Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9369 Followers
Yeah, right
472 Followers
Yeah, right
472 Followers
Tushar Mathur
197 Followers
Tushar Mathur
197 Followers
joeparanoidJun 29, 2010
In fact, a very valid argument is raised in Richard Seymour's The Liberal Defense of Murder that the whole raison d'etre of liberalism is to provide camoflage for otherwise naked colonial aggression in various guises of paternalistic morality, the latest being "humanitarian intervention."
ageofmasteryJun 30, 2010
I was going to respond, but I'm to busy colonizing and oppressing people, it's what us liberals do...
Seriously, where does bulls**t like this come from and why are people who should know better supporting it?
hipmanJun 30, 2010
No need to get defensive.
quickgold192Jun 30, 2010
Liberalism != American Democratic Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
uncleasrielJun 30, 2010
He means classical liberalism, Enlightenment thinking which has more in common with fiscal conservatism and libertarian thought than the warped and, frankly, stupid connotations the word now has in its modern context.
Saying "I'm liberal" is as broad a statement as saying "I'm black". Just as there are MANY ways the black experience is shaped by whether one was born in America, immigrated as a child or as an adult, and whtether one's country of origin was European, African, or elsewhere, there are buttload of defitions for liberalism. Please don't fall to the Nesspeak just yet, boys & girls!
jfreemanJul 1, 2010
Classical liberals are and were anti-war. That is /not/ what he is talking about when he says "liberalism."
zenmojoJun 30, 2010
Just wondering how Liberalism goes from the impetus for the overthrow of colonial rule to justification for colonial rule...
So confused..must read book.
clvngodessJun 30, 2010
Read Zizek.
arizonaicedteaJun 30, 2010
Hasn't that been the conservatives game as of late? I don't remember liberals clamoring to invade Iraq so that we could save them from an oppressive dictatorship.
staticfireJun 30, 2010
I don't remember liberals doing anything to stop it. In fact if memory serves me correct liberals have f**king ESCALATED it.
pathouston22Jun 30, 2010
You should take some brain medicine.
Liberals voted for the Iraq war. Without their votes, it wouldn't of been possible.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
THEY ARE ALL THE SAME.
arizonaicedteaJun 30, 2010
Way to jump to a lot of conclusions guys. The OP was the one trying to demonize liberals, I was just pointing out the flaws in his reasoning. I'm not a Democrat so really staticfire you just look like a defensive jackass to me. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fredfredricksonJun 30, 2010
Ah, god... more bulls**t from the fountain of bulls**t himself, pathouston.
"You should take some brain medicine.
Liberals voted for the Iraq war. Without their votes, it wouldn't of been possible."
So if 100% of Republicans voted for it, and all they needed were 5 votes from Democrats, suddenly it's the Democrats' fault for going to war, and they are harboring some secret bloodlust / imperialist notion towards other countries?
That is beyond stupid. Keep living in your fantasy world so we can keep making fun of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staticfireJun 30, 2010
@Arizona
No his post was not trying to demonize liberals it was merely explaining how liberalism is a tricky way of doing the same s**t as conservatives but appearing to have good intentions to naive people (aka most diggers).
mbtriaJun 30, 2010
Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq I, Iraq II, and Afghanistan. Five of these were started under what we laughingly call "conservative" administrations. The only one that was legal, though not moral or functional, was Vietnam. The others were aggressive wars, "Crimes Against Peace", in violation of both US and International Law.
pathouston22Jun 30, 2010
Nice selective history you have there.
Hey, I can cherry pick too!
World War 2: The worst war in history of the world, with a liberal President!
OH. MY GOD!!!!!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanJun 30, 2010
"The only one that was legal, though not moral or functional, was Vietnam."
What?.More like the opposite.
govtdoesnotworkJun 30, 2010
Vietnam (which was undeclared) is "legal," but the other undeclared wars aren't legal? How so? The Constitution's pretty goddam clear about declaring wars, even if few in Congress actually do as our Constitution says, or even want to do as it says.
relic180Jun 30, 2010
@pathouston
The U.S. didn't start WW2, and only entered into the war because Japan attacked pearl harbor. The U.S. did initiate all the others.
