemning Israeli 'aggression'. Progressive policy, elucidated in the following Chomsky quote, seems to follow this line.
Chomsky: "So, though the policies of Hamas are, again in my view, unacceptable, they happen to be closer to the international consensus on a political peaceful settlement than those of their antagonists, and it's a reflection of the power of the imperial states - the United States and Europe - that they are able to shift the framework, so that the problem appears to be Hamas' policies, and not the more extreme policies of the United States and Israel.  ~memri
In contrast to Chomsky's statement, Ahmadinejad's statement is the cold hard truth. For Muslim nations like Iran there can be no peace as long as there is an Israel. And since the policies of Hamas and Hezbollah are synonymous with Iran's it is incredible that anyone could even imagine that these policies are somehow acceptable or preferable in any way.

The only way I can explain it is by assuming that, on the progressive left, peace is a term whose definition has been warped by the cold war. This quote attributed to Stalin explains it best, "[After Communism succeeds] ...then, there will come a peace across the earth." Hopefully I don't have to explain who needed to be eliminated in Stalin's mind for Communism to succeed.

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 14, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #167674

Eric, was this a message of hate today? The tone was very much that liberals are to blame for the mutual intollerance that plagues the middle east? Wow, the thing is that the recent news reports of Hezbollah firing the new Thunder 1 rockets into the town 25 miles away that had never been hit by rockets before, I got seriously pist. I can’t blame Israel for considering these recent acts to be “state sponsered” seeing as how there are no Lebenese troops in the south. And what does one state do if another state provokes it? They send in the military and the rules change.

At least they send in pamphelets before they bomb, and the policy to bomb headquarters has always been the same. If they put them in civilian areas, the people should move out. I would. But you can’t very well ask a dead woman or child if they were helping fire rockets…but middle eastern media assumes they are all innocents.

It is a sad state of affairs. There needs to be a statement made by the people of Gaza and Lebenon that they want to go beyond where they are now, and start trading and learning from the west instead of resenting it because it does nothing but hurt them. Secondly, but more imortant, is that Israel needs to start giving them some means of bettering themselves through trade and investment, etc. It is a long term goal, but we can’t even begin until people stop firing rockets at truely inncent people 25 miles away without any warning signs whatsoever. It really upsets me to think if we militerized the border and mexico fired rockets at San Diego. We’d own northern Baja in 48 hours.

Yet, I can’t agree that liberals who try to understand the motives of these creeps and explain it in a way to help guide our policies in the right direction are a problem to you. I think their hearts are in the right place, but some folks can’t handle to even consider that a muslum is a legitimate human being. I’ve read their posts on here even.

Right now, I’m in the middle, I can’t stand to put my guard down at the moment, but I know something has got to give or it’ll get much worst. What? I don’t know.

But for now, I hope Israel kicks the right ass, and I hope they scare the hell out of the neighbors over there. Otherwise we’re in for a long summer over there.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 14, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #167675

Very good

Posted by: KAP at July 14, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #167677

I was unclear about the Baja example. We’d own baja, and that is a great thing. We’d know immediately that we have a direct threat we need to take care of. Go marines!

So what scares me is to think that anyone would feel for Lebenon right now.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 14, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #167679

“No more suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.

No more targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.

Palestinians and Jews could live together and the world could address other issues.

What a simpler place this world would be …”

This guy must be smokin’ from the same pipe as the Mullahs of Iran! …and Chirac!

Anyone in their ‘right mind’ couldn’t possibly believe that if Israel simply ceased to exist that there would be peace on earth.
The Jewish people cannot live in peace(over there) until the Muslims accept that they have to share this planet with others- non-muslims.

People actually believe that all the
‘suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.

…targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.’ would immediately stop?

We better hurry up and build that outpost on the moon so the Jewish people have somewhere to live - if crackpots like that get their way.
Don’t they realize that liberals will be targeted when the Jews are gone? Muslims love gay marriage and abortion!!-not.

Posted by: bug at July 14, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #167682

I love how Repugs have the luxury of viewing the world as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. Good guys should win at all costs, and bad guys should die. Kiss the girl, roll credits.

Reality, of course, is not so cut and dry. Maybe one day Repugs will realize this and develop some insight beyond “blow ‘em up”.

Posted by: David S at July 14, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #167684


‘I think their hearts are in the right place, but some folks can’t handle to even consider that a muslum Jew is a legitimate human being.’

Posted by: bug at July 14, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #167689


Aren’t average Lebanese people pissed off at Hezbollah and not Israel?
Something about how a single political party has no right to take their nation to war?

I know I heard that somewhere.

Posted by: dawn at July 14, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #167703

David S -

Where’s your manners? I thought you weren’t into name calling…

The Republicans were not the ones who wrote the article which imagined an utopian world without Israel; where everything was right with the world. Further, isn’t it a simple black and white view that thinks that Israel is the cause of all the unrest in the mid-east!

Posted by: Don at July 14, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #167720

Try this one on for size.

