Why do some who claim to be progressive Dem's support the Iraq occupation?

[NNN0LHI]

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Other: they are victims of the Bushco/FNC propaganda campaign

They believe one or more of the following:

The Iraq adventure is "going well"

The invasion was justified (WMD/Al Q connection)

Saddam needed to be "taken out"

etc.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Playing the ignorance card at this point ain't going to pass the smell test

That con ended over 2 years ago. Anyone who claims ignorance at this point is obviously lying through their teeth. That dog don't hunt no more.

Don

[Paleocon]

3. Hear hear....

That's the truth...

:thumbsup:

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Garbage in, garbage out.

If all I read was the NY Times (our paper of record) and avoided CNN & FOX I would still be ignorant about a lot of things. DU has only 60k members (and 10k are FBI & lurking freepers :) ), where exactly do you think these "progressive democrats" are getting good info?

[NNN0LHI]

6. Abu Ghraib prison

How many Americans don't know about that would you say? That should be enough to convince you that most Americans have enough information to realize that America is not occupying Iraq with good intentions. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is either in denial, or a liar and heavily invested in this occupation. As I said. That dog don't hunt no more.

Don

[BlueEyedSon]

7. Come on, that was just a few "bad apples" (unless you read Sy Hersh)

If it does go to the top, and it's illegal/immoral, why aren't Rummy/W in TROUBLE. Why is Al Gonzo still in the running for AGUS?

Sorry, reality is what THEY(Bushco) say it is .

Anyway you went off topic, from the occupation to Abu Grhaib. I bet there are some reasonably informed and principled merkins out there who find Abu Grhaib disgraceful but the occupation an unpleasant necessity.

"News is what powerful people want to keep hidden; everything else is just publicity." --Bill Moyers

[Tinoire]

14. There are tons of other places

There are tons of other forums besides DU that are just as popular. Tons of internet news sites, on-line magazines and printed sources such as "The Nation" & "The Progressive".

I know this comes as a shock to some people here but there is a progressive world outside of DU. Most of my progressive circle has either not heard of DU or has no interest in it (for whatever reasons).

[BlueEyedSon]

28. Yup. What is the ratio of their audience to the audience of MSM?

100 to 1?

[Sterling]

53. Maybe separately but as a whole a lot of people get their news

Online. Blogs and indi media are actually cutting into MSM news audiences. Seriously do you think people will continue to tolerate the kind of stuff that is promoted on the MSM news forever. Everyone has a point that the propaganda no longer works. It was like this in Russia by the end. People knew their media was not credible and had an agenda other than reporting the truth.

[cali]

5. I am decidedly against the occupation but I voted

for the first option, and it maddens me that people are so willing to attribute the basest motives to those that don't agree with them. Color me disgusted.

[Piperay]

35. Agree with you

on all points.

[ckramer]

8. #4 option should be - because they are stupid and fooled

[sweetheart]

10. Exactly!

blinkered, and unlearning from the fiasco of occupying viet nam.

[firebee]

9. You said it... Because they "CLAIM" to be progressive Dems.

In actuality... They are anything, but progressive. The Iraq War is the result of a neo-conservative agenda implementing a degressive energy policy and barbaric foreign policy. Those who support this war, support it because they don't want progress in the energy industry or progress in our foreign affairs. They're used to profiting off of old energy policies and old foreign policies... Therefore, they don't believe in reforming our energy policy or our foreign policy.

Now for a statement of irony... "A reformer has enemies in all who profit from the old ways." 'The Prince' - Niccolo Macchiavelli.

[Bush was AWOL]

11. I consider myself a moderate democrat

and I don't see how anyone whether they be liberal, conservative or moderate can support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[ChairOne]

13. The OPs question didn't say anything about the invasion...

When dissin folks, I prefer not to lie about, exaggerate, embellish, or misrepresent the sins they've committed... that's a republican tactic...

In any case, before the goose-step-fest gets fully into swing, would y'all mind answering one question for me:

Is it possible for an intelligent, well-meaning, progressive Democrat to disagree with the majority of progressive Democrats on an issue?

