In just about any debate between conservative war supporters and liberals in the anti-war camp, the following question arises from conservatives, who—to be fair—often use it as a kind of rhetorical trump card to put liberal Dems on the defensive:
“Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?”
Surely, the thinking on the right goes, nobody with a conscience would consider the world a better place with Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime still in power—so the question is posed as a way to back the anti-war left into a rhetorical corner: if you are happy that Saddam was removed and think the world is better rid of him, how can you not support the action taken to accomplish what you yourself acknowledge is a net positive for Iraq?
The answers you get from anti-war Dems tend to run the gamut of dodges: 1) of course Saddam’s ouster is a good thing, but it wasn’t worth the lives of 2000+ American boys and girls; 2) of course Saddam’s ouster is a good thing, but the sanctions were working, and Saddam wasn’t a threat so long as the world was keeping an eye on him and squeezing him economically; or 3) of course Saddam’s ouster is a good thing, but the fact remains that we rushed to war instead of letting the UN weapon’s inspectors complete the job; had we allowed them to do so, we would have been satisfied that Saddam had disarmed, and then we wouldn’t be involved in imperial nation building that has weakened our credibility in the court of world opinion.
Each of these rejoinders seems forced and more than a little disingenuous—pressure to remove the sanctions was growing internationally; the UN inspectors were being routinely “handled” and thwarted, with conditions placed on their movements and their rooms bugged; and “world opinion” was being driven by a left-leaning anti-war international press, and by governments who were profiting from kickbacks from the Hussein regime. And of course, next in line to rule Iraq were Uday and Qusay—whose overt sadism was arguable worse than their father’s.
But if a new FOX Opinion Dynamics poll is to be believed, the rhetorical trump card pro-war conservatives have long been wielding was less axiomatic than they’d been led to believe. Because when asked, specifically, if the world would be better or worse off without the war and with Saddam still in power, 41% of Democrats polled believe that it would be better off under those circumstances.
Even as millions struggle for freedom in Iraq in the wake of Saddam’s fall—even as elections loom that will put into power a democratically elected government under the aegis of a constitution that gives Iraqis more rights than they have ever known previously—41% of Democrats believe the world would be a better place were these 27 million or so Iraqis still under a centralized totalitarian dictatorship run by a brutal tyrant.
Which, come to think of it, is kind of what they’d like to see in the US as well, if we stretch the analogy. Sure, it’s a softer, gentler centralized rule that they’re after —no rape rooms or plastic shredders where higher taxes and a slew of culture-controlling dictums pronounced by our betters who run the nannystate will do—but at heart, federal control and “stability” above all are the mantras of the new left.
John F Kennedy famously said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.”
No, this is not the party of JFK any longer—at least, not for 41% of those Democrats polled…
****
update: Via Karol, we see that Robert Scheer is representative of 41% of Democratic opinion: “U.S. Occupation is Worse Than Hussein”
Robert. Scheer.
Maybe the Dems can dig up Eugene McCarthy and run him again in 08’…
’where have all the rape rooms gone?’
I used to think the US was resilient and dynamic enough to withstand a substantial amount of the self-evident lunacy from our pathological friends on the left.
I don’t think that anymore. This leftist disorder will destroy the place.
41% feel this way today? That’s not even a rage-blinded, Bushchimphitler backlashing point of view. It’s a sickness.
And in another 6 months? 2 years? A decade?
Move to Canada you fucking malcontents. Do it now.
tw: Theory. Nope, that’s reality.
“Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?”
DEMOCRATIC ANSWER: Better off. There would be no ongoing conflict in Iraq. It’s better for the Iraqis to remain slaves than for people to die for their freedom. We support brown people being enslaved in Cuba, North Korea, etc., so why not Arabs? Disagree, then you are a racistfascistneoconimperialistwarmonger.
Can you imagine the present-day Democrats talking this way during WW2?
Of course Hitler’s ouster is a good thing, but it wasn’t worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
One of Evan Coyne Maloney’s (Brain-Terminal) documentaries from just before the war, IIRC, showed some freaking typical moonbat woman shrieking about how in Iraq they had “free” health care, and that was therefore a good regime. She was not so “fringe” as one might first think.
Scratch the surface of a Communist and you’ll find a fascist. Same shit, different rhetoric.
Yikes. When I picked “Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state” as my tagline, I thought I was being sarcastic, not prophetic…
Robert Scheer: U.S. Occupation is Worse Than Hussein
It’s the dumbest statement of all time but I do have to praise his honesty.
I think the truest measure of whether a country is getting better or worse is to look at the immigration/emigration patterns. Voting with your feet is the most honest kind of polling.
Are more Iraqis heading for exile now? Or are more Iraqis returning from exile?
I think we all know the answer to that.
Take a closer look at questions 7 and 8.