You’re engaging in your usual propagandizing, your usual guilt by association. Here’s a news flash: Opinion about Israel varies. See the Blue Column for more details.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 14, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #167721

I guess if I were to sum it up, We Democrats crowd out views we don’t like, rather than shut people up. Let the wackos speak. We’ll speak as well, and we’ll trust people to tell the difference.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 14, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #167723

Stephan wrote:

“I guess if I were to sum it up, We Democrats crowd out views we don’t like, rather than shut people up. Let the wackos speak. We’ll speak as well, and we’ll trust people to tell the difference.”


Stop being “holier than thou.” People are people are people. Democrats do what all people do who have strong opinions. They do everything they can to shut up other voices. You do everything you can to shut up Republican voices.

Now to the point… the article quoted. Do you agree with it or not? And why?

Posted by: Don at July 14, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #167726

I think this (the kos blog piece) was poorly written, and then poorly understood, making it mean something it might not have been intended to.

What I see in the reading is not imagining no Isreal per se, but imagining the difference a change in Isreali policy could bring. The line “…there was no need for a Jewish majority” seems to mean to me the intent might have been to imagine an Isreal which did not keep the people segregated from each other, build walls and put up fences to keep the people separated, all in an attempt to keep that Jewish majority.

Granted, security plays a seemingly big part in those actions, but could easing the restrictions also ease the need for the security?


Posted by: myles at July 14, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #167737

Don, follow my link. That guy is on the same site, posting a different opinion. DKos is not some lockstep community. Slanted to the Left as it is, to judge the entire place’s attitudes by the content of one contributor. Worse yet is to assume that this one person in this broader community represents everybody else who claims to be a liberal or Democrat.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #167738

Slanted to the left as DKos is, it’s silly to judge the broad community of its readers as if this one guy represented everybody.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #167745

Stephen Daugherty,

Good and valid point about not judging a party or group by the most extreme member. However, politics is a profession based more in perception than fact, and the Democrats have shown themselves to be less able to seperate themselves from the fringes of their base than Republicans. For example, no Republican has been in any way sympathetic to the lunatics at the Westboro Baptist Church. They’re recongnized as idiots and universally condemned.

In a political system that requires a base be pandered to, the Republicans have an advantage in that many of the issues that are important to thier base are more palatable to the majority of Americans than the issues of the Democrat’s base. For instance, Republicans seek to ban flag desecration and gay marriage, issues that a majority of Americans support.

The Democratic base, on the other hand, is far from what many Americans want. It also doesn’t help that many of these fringe groups use celebrities, who more often than not appear to just be grabbing for attention than making sincere or even coherent arguments.

Even more puzzling to me is that even as the Democrats are currently the minority party, they seem to have more difficulty in maintaining party unity. Hillary Clinton, the probable front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 08 gets skewered by Cindy Sheehan and a plethora of other anti-war radicals and is risking her base by trying to be seen as more moderate. The same with Joe Lieberman, a man that I and many others often disagree with but also find to be sincere and respectable, a voice of quiet dignity and moderation in an often shrill Senate.

If the Democrats can’t get some party discipline and rein in the more vocal radicals of their own base, they’re in for a lot of trouble. Getting nominated by the Democratic Party nowadays seems to be like running a gauntlet of groups so far to the left that the eventual nominee is placed in a nearly impossible position of trying to reconcile what he said to the base with what the majority of Americans want to hear.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 15, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #167746

David S.,

I love how Dims have the discomfort of viewing
the world as a few shades of grey ( or is it
gray? ) and of course, one big happy rainbow.
To them GOoD and evil or right and wrong don’t exist. Everything is relative or subjective,
or right and left. Good guys should only win if it’s “fair” or equal to everyone elses winning.
Bad guys should only die if they’re Dick Cheney,
Kenneth Starr or Karl Rove. The cowboy should
kiss the other cowboy, roll credits.

Reality, is of course, to cut and run. At least
in war. Dims are alot like the French in that.
Reality to Dims, especially the Hollywood libs,
is an adventure in schizophrenia. Just look at
the definition of dementia precox and you’ll see
a description of a Dim Bu-LiB.

Maybe one day Dims will real-ize this and
develope some insight beyond the rose colored
glasses and the belief that just kissing the
ouch will make it all better.

Posted by: Dale G. at July 15, 2006 2:14 AM
Comment #167762

From qrswave: “Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.”

That was all I needed to read in his piece. Jews or no jews, muslims can not live in peace with any other religion. Removing jews (or removing Israel) is only one stepping stone in their global jihad.

That isn’t gray, that’s black and white, and it’s in the Qu’ran.