Goose-step away, you leftier-than-thous!

(Note: I'm completely against what bush is doing in Iraq - and would argue with anyone feeling differently until the cows came home. I just strongly dislike you-can't-play-with-us-if-you-disagree-with-anything-we-say-ism.)

[leesa]

12. Concerned about the welfare of Iraqis...funny. Are you afraid they'll get

blown up and shot at if we leave??

[sandnsea]

15. Leftists are assholes too

Goddamn. Solutions people. Reality. Going into Iraq had consequences, leaving Iraq will have consequences. Leftists are terrific at analyzing all the possible consequences of US government action. Whether it's war, environment, economy, whatever. They are simply AWFUL at analyzing the possible negative consequences of their own actions. In fact, they don't do it at all. Stomping your feet is not foreign or domestic policy.

And yes I say leftists, not progressives or liberals, because I'm goddamned sick and tired of the Democratic Party being smeared with leftist stupidity. Progressive implies policies that move a society forward. Liberal implies willingness to look at new ideas and policies and change course. Leftists are simply anti.

If you want to call yourself a liberal or progressive, you by god better have a longterm plan for the people of Iraq after the troops leave. And more money isn't any more a plan there than it is here.

[paulk]

33. great post,

:toast:

[Guaranteed]

45. Sand, I used to be in your camp, but there's simply nothing left

that we can do. We're never going to "fix" it.

We can either leave and cut our losses, or stay and kill Iraqis and get killed and just end up leaving things the same way later.

It's Vietnam. We...cannot...win.

[bvar22]

47. The people who support withdrawal...

...don't need a PLAN. We HAVE a PLAN.

It is the people that insist we have to stay in Iraq that NEED A PLAN!

[Royal Observer]

16. I went through the whole thread

and not one single name is mentioned. This is bullshit. Sorry.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I don't "support the occupation" and I steadfastly eschew labels

"Liberal" .... "Moderate" ...... "Progressive" ...... do these terms even have meaning anymore?

In my reality based world, on December 19, 2004, I see that the US is occupying Iraq in what appears to be an increasingly desperate situation. I didn't support us going in there in the first place. But I am aware that, even over my (totally impotent) disagreement, there is where we find ourselves.

So far, all we've accomplished is overthrowing a sovereign government that we, in fact, helped support and install. We've also accomplished the devastation of that country's infrastructure and management bureaucracies. We've caused the death of scores of thousands. We've caused our own reputation's diminution worldwide.

And so, knowing what I know on December 19, 2004, it seems to me we have to stay in Iraq and do what we can to begin the repair of the damage we've caused. We need to find a way to show two things ..... that we want to remove completely the American face of this crime and that we want to pay for the damage we've wrought.

A good start, it seems to me, would be a complete abandonment of the permanent military bases we're in the process of establishing. A good start, it seems to me, is a serious influx of cash that goes to the Iraqi people to rebuild. A good start, it seems to me, is to stop the incursions into the strongholds of Iraqi-led popular movements, like Fallujah, and allow these groups to find their own way and their own support among their own people. A good start is to acknowledge that the "insurgents" are in fact legitimate groups who may well represent what the majority of Iraqis want. A good start would be a genuine and sincere effort to get other nations involved, with no US-demanded strings attached to their involvement.

So, do I support the "occupation" of Iraq? No I do not.

Do I think we can leave right now? Sadly, no. It is our moral obligation to stay until we rebuild what we destroyed. If some read into this a "support of the occupation" so be it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Like the Germans stayed in France, Poland, Russia?

Or, like we stayed in Vietnam to bring about "Peace with honor".

Or, we could ask the Iraqi people (not the puppets we installed) if they'd like our ever so gentle troops to stay and continue to murder them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The operative words being, "claim to be progressive".

Unless murder is now a progressive principle.

[knight_of_the_star]

20. I only do

Because we made the mess, it is our responsibility to clean it up. Or at least, it SHOULD be BushCo's, but they are good at dodging that bullet.