Many Dems say that the world is worse off following the removal of Saddam Hussain. But, almost as many say that Iraq is better off following the removal of Saddam Hussain.
Simultaneously stating the views of Dems that fall into both groups: “Iraq may be better off, but the world is not.”
Whoops, that was me.
Stupid narcissistic bastards don’t give two shits about the world. OIF has upset their little insulated world of liberal delusion.
It’s hard to navel gaze when lunatics are sawing people’s heads off. Things were much better when Saddam fed those nasty Iraqis into wood chippers. At least it was those nasty brown people, and it was over there.
Remember that before the war, the America Firsters, i.e. Ford, Lindbergh, et.al. were saying exactly that. Of course, they were anti-semites too.
What this means today though, is that you can no longer assume someone who is anti-war to be a rational actor. Thus any atempt at debate, persuasion, or my time would be wasted. FIDO! There is nothing I can do to convince that person that what we are achieving is greater then the sacrifice. SO, screw ‘em.
It’s all a matter of where the international media are shining their lights. No doubt that if we were somehow to topple the Kim Jong Il regime—which is brutally oppressive, but largely hidden from the world’s view—and suffer the loss of, say, 300 American soldiers and a couple of thousand North Koreans over the course of a year, that same 41% would say that North Korea (and the world) was better off with the little dictator in charge. Out of sight, out of mind, right?
I think we were safer before the war than after it. But that doesn’t mean the world can’t be a better place. Oftimes the US can do things that are counter to its interest to make the world a better place.
They believe the world is worse off because the U.S. was not thwarted and humbled. Perhaps because we’ll be more likely to just keep toppling dictators until we have to redefine “dictator” to mean Paul Wilson or perhaps because of BDS. But one way or the other, they want our nose bloodied.
Demolishing the UN, for example, would piss of a lot of people, but make the world a much better place.
actus,
You finally make some sense–sometimes America acts like America and not some lefty, Neville Chamberlain-worshipping hippie state. Remarkable that.
As someone quoted JFK above, I’ll do it, too: above “We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
Can’t think of any other people on the planet that would sacrifice 2,000 of its best so somebody else could vote.
Of course, it’s only about the oil–the loony, evil dictator-removal was only a cover. (Sarcasm: a literary device.)
I think we’ve gotten beyond the point of reasoning with these people. All of the conversations and attempts at attempting sanity in these conversations, is pointless.
We must win in Iraq, which means we must win against the Democrats. It’s time to start advertising, mentioning polls like these, doing whatever it takes to show what immoral cowards describe a large percent of the Democratic party today.
Time to take the gloves off.
TV (Harry)
tw: going – We’re going nowhere trying to reason with these people.
Quagmire
Robert Scheer is a Communist, and that should be kept in mind whenever considering his views on what is good for the U.S. and the world. To excerpt from an entry on Comrade Scheer at Discover the Newtwork:
.
I think I was more youthful when I was younger. But that doesn’t mean I won’t buy a new car. Oftimes, I hypothesize to myself that monkeys will fly out my ass.
Ah hell, even today’s Republicans aren’t the party of JFK.
Robert Scheer quoting Seymour Hersh quoting “a highly placed unnamed source”. Hard to get more authoritative than that. Clearly we and the Iraqis are screwed blue and we war supporters are every bit as delusional as our Exalted Leader.
Leftists believe that Iraqis are better off being raped, mass murdered, tortured, imprisoned, ethnically cleansed, and economically supressed because that’s the natural state of brown-skinned people.
What’s happening in Iraq today–brown-skinned people choosing their own destiny with the help of the U. S.–is an insane abomination, an affront to the natural order of things.
It’s as if Bush had signed legislation mandating that dogs be given drivers licenses.
yea tom. good thing there’s no rape, mass killings, torture, or imprisonment going on now, eh?
the question is moronic and ludicrously simple. the answers, from both the democrats and you people are equally so. (unless you guys are kidding.. please tell me you’re kidding, cus .. that would be really funny)
have a nice day, and i can’t wait to add protein wisdom to my blogroll.
Now let’s be fair. The quoted stat is that 41% of Democrats think the world would be better off were Saddam to have remained in power (paraphrasing correctly, I believe).
This is a minority of a minority party.
Of those polled, 39% self-identified as Democrats; those so answering the question Jeff highlights reflect 16% of the American public.
I think the Republic will survive with a 16% nutter population. Besides, it helps remind us that liberty isn’t free, while freedom is priceless.
He’s kidding. I thought it was pretty obvious by the dog line… but, then again, I’m sure we’d find some asshole who really believed it.
And they’ll be coming here to act as if that’s the moral high ground, too.
Although I suspect we’re in the same danger as we were before the way, Actus, I agree with your point that the US does in fact do things that aren’t in its immediate best interest in order to produce a better world.