Posted by: Bruce at July 15, 2006 6:54 AM
Comment #167767

Support the troops.
We hear the phrase every day.
But we don’t hear it as a request. It has become, thanks to the ranting of the conservative media divas, an insult to those who want the troops to come home. It’s a cheerleading rally cry of the right. It has little to do with the actual troops in how it’s used today.
Support the troops. A great term, but highly abused. The disgusting conservative use of this phrase, is loud and clear. If you question the Bush plan, or anything to do with Iraq, terrorists or the military…you don’t support the troops. Only conservatives are ‘qualified’ to support the troops. After all, the conservatives planned and designed the war, so they get to take credit for supporting the troops. Liberals have never supported war….well, maybe just this one in Iraq. Conservatives love war, it’s profitable and thats were their support stops. Just like a four year old tank that can no longer be repaired.
No, liberals don’t like war. In fact, only the fanatical far right likes war. If you’d ask Americans if they would prefer a war over peace talks, the talking part would win hands down. Americans know wars cost lives. Americans have enough experience with wars to know that supporting the troops is doing everything possible to avoid sending them into a war….any war.
If you don’t support the troops….you hate America, you are a Bush hater.

If that isn’t the most idiotic phrase, I don’t know what is.

Supporting the troops means avoiding putting them in danger, at all costs. It means assuring they have, not adequate, but exceptional health care and family support before, during and after conflict. It means providing them with safe protective equipment. It means supporting the actual troops, and not using the troops; to promote a political agenda or discredit opposition to war.
It means making some effort, any effort, to guarantee that when a tour is done. the soldier comes home. He or she has done their part. It doesn’t mean sending the soldier back into harm’s way, rotation after rotation after rotation.
Supporting the troops means planning and executing a strategy that provides for the shortest tour of duty in combat.
Supporting the troops, as the pro-Bush phrase, by the insulting right wing are an affront to what all Americans know . Especially the troops themselves.
That the best war is the one avoided. Ask a vet about it.
The most noble causes for war are not based on the most questionable of evidences. Genocide, like that in WWII Europe are a noble cause for war. Attacks on our soil, like Pearl Harbor and 911 were noble causes for war.
Sending troops country hopping, willy-nilly, on ill-perceived threats is not a noble cause. Drawn out wars deplete troop efficiency and equipment, something the enemy watches very carefully. We certainly did that with Japan and Germany in WWII. When the enemy sees a force become weaker from depletion, this often results in further conflicts.
This week proved that point.
Iran, North Korea and most other perceived and known enemies of the US, are saber rattling for their own perceived ‘noble’ causes. They know the US cannot mount other offenses, it has it’s hands full on two major fronts.
Fight the war on terror! Who is terror? Terror is a tactic, not an entity. Anything and everything can be terrifying at some point. Defining the enemy is a key in fighting any war. We fight the war on terror but really can’t find the enemy.
We are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting an ideology with an army.
Ideological conflict is something no amount of bullets and bombs will change. Only dialogue, compromise and a certain level of respect for different ideologies can protect the world from ideological terrorism. It’s not an all or nothing scenario, as the far right claims it to be. We haven’t waged war with the Buddhists? or with the entirety of Islam itself. We are dealing with a very small, but dangerously, loud faction of a fringe religious philosophy. By at least making an attempt to understand why this faction; fractured from the main Islamic belief, and trying to see that point of view can we begin to provide a place for both ideologies to exist.
What is most dangerous is refusing to begin that understanding.
But they cut off heads!!! They don’t wear uniforms!!! They torture!!!
Good grief! Humans have done that since the beginning of war and they are likely to continue to do so in the future. There is a fine line in arguing that vaporizing someone is far more humane that lopping off their head. Both people die. Both are killed in a horrific manner and someone is going to miss them after they are gone. That is why war is hell.
But to simply discount the enemy as barbaric, or somehow not capable of rational debate in coming to a peaceful conclusion to a conflict is not the sign of competent leadership, nor is it a very human mindset.
It does work well for the conservatives who somehow have come to the conclusion that it is a 100% all or nothing, right or wrong process.
And that is usually as far as they get in the debate. Once their mind is made up thats it. Any and all questions to the contrary are taken as supporting the enemy. It’s called attacking the messenger. And that really supports the troops.
It doesn’t make the HumVee stronger, it doesn’t make the flak vest more bulletproof, it doesn’t send the IED or mortar off target thats shot from an enemy bunker.
It just sounds really good.
Pro war cheerleading does not increase the performance of the American military. Troops are not ‘inspired’ by the likes of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, but rather, knowing that their families have enough food and their rent is paid while they serve. Lots of people, especially liberals, work in the social services and support agencies that the troops and their families rely on before, during and after conflict. Conservatives send money to their favorite PAC to make sure the ‘agenda’ stays the course.
The next time you hear some war-happy right winger make the accusation that someone doesn’t ‘support the troops’; ask them for money so you can send it to Fort Bragg for the kids of a infantry troop who is on their third tour of duty.

Posted by: Joe at July 15, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #167771

Left wing totalitarians from Hitler to Stalin to the Iranian whackjob president to this koskid always show their racist, GENOCIDAL tendencies. Gotta keep an eye on all of them. They must be soundly defeated.

Posted by: nikkolai at July 15, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #167772

The longer I read this blog, the more I regret cheap shots get in the way of serious debate. Some genuine issues are being raised here, but we have to whittle away the statements designed merely to incite. It’s pointless and wastes so much time. Does running a Republican/Conservative blog necessarily mean tossing in ad hominem statements willy nilly? I’m not saying liberal blogs are any better. It’s just unfortunate and serves no persuasive purpose.