[durutti]

21. White Man's Burden

They think that Arabs are too stupid and/or barbaric to govern themselves.

[NNN0LHI]

25. I agree racism does play into it. But I think $$$$$$$$$$ is number one

Even with the $$$$$$$$$$ we would never be pulling this shit in Australia. Unless it was the Aborigines we were pulling it on that is.

Don

[leftchick]

22. Yhey are cowards looking out for themselves.

I am sure most know the war is a sham but they are afraid of losing their politcal status and be viewed as 'unpatriotic'.

[radio4progressives]

23. Other - They're lying about being "Progressive"

And they support the Occupation, which was primarily intended to protect Israel.

[Tinoire]

24. Key word there is "claim". The DLC too claims to be progressive

despite bringing PNAC signatories (who signed PNAC letters as recently as Sept 2004) on board as Sr Fellows for the DLC and the PPI. Amusingly enough PNAC considers themselves "progressive". That scum neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz considers himself a "progressive" because he's a Democrat and dates an Arab woman. I'll even bet that Richard Perle, who's still a registered Democrat, considers himself a "progressive".

It's time to take our terms back and expose the co-opters.


Some of the loudest drum bangers for the war against Iraq are suddenly claiming to be "Progressives". Operatives do this to convince you later on that the guy the recommend is just like you! A progressive!

If there's one thing these guys know how to do it's confuse and distort whatever labels stand in the way of their designs.

[Zhade]

26. Because that's all it is: a CLAIM.

You can't be progressive and also for the illegal brutal occupation of Iraq.

[Swamp Rat]

29. You said it brother!

[Zhade]

41. Let me expand on the thought...

To continue to (illegally) occupy Iraq is to maintain the status quo of brutality and killing.

To maintain the status quo is a most unprogressive position. In fact, it's a conservative position. Hence, not progressive.

[Swamp Rat]

42. One could argue the use of the term "regressive,"

as it follows an old pattern of imperialism, whereby feudal states are erected as buffer zones for the central power whilst depleting the natural resources.

[Zhade]

43. OT: I absolutely LOVE your Photoshops!

You're quite talented. The eyes on this one say it all.

[Swamp Rat]

44. Thank you but I'm just a vandal...

My mother is a REAL artist, but I just vandalize low-res AP photos using very old Mac shareware programs. :)

... but I appreaciate your compliment. Here's the most recent three I did in the last 48 hours:

[Zhade]

49. Sorry, pal, these ARE art!

No getting away from it, you know how to let their true reptilian nature shine through in your work!

[merh]

27. Some progressive dems were not in favor of the military action in

Iraq. They fought against attacking and invading. Now, it is that "we broke it, we must fix it" mentality. What are we to do, just pull out? Morally it is wrong to stay and continue to kill and destroy, but morally is it right to pick up and leave after we broke the country? :shrug:

[Tinoire]

30. Yes, there is a small group like that

but most of the people we are talking about had already outed themselves as being pro-war so their cries that we have to stay and fix things for the good of the Iraqi people are as hollow as Bush's claim that we're interested in the good of the Iraqi people. The longer we stay there, the more irretrievably Iraq is carved up between US, UK and Israeli corporate/geo-political interests.

I believe it's morally right, morally imperative for the rapist to now leave the room. Our most graceful option (admitted it isn't very graceful at all) is to throw money at the victim and let parties who weren't involved in the rape come to her aid.

The Iraqis don't need us to rebuild anything for them. They built one of the greatest civilizations the world has ever known without our help. IMO, it's a bit arrogant for the coca-cola culture to believe they need our help.

Sadly, "morally" is already shot. Just my .02.

[merh]

31. Part of me agrees with you, but the other part knows that

Usmabeenforgotten's hate for the USA grew (or maybe matured) when we abandoned Afghanistan after funding it in its efforts to turn back the USSR.

BTW - had a digusting repuke challenge me on the "modern" existence that was Iraq before we bumbed the f*ck out her cities. Can you suggest some good links that provide the information on Iraq before our shock & awe invasion and occupation? Thanks.