HOWEVER, Grenada and Panama were invasions that lasted less than 2 months each and really don't belong in that group.
mbtriaJun 30, 2010
The Vietnam war was a defensive war where the US was invited in by the existing government, hence legal from a viewpoint of both US and International law. Stupid, ill advised, guaranteed to fail, yes! But lawful.
Gulf I was in that sense legal. Of course Bush41 set up Hussein in a bit of diplomatic stagecraft that his son had neither the capacity, nor the wish to emulate.
arizonaicedteaJun 30, 2010
WW2 can also in no way be considered colonialism on the US's part.
mbtriaJun 30, 2010
I am personally unhappy that Congress need no longer declare war. But SCOTUS has ruled that if Congress funds a war, that is ipso facto declaration of war.
pathouston22Jun 30, 2010
@relic
And the US didn't start the 1st Gulf War or Afghanistan either.
tals420Jun 30, 2010
About Vietnam... The Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated to get the US into an all out war. If that isn't illegal then we should change our laws.
mbtriaJun 30, 2010
Re Gulf I, Bush41 had the brains to start a war while making it the other guys fault. The US may have responded to the invasion of Kuwait, but it also finessed Hussein into invading Kuwait.
Iraq had a problem with Kuwaiti slant drilling at the Iraq-Kuwait border. Like any good vassal, Hussein asked Bush41 to intercede with the Kuwaitis. Bush41 in essence told Hussein that he could take whatever steps he wanted to in order to solve the problem. That since 1960, the US had no position of Arab-Arab disputes, and would not interfere.
There has been much dispute over what April Glaspie, then US Ambassador to Iraq, actually said to Hussein. But from a later interview it was clear that the US seemed to accept military action by Iraq against Kuwait. She said "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait." Apparently only a part of Kuwait, not all of it.
The US had its hand in the de facto start of Iraq I. Albeit with Machiavellian diplomatic suavity and legal nicety, rather than the blunt "Crime Against the Peace" exercised by Bush43.
mbtriaJun 30, 2010
@govtdoesnotwork,
The Gulf of Tonkin propaganda ploy was to motivate the American people to support the war. The US did not need a legal basis for that as it already had one. Of course, nothing could provide a moral basis for the way that war was engaged in. It was a crime against both the Vietnamese and American peoples.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
So his argument is that every Liberal is secretly a fan of invading or dominating other countries?
Conversely if you do not support colonial aggression then Liberalism has no raison d'être for you, so you cannot possibly be for individual freedom.
This argument is beyond weird.
tals420Jun 30, 2010
In the US both parties are what you would call liberal in the classical sense. From Wiki : "[Liberalism] is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
You mean _neither_ party, @Tals?
joeparanoidJun 30, 2010
I recommend you read it before flipping out. The author is not talking about specific political parties per se but rather modern justifications for war and occupation. Most people like to believe they are behaving nobly and come up with excuses for outrageous behavior. From the White Man's Burden to Manifest Destiny to the current veneers of humanitarian intervention, regime change or the war on terror, these fantasies are spun so the aggressor can still feel good about behavior that is really no different from Genghis Khan's. It's the historical context for Greenwald's point.
richmomzJun 30, 2010
Comitting violence under the guise of "paternalistic morality" is the oldest trick in the warmonger book - as in several millenia old.
jfreemanJul 1, 2010
Paternalism is not just the foreign policy of liberals, either.
nevermiss1Jun 30, 2010
Glenn Greenwald goes in on Jeff Goldberg here. Wonder how he'll respond
djenna8Jun 30, 2010
This isn't exactly a newsflash. Doublespeak and pointless wars against a mutable "enemy" weren't just plucked out of the air by a writer in search of a plot...
relic180Jun 30, 2010
One of the most appropriate (which is rare) comparisons to Nazis I've seen used in an argument. And yet, unfortunately, it still constitutes a FAIL.
FYI to the universe and everyone in it: Comparing the point of view you are against to Nazis means YOU f**kING LOSE THE ARGUMENT!! Please STOP NOW!!!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mercedes383Jun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
relic180Jun 30, 2010
Simple. The most notoriously overused and abused comparison made in arguments of any kind... align your opponent with Hitler. In fact it's become a crutch and should be abolished from argument.