Posted by: Trent at July 15, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #167777

Right on Trent

Posted by: middleman at July 15, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #167785

Joe, that was the longest post about nothing! I’m sorry to tell you that Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter do more for the armed services than any of you Kennedy liberals ever have. The worse a dictator is the more you Dim wits support him. Sorry you idots had your 40 years to appease, and guess what it never worked!
well at least you have mike moore!! Oh and Ted kennedy. I’m sure MaryJoes family will vote for him!!

Posted by: nathan at July 15, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #167789

It’s either yes or no not a gray area like so many people like to make it! This war will decide more then most people think! Remember you have a choice right or wrong you decide who to follow nobody should be doing that for you!

Posted by: Michael C. Bonacci at July 15, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #167802


Actually, Hitler was on the extreme right, Stalin was on th extreme left, and the Iranian pres is neither particular.

Get your facts strait!

Posted by: Metacom at July 15, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #167816

This entire thread has summed up the basic difference between Liberal and Conservative. Liberals believe in the basic good of all people and conservatives believe that some people are righteous while others are evil.

Posted by: David S at July 15, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #167827

These same dilemmas plagued the 20’s and 30’s, evil dictators devestated their own countries and threatened neighbors and others that they deemed inferior. Progressives and Liberals of the time tried to talk make peace in our time, placate these despots by deals and appeasment. The more these Tyrants got , the more they wanted. Liberals in this country can’t see the parallels, but they do see and claim hate speech and cry McCarthyism when taken to task. So, I say try to be rational with irrational leaders, in 10 years, global warming will be small potatoes, a world-wide war where millions will die is closer to the reality. Neville Chamberlain would be proud of these genocide supporting Liberals and progressives that infect this world as it did in 1938. Good luck.

Posted by: George at July 15, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #167831

Edmund Burke said

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Which is EXACTLY why support for the Republicans is dropping like a stone. Because the good people of this country won’t stand idly by while a bunch of extremist right wing demagogues try their best to treat the Constitution like a birdcage liner.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 15, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #167833

David S-

It is not as simple as: “Liberals believe in the basic good of all people and conservatives believe that some people are righteous while others are evil.”

The reality is that some people in this world are evil in the sense that their goal is to eliminate western style societies. Maybe they would not believe this if they had as much power and influence over their own lives as most Americans do. MAYBE. But the fact is that they are not being reasonable when they kill innocent people for no direct reason other than to cause instability to society in general. They don’t care that they inflict needless pain. Military responses are the only option a legitimate state has against another state’s aggression. The problems in Gaza and Lebenon involve state sponsered attacks on Israelis. Maybe you can argue provokation in an indirect and general way, but I say it is just unprovoked murder of other humans. This justifies the Israeli response of telling citizens to evacuate, and crippling the militias’ abilities to organize well enough to inflict even more unnecessary damage.

Maybe some extremist conservatives literally hate all Palestinians, muslums, or brown people in general, but this is the minority. Just like the vocal liberal minority who say that being nice to everyone all the time will solve all the world’s problems. Sorry, I’m just not willing to risk my life or the future for my children on the notion that people are good, and as a result would never dream of hurting others for power, money, or glory. History does not support that notion. So how do you support it?

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 15, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #167836

Metacon: If Hitler was right wing, why was his party called the Nazi’s i.e. National Socialists?

Posted by: nikkolai at July 15, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #167849


Are you really suggesting that Nazi Germany was, in fact, a true socialist regime as opposed to a fascist dictatorship?

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 15, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #167859

I like all the post that say talking is the best way. As a Viet Nam Vet all talking got during that war was 50,000 americans killed and guess what Democrats were in power.

Posted by: KAP at July 15, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #167860

And a Republican got us out even though he was a crook

Posted by: KAP at July 15, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #167864
This entire thread has summed up the basic difference between Liberal and Conservative. Liberals believe in the basic good of all people and conservatives believe that some people are righteous while others are evil.

That’s the first thing that I have found to completely agreed with David S. Maybe there is hope after all.

I would carry it one step further. Conservatives believe that there are people, maybe some micro-cultures, that only respect strength. Dealing with these people requires acts of force, often overwhelming force, and letting them know that we have only used a portion of our available force.

Posted by: Political Sniper at July 15, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #167872

Only the ignorance of this party BS that gets pushed by the left is losing this war. The big picture is that terrorism cannot be appeased. Left wingers and those type will cave in to dictators, make deals, surrender and cry but the only outcome is millions will die for a socialist/ liberal mentality that costs more then its worth. this world has lost millions since this was started, defeating islamo- fascism and Stalinist North Korea is the final result. Liberalism, Communism and Socialism is too expensive to keep trying.

Posted by: george at July 15, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #167878

My favorite line from star wars, Who is more foolish? The fool or those that follow him?