[Disturbed]

32. Part of the problem...

not the solution.

The U.S. Military and it's allies are viewed as an Occupation not liberators. The idea that the U.S. must remain to "fix" what it has destroyed is a pipedream. Most Iraqis now view the U.S. as the enemy of the Iraqi people. The longer the U.S. stays and brutalizes the population in the effort to nueter the insurgency, the more the U.S. is seen as the monster. Fallouja may be a symbol of victory for many Amerikans but it is not seen that way by Iraqis or most of the world. It is Amerika's Warsaw Ghetto. Go to Commondreams and read about Fallouja.

Why Elections Won't Quell Iraq Resistance
by Molly Bingham


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1215-20.htm

[merh]

37. Thanks for the link - it is still such a dilemna

Do we just pull out? For the sake of the troops, hell yes, of course we do. What then happens to the Iraqis and the various factions that exist that oppose our occupation and want to fill the void left by Suddam and his party? Will there be civil war?

I realize that our invasion and occupation has fostered thousands of Usamas, but don't we owe a responsibility to try to correct our own fuck up? :shrug:

[Tinoire]

34. I don't have any links - Hopefully someone else will

Some of us had posted stuff here before the war had ever started but I didn't save any of it. The US spent 12 years systematically destroying Iraq which had been the pride of the Middle East. Now, 12 years later, our media is only too happy to show pictures of post-sanction Iraq and pretend that's how it always was. I'm stunned that more people can't see through that. Glad you do.

Here's a little stuff I quickly found but not what you really need. Hope someone else can point you to books written before the demonization process began 12 years ago.

Peace


==========
Former U.S. diplomat Edward Peck points out that the Baath Party that Saddam heads is secular, socialist and in the Scandinavian mold, under which private enterprise is allowed to flourish. Peck also notes differences between the Scandinavian and Iraqi systems. In the Iraqi model, there is no room for any political opposition or freedom of speech. The Iraqi government has invested heavily in infrastructure, including roads, schools and water-cleansing and sewage plants. Much of the money for this came from the nationalization of the oil industry in the 1970s, in which Saddam played an influential role.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3294143/

===

During the l980s Iraq had been the world's second largest exporter of petroleum, surpassed only by Saudi Arabia. As a consequence of the previous nationalization of the country's oil industry, the profits from this oil production were under the control of the hierarchy of the absolutist Baath party/state regime. The expansionist, nationalist Baathi regime pumped much of this oil profit into not only the acquisition of arms but also machinery for a native arms industry. From 1983 to 1990, Iraq spent $30.4 billion on arms purchases, or about 10% of all "third world" arms deals during that period.(1)



Nonetheless, the oil profits were not spent only on war. A modern infrastructure of roads, telephone networks, power grids, sewage treatment plants, hospitals, schools, and so on were also built up. As the Business Week article pointed out, the country's internal investment and integration into the world market had also enhanced the material living standards and consumption of Iraqi working people as well. The Baath leadership's use of television as a means of mass manipulation during the Kuwait adventure attest to the spread of television ownership, for example.

The expansion of employment and the modern, secular orientation of the Baath Socialist Party had also tended to enhance the position of women, who were not as confined to a traditional domestic role as in neighboring Islamic countries.

In short, Iraq did not fit the stereotype of an "impoverished" third world country, only a step away from starvation.


This article appeared as part of a series on the Gulf War in Ideas & Action #16 (1991). © Tom Wetzel.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ZlYypJbfIzkJ:makhno.nefac.net/node/993+Iraq+%22modern%22+roads+hospitals+electricity+sewage+education&hl=en
===
Before 1990 and the imposition of sanctions, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. Now Unicef reports that at least 200 children are dying every day. They are dying from malnutrition, a lack of clean water and a lack of medical equipment and drugs to cure easily treatable diseases.