To clarify, I'm not saying "Don't talk about Hitler or the Nazis." I'm saying "Stop saying your opponent is the same as Hitler" and think you're making a good argument.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
"FYI to the universe and everyone in it: ANY time you bring Nazis into the argument and compare the point of view you are against to them in any way... YOU f**kING LOSE THE ARGUMENT!! Please STOP NOW!!!!!"
Why? Because Mike Godwin said so?
It should be a rule, perhaps "ohreilly's rule", that anyone who has to swear to get their point across, also loses the argument.
relic180Jun 30, 2010
You know, that's Nazis also didn't like swearing or using the word fail...
blacklabelsarJun 30, 2010
Relic you stupid motherf**ker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
"The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, early 20th century eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is appropriate. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lamadave222Jun 30, 2010
It seems Mr. Greenwald is making the old "moral equivalency" argument. I will be completely unoriginal and offer this counterpoint. Imagine you could wave a magic wand and make every weapon in Gaza disappear, what do you think would happen? Now, imagine you could make every weapon in Israel disappear overnight, would the same thing (nothing) happen do you suppose? I believe anyone who is intellectually honest knows what the outcome of those two scenarios would be, and it puts the lie to the concept of moral equivalency which is a fabrication. Apparently, Mr. Greenwald has forgotten Kuwait.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dave122Jun 30, 2010
We've always been at war with EastAsia.
tals420Jun 30, 2010
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is stregth
richmomzJun 30, 2010
One of these days we're gonna catch Osama bin Goldstein.
leftiscorruptJun 30, 2010
Remember when the Democrats used to pretend to be anti-war?
ocyrisJun 30, 2010
It's kind of Ironic given the Democrats history with war.
richmomzJun 30, 2010
Both parties are choc-full of hypocrites.
stubearJun 30, 2010
I used to like Greenwald but he's been on this anti-Semitic rant lately and his article suffer greatly for it. I'm dumbfounded by his argument that one person's rebuttal was a non-sequitur when the article that was rebutted was a non-sequitur to begin with. The whole "they did it first" rant he went on yesterday when describing past actions Israelis took part in when founding Israel was rather childish. You don't condone actions of one group by stating "well they did it first" and that's what he was doing. Glenn, get back to writing thoughtful political arguments again and drop the whiny rants.
jfreemanJul 1, 2010
Of course, any voices pointing out the failings and prejudices of Israel will always be called "anti-Semitic." It's Israel's and Israel's supporters' knee-jerk racism card!
timthetaxmanJun 30, 2010
Endless war and conflict is the result of our constant meddling around the world. We need to stop attempting to police the world and adopt a non-intervention policy. Not doing so creates enemies, fuels the military industrial complex, and encourages the growth of the federal government and debt.
pathouston22Jun 30, 2010
That thought worked out well for Hitler.
timthetaxmanJun 30, 2010
Hitler was never a threat to the United States. He couldn't even cross the English Channel, much less the Atlantic. Further, it could be argued that Russia would have won without our help. They were already winning by the time we landed on Omaha Beach.
Also, non-interventionism is not isolationism. It means we can promote our ideas of freedom and trade with other peoples, just not use military force unless we are directly threatened.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
Hitler? Isolationist?!?!?!?!?!? Surely, you jest!
texanrudeboyJun 30, 2010
We sure did right there didn't we? We saved millions from Hitler's camps and condemned them to "Uncle Joe"'s gulags. People seem to forget that our great "ally" murdered more of his citizens the Hitler could have dreamed of. So what did we do? We helped Russia defeat Hitler, then FDR helped out his buddy "Uncle Joe" some more at Yalta by handing him Eastern Europe.
zerobriersJun 30, 2010
On Jeff Goldberg: I canceled my Atlantic subscription when they hired him. My little inconsequential move. He'll no doubt dismiss Greenwald as being un-serious and shrill. When one has no argument, one is only left to name calling.
bohicatwentytwoJun 30, 2010
Greenwald can keep on attacking Goldberg, but that will never eliminate the fact that Goldberg was correct. Ansar al Islam did have ties to both Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The evidence of this was shown in a 2008 Institute for Defense Analyses report. That report's executive summary states that although there were no direct connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Saddam had no problem supporting Islamic terrorist groups, including those that had links to Al Qaeda as well.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Saddam%20and%20Terrorism%20Redaction%20EXSUM%20Extract.pdf
The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that lnks the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despide their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationships between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab sodialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.