Those that foolishly believe that you can not support the troops without supporting bush, must be those that follow him. Yes I am say bush is a fool.

You can support the troops and be against the war. I had 2 sons in Iraq when the war started and I supported them, but I also thought wrong war at wrong time.

You have to question your government and leaders, to blindly follow the leader is like sheep being lead to slaughter.

I heard enough of America Love it or Leave it, while I was in the Army during Nam. If you Love America, question, question, question, so we do not end up with a hitler,stalin and don’t become mutton on the table.

Posted by: KT at July 15, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #167884


The Nazis were a fascist regime more than socialist, but if you look at the economic policies of the Third Reich, you will notice a socialist system much closer to Marxism than to American style capitalism. Just look at what the Nazi government did to certain businesses it claimed were “corrupt”. If the liberals/socialists ever had their way in this great capitalist nation, we might see another crystallnacht.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 15, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #167892

Fascism and Socialism are merely variations on the collectivist theme. The Nazis were socialist, as Hitler and his thugs often said. Fascism was the economic structure.
Hitler was extreme right and Stalin extreme left only if collectivism encompasses the entire political spectrum. It doesn’t. The claim of Hitler to the right and Stalin to the left ignores individualism, which is not between the two.
Hitler and Stalin were both Socialists, which places them together on the extreme left side of the political spectrum. Individualism is on the right, separate from the collectivist ideologies.
Individualism doesn’t mean man lives without regard for his fellows. Man being a demonstrably social animal the phrase “No man is an island” certainly applies. Individualism means that society is structured to honor the right of each individual to his life, his labor and his conscience, that what is evil for one man to do is evil for a million men to do, that the phrase “individual rights” is redundant because that’s the only kind there is.

Posted by: traveller at July 15, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #167893

duane-o and nikkolai:

hitler was an extreme reactionary, i.e. right wing. the party name National Socialists is a misnomer, picked simply because the name socialist sounded nice and gave them some cred (and no, i am not making this up). nazi germany was a facist regime, but an interesting contradiction in facism is that it is necessary for the government to take over and control much of the economy in a very similar fashion to socialism/communism. both hitler’s and mossoulini’s(sp?) facis movements in the twenties and thirties were extreme right-wing reactions to the destruction/failure of wwI and depression that followed. i would also consider the iranian president reactionary because he lives in a theocracy that is intent on keeping the societal and governmental status quo based upon a religious text which is way out of date (merely meaning that religion needs to evolve with time as much as humans do). in fact, i would say that MOST regimes, regardless of their political leanings, tend to be a little genocidal.
trent: i agree totally. but it is not this blog alone, it is also the democrats blog on the same server and anywhere else you go. democrats love nothing more than blasting republicans and conservatives get the greatest joy from demeaning liberals. in all cases, both sides tend to ignore what the other is actually saying and nothing gets done. all rational arguments/discussions/comments are drowned out by the idiotic, hatefilled, bilious rantings of the extremists.
continuing with this: a world without liberals would be horrible; just as a world without conservatives would be. a world without liberals (or conservatives for that matter)would be a world in which everyone was the same. because no matter who you are or what you believe, there is always someone more liberal or more conservative than you. without liberals, you therefore can have no conservatives and no gradiations in political leanings. THAT is the problem that i have with your, and many other extremist conservative/liberal, argument. you are calling for a world in which we are all the same. then, you turn right around and call for patriotism and call others anti-american. the essence of america is that we are all different and that we revel in that and thrive off of it.

another question for you eric: do you believe that negociation and peace are wrong and that everyone should simply kill anyone who disagrees with or threatens them? yes, the UN does only seem to condemn israel’s ‘harsh reactions,’ but do it seems as if you are saying that israel should not have tried diplomacy to begin with. i agree with you that at this point in time, negociation will almost assuredly yeild no gain (and i am jewish and in some ways a zionist) but part of what has made this process so difficult is the stubborn, violent, and often spontaneous actions by all sides in the conflict. in conclusion: i think both liberals and conservatives need to stop trying to blame everything that has gone wrong entirely on the other; we’re all to blame in some fashion and in some way or another. discussion, debate, and rational bilateral solutions need to be reached instead of the uncompromising, hateful, snide, down-right close-minded and stupid remarks and comments that run rampant on these posts and throughout the american media and society.

ps. 1LT: not that you were supporting either side at the time, but: the majority of americans were also pro-slavery up until long after the civil war. people just need to realize (and this is not attacking you) that just because they don’t want to get married to someone of the same sex or get an abortion and that they view this as immoral (often because it’s against their religious views) does not necessarily mean that it should be illegal and that others have the right to them just as they have the right to practice their particular religion. aborion (or any of the other recently brought-up ‘moral’ issues) is just as much anyone’s right as freedom of religion is.

Posted by: alefnought at July 15, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #167897


actually Hitler was on the extreme Left.
Before he joined the Nazi party he was part of the German socialist party.

Posted by: Jeff at July 15, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #167898
The Democratic base, on the other hand, is far from what many Americans want.

1LT B,

Sometimes it’s not about what we want, sometimes it’s about doing the right thing.