In a section of his personal website entitled “Iraq: Paying the Price,” the noted journalist John Pilger, who produced a documentary for British television entitled “Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq,” observed that “before 1990 and the imposition of sanctions, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.”
http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/impact

===

The doctor in Mosul Paediatric told us that gastroenteritis is now the biggest killer of children in Iraq, a country whose main childhood health problem pre-sanctions was childhood obesity. The children are treated, time and again, but with each attack their immune systems get weaker. Many simply stop coming back because there is no more money for transport or medicine.

(snip)

The combined deprivation wrought on children by malnutrition and the lack of educational materials is creating a mental stunting whose effects will be felt for generations. The UN Secretary General reported in March 2001 that 90 per cent of primary and 75 per cent of secondary schools are unsafe, not to mention lacking in classroom furniture, pencils, books and even basic sanitation. Once they were well equipped with computers and modern facilities. We met Gazwan, a medical engineer who told us that even those who go to school are often unable to concentrate for hunger. Before the sanctions, education was free up to university level and the government paid for many students to study for higher degrees abroad.

http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm/ses/sq=2002021104/ct=2

[merh]

38. Thank you for the links. They will help me tremendously, if I can

get the bushbot to read the materials. He went crazy when I told him that Iraq was a progressive, sovereign nation that was one of the most modern middle eastern nations that existed, prior to our invasion and occupation. I told him, yes, it was controlled by a dictator, but it was in much better condition under Suddam than our occupation. He jumped my case, ridiculed me and told me that I was just stupid and didn't know what I was talking about. I didn't stick around too long after that.

I would love to give him some information with the facts.

thanks again :thumbsup:

[Tinoire]

40. Anytime but there's much better stuff out there

I just can't find it! Try, if you have time, to see what you can find from Edward Peck, former Ambassadaor/chief of Mission to Iraq.

He yelled bloody loud about the destruction of their infrastructure.


If I find anything more, I'll send it to you.

A few years ago, you could find pictures and all sorts of reports on the web. Now we're flooded with propaganda junk about us rebuilding. Imagine that, we are going to rebuild Ancient Sumeria. Wonder of wonders.

Mahatma Gandhi, in answer to the question "what do you think of Western Civilization"... "It would be a good idea!"

[Sterling]

55. Usmabeenforgotten may hate America but he loves the Bush family

Why else would he help them set the PNAC plan in action.

[NNN0LHI]

36. Think quick. Our soldiers come up on a bunch of Shiite's & Sunnis fighting

Who do our soldiers shoot at? The Shiite's? The Sunnis? Both? Neither? Don't fucking know?

Well that is the kind of situation you want to send Americas 19 and 20 year olds into? You must be mad. Anyone care to describe what a plausible good outcome to this kind of situation would look like?

Don

[Disturbed]

39. Oil and weaponry

The less oil coming out of Iraq now the better it is for the ocuntries that produce oil and all the Corps and profiteers of oil. The longer this conflict continues the more money everyone that is involved in weaponry amd other supplies makes. There are thousands of people making a lot of money off of the continued warfare. This makes the situation even more complex, doesn't it?

There is no way that the U.S. Govt. is going to withdaw most of the Military out of Iraq. There was never an exit plan.

[Swamp Rat]

51. kick

:D

I think that situation can be best described as a "clusterfuck."

[American Tragedy]

46. To whom exactly are you referring?

I can't think of anyone who identifies himself or herself as a progressive who supports the Iraq occupation.

[bvar22]

48. The DLC has borrowed a trick from the NeoCons...

..without changing ANY of their Anti-Labor pro-Republican BIG MONEY policies, they (DLC) are NOW calling themselves PROGRESSIVES and have formed a BRAND NEW organization called the Progressive Policy Institute. They may be able to fool some of the less informed which is the purpose of the new name.

But make no mistake about it, The Progressive Policy Institute is the same old DLC Republican shit in a new wrapper!

[Forkboy]

50. To quote an ex-DUer and self proclaimed "fellow progressive"

"I think you know the answer"

[LSdemocrat]

52. Pottery Barn rule: we broke Iraq, we own it (or actually try and fix it)

[JVS]

54. Our nominee set a bad example for us