But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This stufy found no "smoking gun" (ie direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognices the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationshipts with radical Islamic groups, yet, they concluded the in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mbtriaJun 30, 2010
Re Gulf I, Bush41 had the brains to start a war while making it the other guys fault. The US may have responded to the invasion of Kuwait, but it also finessed Hussein into invading Kuwait.
Iraq had a problem with Kuwaiti slant drilling at the Iraq-Kuwait border. Like any good vassal, Hussein asked Bush41 to intercede with the Kuwaitis. Bush41 in essence told Hussein that he could take whatever steps he wanted to in order to solve the problem. That since 1960, the US had no position of Arab-Arab disputes, and would not interfere.
There has been much dispute over what April Glaspie, then US Ambassador to Iraq, actually said to Hussein. But from a later interview it was clear that the US seemed to accept military action by Iraq against Kuwait. She said "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait." Apparently only a part of Kuwait, not all of it.
The US had its hand in the de facto start of Iraq I. Albeit with Machiavellian diplomatic suavity and legal nicety, rather than the blunt "Crime Against the Peace" exercised by Bush43.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
You say it like the first gulf "war" was justified... very Machiavellian, indeed.
But people should only be burying you for that. Otherwise, that's a 100% factual post. Bush 41 tricked Iraq into a war. Why are you being buried.
avengingturnipJun 30, 2010
Of course it was justified. Hill and Knowlton told me so.
mbtriaJun 30, 2010
I don't justify Gulf I. I only say that it was more politically and legally correct than Gulf II. But if, as it seems, Bush41 did finesse Hussein, then morally, it was anathema.
There is also a functional difference between starting a war between two others so that you can furrow through the leavings, and accepting a policy that you have the right to start a war anywhere, anytime that you please. In the first, as immoral as it is, you have to have the complicity of at least one of the combatants. That is somewhat of a bottleneck, though given man's propensity towards violence it does not seem to be sufficiently rate limiting.
vbullingerJun 30, 2010
You would do well in the CIA, @mbtria. As for me? Immoral is immoral. A murderer is just as bad as a serial killer.
avianeddyJun 30, 2010
STARVE the beast
Let's GTFO of 'Nam.... I mean Iraq, I mean Afghanistan...
allisonv12Jun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
MjfmJun 30, 2010
But...but...God loves us more than he does you...
njdoo7Jun 30, 2010
Bankers have leverage over the American government through the cartel called the Federal Reserve Bank. The government can only get money from the banks, with interest attached. The money can only be paid back by money that was obtained with interest attached. Thus, the money can never be fully paid back and the interest will undoubtedly grow exponentially. The leverage created by such a monetary system is huge, and the cartel that wields such leverage can dictate almost any policy. Both public and private sectors are subject to such leverage (including the media). Most media outlets are actually owned by people who meet in secrecy regularly with those that control said banks (see bilderberg group, council on foreign affairs, skull and bones). Other attendees and members of said groups include high ranks from every sector of society. What is discussed in secrecy in these groups? Outsiders do not know.
Throughout history this leverage has been extended to other countries in the world via economic warfare. The cartel of banks that is the federal reserve has economically conquered almost every country in the world, which are now all under the same debt-based monetary policy which guarantees there is more debt than money.
Banks are the largest profiteers from war, as they usually do business with every side of a conflict. When banks have leverage over every sector of the economy, it seems likely that such leverage may be used to force other countries into their financial empire.
Could the propaganda and staged reasons for entering war be attributed to the cartel of banks that wields such powerful leverage?
Could the spread of propaganda be enabled and willingly participated in by the powerful members of these groups that meet in secrecy?
The answers to these questions cannot be proven either way, but it seems as if the leverage created by our monetary system is something that would allow for it. Yet another example of something that could likely be attributed to our monetary system.
zenmojoJun 30, 2010
Sad to see Greenwald use the Russian invasion of South Ossetia as an example of propaganda justifying an invasion. The fact is, Tbilisi rolled into South Ossetia in tanks and shelled civilians into the dirt. In that case, Russia WAS justified in invading the country to put down the offensive because Georgia was out of its f**king mind.
If anything, he should have gone after the propagandistic machinations of their president for saying Russian influence was a reason to slaughter the South Ossetians.
lolmaxJul 1, 2010
Should have voted for Ron Paul..