Hillary Clinton, the probable front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 08 gets skewered by Cindy Sheehan and a plethora of other anti-war radicals and is risking her base by trying to be seen as more moderate.

It is pretty sad and pretty scary when being against war is considered “radical”

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 15, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #167917

Hmmm, Eric, Noam Chomsky says he does not think Hamass,s policies are acceptable, but closer to the world view of a chance for peace than the US or Israel.

OK.I get that you don’t think the US and Israel ever do anything wrong, and that we should all be struck dead if we think they do. But are you disagreeing with the idea that Hamass’s policies are unacceptable?

I read English and think I understand it, yet you seem to see support for Hamass where there is none. Interesting. Check your paranoia levels today?

Other than saying you think liberals are all Stalinist apologists,even though I haven’t heard or read anyone supporting Stalin, what’s your point?

Posted by: gergle at July 15, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #167921
Hitler and Stalin were both Socialists, which places them together on the extreme left side of the political spectrum. Individualism is on the right, separate from the collectivist ideologies


Whatever! Attempting to pigeonhole the “world’s worst” into a political wing is futile. The worst regimes are those that borrow bad ideas from both extremes. Look at today’s Neocon, a hybrid of bad liberal and conservative extremes: Big government, huge deficits, borrow and spend, voodoo economics, restrictions of individual liberties and equality, nosing into people’s private lives, warmongering, Laissez Faire capitalism, nationalism, usurpation of state’s rights, the Unitary Executive, domestic spying, theocracy, etc.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 15, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #167928


Here are the straight facts. Hitler was a socialist. Socialism is on the left side of the spectrum. I tried to keep it simple without big words.

Posted by: tomh at July 15, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #167931


Of course the extreme left wing that you appear to support would do better? The left has never had a sustained government that provided freedom and liberty to the citizenry.

Posted by: tomh at July 15, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #167942

“Has there EVER been a UN resolution denouncing Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO?”

Has the US ever brought one?

Let me get this straight the world body has condemed Isreal several times but not the others?

hmmm must be the whole world is wrong…again

Oh wait, it must be the liberal media…

Which of course the Nation of Islam says is controlled by jews….

go figure

Posted by: 037 at July 16, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #167944


Socialism: noun

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2: a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done ~Merriam-Webster

Fascism: noun

1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control ~Merriam-Webster

Hitler’s underlying economic system may have been socialist in nature, but overall his regime was definitely fascist. Fascism is on the right side of the spectrum.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 16, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #167947
Individualism is on the right, separate from the collectivist ideologies.


Are you kidding? Individualism is not on the right. Nationalism is on the right. Individualism is defined as The belief that individual people should lead their lives as they want; The theory that the state should in no way control the actions of the individual.

A quick glance at the position of each wing on issues like gay rights and the right to choice, makes it clear that it is the left that supports individualism, while the right strongly rails against such freedom.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 16, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #167958

BTW traveller, you said:

The Nazis were socialist, as Hitler and his thugs often said. Fascism was the economic structure.

I believe you have this backwards. Socialism is an economic structure. Fascism is a government structure.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 16, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #167960


Good point. I am in fact against abortion and gay marriage, but the larger shame is that these issues have, in my view been usurped from the states, where they belong, by the Supreme Court and Congress. While I personally feel that a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would be a postive thing, I would like even more to see a Constitutional amendment specifically stating that abortion laws, as well as gay marriage etc, were left to the states. I thought there was some article stating that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution were the province of the States or the People, but I guess that one isn’t too popular anymore.


I wasn’t trying to say that being anti-war was radical, but the tactics that Cindy Sheehan uses, which in my eyes amount to the blatant exploitation of her son’s death, are. This again brings me back to my point about the radicalism of the extreme left of the Democratic Party. Many Americans are moderate, but the types of views that the fringe elements of the Democrats espouse are such that they will turn even the most open minded moderates off. Take abortion. Many people, while they might not like abortion personally, would support it as a choice for others to make. However, when this logic is taken to the point of saying that this same moderate has no right to know that he has no right to know if his 14 year old daughter is getting an abortion, his opinion is very likely to change.

Issues like this have consistenly tripped up the Democratic party. You had Gore, who lost both his and Clinton’s home states due to thier anti-gun attitudes. You have Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. You have Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman getting slammed by the far left even though both would be far more palatable candidates in a general election than someone like Howard Dean.

Beyond this, the Democrats have been unable to seperate themselves from the fringes of their own party. Not even the most traditionalist Republican has endorsed the maniacal views of the Westboro Baptist Church, but radical groups like PETA are welcomed by the Democrats even as they say things like animals have the same rights as people. If the Democrats want to be truly comptetitive in the long term, they need to first shut up the radicals within their own party that make them so unlikeable to the American public that doesn’t already sing in their choir, and articulate some sort of plan for the nation other than vote for us because we aren’t Republicans.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 16, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #167962

1LT B,

It is not the fringe groups that I am concerned with, it is the moderate candidate that worries me. You mention Kerry and Hillary. Two people who are trying desperatly to come off as moderates. Guess what? That tactic does not work. Kerry is seen as a flip-flopper and Hillary is the center’s handpuppet being whatever they want her to be.