It would just be nice if the rest of the world acknowledged it once in a while. But, like Santa, Batman, and a naked Lucy Liu demanding my love, I suspect that no matter how much I hope to see it, it will never happen.
And to think of all the money I wasted on that bat-signal.
I’m still holding out hope for my Liu-signal.
First things first, Protein Wisdom is going straight to my blogroll. Now that I got that out of the way, onto the topic at hand…
Democrats are blithering idiots. If a majority of the United States population favored genital mutilation then the Dems would propose a constitional amendment for mandatory genital mutilation.
Just ask Byan Jabr, he’s the expert on basement torture chambers.
41% of Democrats polled believe that it would be better off under those circumstances.
I think we’re seeing the awesome power of cognitive dissonance.
It takes people a few years to rewrite history in their minds, but the pressure of cognitive dissonance has insured that reality has permanently changed, O’Brien really held up five fingers, and they really loved Big Brother.
tell me more about these genital mutilations and their popularity. i might like to try that.
eh, maybe leftists believe Iraqis should have all of the above done to them, by Iraqis. the right apparently likes to crash parties and steal the attention and command the hazing themselves!
I always thought Jeff here was a neocon. now I realize he is just a parody, a caricature of a neocon.
well done! you had me fooled.
and guess what, the Dem’s voted FOR the War. that means, they voted with you. they’re on your side! your team now!
I think we were safer before the war than after it. But that doesn’t mean the world can’t be a better place. Ofttimes the US can do things that are counter to its interest to make the world a better place.
I think the judgment of what’s in our interests depends on the timescale used.
I think the Iraqi war may well have been bad for us on a short timescale. But in the misnamed “war on terror” we face a problem that has no solutions on a short timescale, and everything that insures improvement in the long run carries big risks in the short run.
But in principle that’s what even conventional wars are like. In a short time span, avoiding even self defense is often safer than fighting back, but the eventual result of making temporarily safer choices is that you are overrun.
That said, there’s a reason that Al Qa’eda hasn’t chosen to attack the American mainland again – they lost Afghanistan, are losing their chances in Iraq, and know that an enraged America would only hurt them more…
Not to say that they won’t ever attack us again, but they have chosen not to so far.
Turing word “just” as in “a just war”
Somebody calling himself Mr Fundamental called me a parody.
Man, do I ever love irony!
Does anyone else suspect that the defeatest crew is actually just one guy who likes to argue with himself on other peoples blogs?
They sort of remind me of the Democrat party these days trying to take all sides of a particular issue at once and pretend that there is no history.
Besides, everyone knows that the weapon of choice for Jesus would be a Mossberg and not some little pea shooter. Wankers.
Somebody calling himself Mr Fundamental called me a parody.
Check this post out.
“One of the reasons that I oppose totalitarianism in general is that it results in stupid decisions and blind spots.” By which, of course, he means that he opposes George Bush and Pope formerly known as Ratsinger, and not say, Saddam Hussein.
uhhh.. not only did you misinterpret that.. but you are barking up the wrong tree pal, the AXE is ex-military and NOT a leftist.
hobbits.
Oftimes the US can do things that are counter to its interest to make the world a better place. In fact, I would define a better world as one in which the US does things that are counter to its interest.
Characteristic understatement and nuance. Well done.
Jeff, you note the argument made that Saddam’s ouster was good, but not worth 2,000 American deaths, but you never actually answer it, as you do the other “disingenuous” positions. (I’ll just note that the people I knew who were against the Iraq sanctions were … shall I say, not people commonly associated with achieving actual policy change. Free Mumia types, etc.) I’m half-curious whether you think there is a good answer that shows that the position is dishonest, that the price was too steep.
One thing that mystifies me is the absolute lack of interest in the human rights of the Iraqis currently being demonstrated by the American left.
Traditionally, the left rooted for the little guy–in fact, the whole edifice of identity politcs is based on concern for the little guy. Today, that concern seems not to extend to anyone beyond our own borders. If you read some of the hawkish-left sites in the UK, they are just as mystified. It’s a complete renunciation of the left’s ostensible ideals.
The only things I can think of off-hand that account for it are the following: 1) traditonal isolationism (it always exists in some measure); 2) the decay of the intellectual life caused by television and the ascendancy of the image; 3) a lack of knowledge of history as wells as historical revisionism; 4) the waning ethical influence of religion; 5) Marxist hegemony at the university; and 6) a culture of decay and pathological self-absorption.
It appears the left–in America, at least–is now a hollowed-out utopianism with only the external forms intact. If so, good. May it crumble into dust.
The Defeatists in a time of Psychosis (a.k.a. anonymous fake email address hobbit):
What you say is partially true. We are one being that was split apart by the singularity Tiffany into six separate manifestations. These manifestations are anarchists, libertarians, and lefties.