Moderates may be the majority of voters, but that doesn’t mean that they always vote for the moderate candidate. The current crop of Neocons prove that. Not all issues carry the same weight. Lieberman is not in trouble because he is not a good liberal on >80% of the issues, he is in trouble because he has taken an unpopular stand on an issue that voters in his state feel is important. Despite what right wing pundits have to say, what is happening to Lieberman is democracy at work. I only wish it worked across the country.

Personally, I do not find many true Conservative (not Neocon) ideas bad. In fact I consider myself Conservative on many fiscal issues; like small government, welfare reform, most state’s rights issues, shrinking the deficit, lower taxes (for all, not just the rich), etc.

Where I part ways with the Conservative ideology is on the social issues. I believe in individual freedom and a strict right to privacy. I believe that the government has no right to dictate who may and may not get married. I believe the government has no bussiness in our doctor’s offices nor in our Churches. I don’t believe that the government should be legislating morality (victimless crime). I think the “war on drugs” only makes the problem worse. I believe that a free country should be free for all it’s citizens. You could actually say I am a Libertarian when it comes to social issues.

For me personally, social issues are much more important than fiscal issues, that is why I consider myself a liberal, not because I agree with every liberal idea that comes down the pike. (Besides, the tactics of the Neocon extremists in the Republican Party repulse me much more than the tactics of the liberal extremists of the Democratic Party.)

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 16, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #167982

It has been said that the first neo-con was John F. Kennedy.

Posted by: nikkolai at July 16, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #168007
I wasn’t trying to say that being anti-war was radical, but the tactics that Cindy Sheehan uses, which in my eyes amount to the blatant exploitation of her son’s death, are.

1LT B,

I disagree, Cindy Sheehan is certainly not the first parent prompted into activism because of the loss of a child. The loss of a child is probably the single most traumatic experience a parent can go through. I know I watched my parents go through it. Such a loss results is strong emotions, the activism part can simple be the person trying to cope with such a great loss. Most people, who become activist, due to loss, do so because they do not want to see others go through the same trauma, especially for a cause whose merit is questionable. The coping mechanism is usually the need to believe in the cliche he/she didn’t die in vein.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 16, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #168012

After reading all of the past comments, I can honestly say that my opinion is:

1.) Most people don’t stick to the topic like a couple people mentioned already.

2.) Too many people try to lump Democrats as liberals and Republicans as conservatives which I just don’t think is a productive use of time since too many people argue that fact.

3.) Majority of people no longer fit into a corner of Democrats or Republicans.

4.) Democratic elected officials don’t stand for what they say they stand for, and Republican elected officials don’t stand for what they say they stand for, like JayJay Snow pointed out that parties borrow ideas from the other side.

The issue I forsee coming up (or has already) is when enough people start realizing their views don’t align with what party they think they should align with, and don’t have a party to vote for because half their views are with one side and half with the other, who is going to win control of the government and what are they going to do with it?

Right now it seems like the people who fit in the middle of these two parties don’t have a voice, and that’s the growing majority in the country. But, they are not voting, or voting for one of these two parties they don’t necessarily align with.

Chaos could eventually ensue as people start fighting with each other over which party should be in control even though they don’t align with it. That would be a sad state for this country to be in because we all would be at the mercy of which ever political party is in power at that time. It would allienate half the country. I just hope it’s not a party in power that would change the laws of the Constitution.

I apologize to all, especially Eric that this has nothing to do with his topic and I’m a hypocrit for critizing others, but don’t stick to the topic any way. I just observed that these were the main things I saw while reading all of these posts and thought I say something.

Posted by: Dan at July 16, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #168032

Hitler was…did. Stalin was…did…
Why are we talking about them?! They are the past, we are the present. THEY’RE BOTH DEAD!!! So why do they matter? I’m not saying abandon the past and forget about it. It is good knowledge, but we should dwell or focus on it. I’m saying focus on now. All this is leading to is a finger-pointing, name-calling game. “Republicans and conservatives are Nazi fascists”, “Democrats and liberals are hippie communists.” That is the only thing that will result when people or politicians talk about Hitler, Stalin, and politics in the same conversation or debate.

Let’s face the facts: There is no ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ party anymore. Those words are just masks. There real forces are Conservative and Liberal. By doing this it will merge some minor parties to a major, like environmentalist, socialist, communist. It ticks me off when someone lies about their political status. (Clinton: “I am a moderate democrat”) You’re either conservative, neutral, or liberal. When a politician claims to be one of these, they better promote the agenda for it.

Posted by: Stubborn Conservative at July 16, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #168035


Clinton was more of a moderate Democrat than Bush is a compassionate Conservative.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 16, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #168044

C,mon, Eric, how about defending some of this, instead of throwing bombs and running awaY?

Posted by: gergle at July 16, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #168057


I still have to disagree about Sheehan. I agree with your points about the loss of a child and the root cause of the activism that many take up, I just do not agree that this is what Sheehan is about. In my opinion, her activism is nothing more than exploiting her loss to promote her own political agenda, not the altruistic struggle to spare others that you describe.

As far as your political views go, there’s several I find myself in agreement with. Where I differ, I think, is one the social issues. The Republicans have been dismal failures on the fiscal front. However, I still would find it difficult to vote for a Democrat for a national office as I disagree with so much of their plank, though I must admit that, as a resident of Pennsylvania, Casey is giving me pause on that.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 16, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #168083

Fascism is the front for Socialism. Fascism is whatever the dictator in power wants it to be. The moving force is and never has been fascism, but socialism in those cases where it is or was present. Hitler and Stalin were socialists. Today in this country many members of Congress are socialists. Bernie Sanders is the only honest one in that catagory: he claims to be socialist. I in no way, shape or form endorse Sanders. I’m only saying he claims to be a socialist and other members of Congress are likewise, from both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: tomh at July 16, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #168084

Now for the original issue on this post.

GO ISRAEL!!!!!!! (7)



SHAME ON THE EU!!!!!! (6)

Posted by: tomh at July 16, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #168086


The left has never had a sustained government that provided freedom and liberty to the citizenry.
That’s the best you can do to defend the Bush League’s ineptitude? You’re a good example of how the wrong wing’s cupboard is bare.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 16, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #168171

While comparing modern America to Nazi Germany would be absurd, the modern Republicans have brought America closer to fascism than any political party before them. Fascist movements are on the extreme conservative end of the political spectrum, not the left.

Posted by: mark at July 17, 2006 6:41 AM
Comment #168430

Compasionate Conservative my butt. The problem with the liberal extremists, (Fat Mikey, Fat Teddy, of course our war hero Fat John), of this country is that they have forgotten that we are one country and that as long as we are America we will be under God. They whine publicize the act to no end when we commit such henious attrosities as humiliation of a prisoner by putting underware over his head and making them build a human pyrimad. But when an innocent civilian has his head hacked off while it’s being televised for the world to see, they shrink into the corner.

They conveniently forget that we are fighting a war and that war is on terror and in my personal view that terror war is being backed and supported by religious theory, the religion of Islam.

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered on 9-11 in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our
nation’s capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?

We are supposed to be compassionate and we’re supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was “desecrated” when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?

Well, I think that as soon as Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11, then we need to become compassionate and give a damn.

We need to become compassionate and give a damn about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

We need to become compassionate and give a damn when the cowardly so-called “insurgents” in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in

We need to become compassionate and give a damn when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana and 72 virgins care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

We need to become compassionate and give a damn when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead
of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

That’s why most conserviatives that hear a story about a brave US Marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, don’t feel any compassion and don’t really give a damn about the enemy’s rights, which by the way they have none as terrorist.

That’s why when a conservative see the evening news on nearly any network showing a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that they show no compassion and really don’t give a damn.

Yet when we show that liberal compassion by providing a prisoner, a Koran and a prayer mat,
and fed “special” food that is paid for by my tax dollars, only to hear them complaining that his holy book is being “mishandled,” it’s rather difficult for a reasonable man, regardless of political persuasion to feel compassion toward that prisoner.

Whew that felt good!

Posted by: smithdw55 at July 18, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #168688

All of this accusatory pigeon-holing of each party and the inclusion of the most heinous criminals in history is really quite silly. No one on either side in the US (except for those idiotic extremists) would wish to add the names of Hitler or Stalin to their membership lists. They did not represent what we call the Left and Right in US Politics.

A few here have opined that the radicals on each side do not represent the overwhelming majority of either party. That is the most correct statement I’ve read in awhile.

Those on the right feel that the leftist extremists are more representative of the liberals, while those on the left feel that the rightist extremists do the same for conservatives. The truth is that it’s about even. It always seems worse to the other side, because the media gives airplay and column inches to the “radicals”. In reality it’s pretty much the same for each.

What we need is a new “centrist” party. Call it what you want, but it would probably garner most members of the other two major parties, and would probably nearly swallow up the libertarian party. We are all largely moderates, and agree on most everything, save for those few polarizing issues. Overall, Democrats are not cowards who want to appease every evil regime and molly-coddle every war criminal, and Republicans are not warmongers who salivate at the thought of war, racing to send someone else’s child off to fight it. Surely, these people exist on both sides, but they are inconsequential due to their sheer lack of numbers. The truth is that huge amounts of Democrats are veterans and huge amounts of Republicans want peace.

I’m tired of the name-calling and generalization that goes on in these blogs. I’m tired of conservatives telling me (a moderate liberal) what I believe and think. They’re always wrong. I’m sure that moderate conservatives feel the same way when it’s done to them.

The state of politics in the US today is kept alive by these divisive comments. It feeds what is worst about American politics. Reading all of these comments just makes me sad.

Posted by: Cole at July 18, 2006 8:29 PM
Post a comment