Way to cherry pick Crusader AXE’s post, CafeAlpha.
Umm, I’m still trying to add protein wisdom to my links. Can’t seem to get Typepad to comply…
Yes, Quitter, whatever would make me think that someone who’s nick is Crusader AXE of the Lost Cause who’s leftie blog is called “the defeatists” is <b>against</i> the war on [Islamist] terror?
And funny thing, that article attacks… George Bush and the Pope. Now I personally agree that condoms are important in fighting AIDS, but I have more than one disparaging word in my dictionary and don’t have to use the word “totalitarianism” to discribe puritanical sexual attitudes.
Well, Jack, that was on oversight, but a happy one, in that I don’t much feel like discoursing on the pros and cons of such a calculus. Suffice it to say, we have a volunteer military, and its members overwhelmingly support what we’re doing in Iraq. And they are re-upping in unprecendented numbers.
From a strategy standpoint, the President thinks the risk of American lives is worth the dividend he hopes will come from a free Iraq. And he is duly elected.
You can cull my answer from that, I guess.
I hope we amuse you.
if only our lives didn’t hang in the balance.
bah, whatever.
What makes you think you’re amusing?
Not even interesting, Mr. Loser. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz
Slightly OT , but kind of along the lines of just “how low can they go” idea. Have you seen this story over at LGF?
It’s about the new horror movie Homecoming. I’m guessing this same 41% are the ones giving Joe Dante his standing ovations.
So much fun. Where to begin…
When the Democrats are back in charge, I’ll go after them with a passion. At the moment, they are largely irrelevant. Sorry, but with both houses of Congress, the Executive Branch and the judicial system, it’s kind of hard to find excuses for the Republicans. Bill Clinton’s been out of office for a while now, and was pretty irrelevant for most of the last couple of years.
Leftist? Not sure. I believe with Jefferson that the government that governs least governs best; I believe with Lincoln that every one deserves an equal place at the starting line; I believe with St Vincent de Paul that the poor are our masters and we should serve them. I think that extreme wealth is obscene; I believe that everyone should be adequately rewarded for their efforts.
Anti-military? Humorous; did almost 23 years, and was on the list for Command Sergeant Major when my back finally said No Mas. My sequence number, the order in which I would have been promoted, was 1. I still have my ID tags on my neck.
Anti-Catholic? Perhaps. 16 years of Catholic Education, fluent in Latin at one time, graduated from one of the better Catholic colleges cum laude in Philosophy and Theology. Member of the Catholic League for a while. I think it is possible to dissent from the Churches view and no longer consider yourself a Catholic and still have respect for the institution. The people in charge can be another issue. When the Vatican drops its requirments for lockstep thinking in theology faculties, ordains women or finds a way to allow women a voice in the Church equal to men, and accepts that life is more complicated than condoms and rhythm, I’ll go look for someone else to bitch at about censorship of thought, sexism and simplistic solutions to complex problems.
So, guess again…
Whatever percentage of the Dems responded that way, it would have changed after Uday’s dirty bomb of 200_ had us burying Manhattan under 120 feet of concrete, Chernobyl style.
The very question is perverse IMO, and one that’s taken too lightly by the people trying to address it. How does one even begin to answer? How does one make that calculation? It’s not–again IMO–valid for a silly phone survey; to answer requires not only a deep understanding of the gravity inherent in both the loss of life and the reformation of tyranny into a free state, but more importantly a realistic sense of responsibility for the same. This is how I always interpreted the famous slogan, “the buck stops here.” In other words, the burden of responsibility for making literally Earth-shattering decisions falls on one person: the President. Those decisions by their nature cannot always be clean, concrete; they’re often the least-worst from a series of imperfect choices. I’m often overwhelmed by my responsibilities towards myself/my creditors; I can’t imagine the emotional impact of balancing the economic calculation sending one man to his death while freeing another.
[TW: Obviously history, not today’s polling of a beleaguered citizenry, will be the ultimate judge]
And of course, the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party took the position that not only were the rape rooms bad, but Saddam missed a real pay-site internet opportunity.
In ahort, Mr. Axe believes in a set of Bartlett’s dictionary platitudes that anyone from Sartre to Jesse Helms might easily claim to believe in, and has a colourful resume which apparently excuses the cheap agitprop absolutism that calls Bush and Ratzinger ‘totalitarians’.
Okay. Maybe the world would have been better of with Hussein in charge.
After 9/11, the USA realizes it needs SECULAR arab allies, and makes a grand bargain with Saddam. We support and arm him, and invade Saudi Arabia.
Wouldn’t it be cool? We’d have a top notch out-sourved vendor for torturing, etc.
Actually, in a realpolitik world where we deal with Pakistan, this is not far off the mark.
The Black Book of Saddam Hussein