[RustyDialectic]

Why is it that liberals want to leave Iraq, so that the Kurds and Sunni get ethnically cleansed by Iranian-backed Shia death squads; yet they want us to go into Darfur and intervene there? I guess it's just not hip to be against genocide when the President is.

[Totalitarissimo]

Why is it that liberals want to leave Iraq, so that the Kurds and Sunni get ethnically cleansed by Iranian-backed Shia death squads; yet they want us to go into Darfur and intervene there? I guess it's just not hip to be against genocide when the President is.

I've been a liberal all my life until recently. With that in mind, just about all ideologies have flaws and contradictions.

I think American liberals simply oppose American conservatism no matter the issue and the reverse is true. It doesn't matter if the other side has merits, or if opposition to the other side results in more problems than not. People in America largely follow their party completely. If Bush goes to war against Iraq for bad reasons, he's a bad person, but when Johnson went to war in Vietnam, few liberals seem to remember.

I'm rather undecided about how to resolve the issue in Iraq. We've really fucked things up. At least Saddam was able to keep the Shiite majority brutalized and submissive, but now we have open conflict between Turks, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. I think it's obvious if we leave it'll lead to the extermination and displacement of Sunnis in a holy war at the very least, but if we stay, things become no better. However, if we have to, we can leave Iraq to itself and not have to give a shit.

So my point though is American liberals often make no sense but American conservatives can be just as stupid. The reasons for their stupidity is due to our society's traditions of being obedient to the official stance of party lines, among other possible reasons.

[Zerogouki]

I think we need to "intervene" in a few other countries (Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc.) as well.

I consider myself to be a paleoliberal.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

but when Johnson went to war in Vietnam, few liberals seem to remember.

I remember, I just don't care. I actually wish we had seen Vietnam through. We were about to win and then we just sort of gave up because of the American media.

Also, at this point we might as well stay in Iraq. It has almost become a stable government.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

I don't think all liberals were opposed to intervention in Iraq. They were just, by and large, very skeptical of the framework in which the war plan was sold to the public. They also were highly suspicious of the motives behind the war.

The United States has an unfortunate history of military interventions with very shady agendas. Italy in the late 1940s. Iran in the early 50s. Chile in the 1970s. Central America throughout the 80s. Iraq is another one of those conflicts that seemed very smelly if you bothered to sniff the air.

[QatzelOk]

Why is it that liberals want to leave Iraq, so that the Kurds and Sunni get ethnically cleansed by Iranian-backed Shia death squads

"Liberals" don't watch the same television programs as you do, so they aren't as convinced as you are that Team America is bombing Iraq and stealing their oil "to save lives."

[Snoturky]

preemptive edit: I had some idea of what I was going to say before starting this post, but it became a little more of me asking questions and then thinking of the answers while writing. Bear with me.

"Liberals" don't watch the same television programs as you do, so they aren't as convinced as you are that Team America is bombing Iraq and stealing their oil "to save lives."

Well first, maybe the reason for being there isn't "to save lives." Second, we're stealing their oil? Have you seen gas prices in the U.S. lately? I think that in order to say that the U.S. is "stealing" you would have to show that the U.S. is taking the property of another without permission and without compensation. Let's see the evidence.

The timing of the war and as Karl_Bonner said, the agenda of the war, are at question for many. Pretend the agenda was purely humanitarian. Let's say no claims of Al Qaeda links, terrorism support, weapons programs, or broken U.N. resolutions were made. The only reason we did it was because he was an oppressive tyrannical dictator. Would you be behind it then? The response to the above question (actually, I never get a response, just a counter question) is "Well what about ______ country or _____ evil dictator? Why aren't we after them too?" That's a great question, why aren't we? There might be something to be said for too much world police and such, but if not us then who?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Do we sit idly and allow these infringements of basic human rights and freedoms to go unchallenged? Or as another thought, is it none of our business? Do we expect the population of such a state to revolt once it becomes "too much?" If they have not yet revolted do we consider that their own inaction is no one's responsibility but their own?

That would answer the question posed above which was "Well what about ______ country or _____ evil dictator? Why aren't we after them too?" I suppose if we decided it was their responsibility alone to take control of their own lives and overthrow their government, then we would not be inconsistent to not threaten their governments. In the case of Iraq then, we would require more than humanitarian reasons. And that is where we are-the people in the positions of power perceived a national security threat from Iraq. That went up and beyond humanitarian concerns to justify action in their opinions.

Would it be in our own best interest to remove tyrannical dictators? It seems to me that a case could be made to claim that those conditions are threatening to the free world and are breeding grounds for the terrorism we are dealing with today.

[DDave3]

The era of "liberal interventionism" was created, it can be argued, with Tony Blair's seminal 1999 Chicago speech - which would later be known as the Blair Doctrine. The wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq show it to be a flawed doctrine. The notion that nations should go to war, not for territorial interests, but in order to save the lives of peoples threatened by humanitarian disaster, is potentially a noble and inspiring concept. But can an universally acceptable humanitarian doctrine be articulated and defended by the international community? If an international consensus on humanitarian intervention is to be achieved, then Governments must agree a rigorous, consistent and legitimate doctrine for the international community.

[perpetuum]

Liberals aren't for withdrawing. Quasi socialists are, liberals understand that Iraq was a mess to begin with and we are for ending war in Iraq, but for a reasonable approach, not just 'we screwed it, so fuck it lets go home'.

[Ombrageux]

Incidentally, I don't think whether a person is for immediate withdrawal or not has any relationship to being liberal or 'quasi-socialist'.

[Mad Dog]

First, I think (as this discussion has thus far demonstrated) that it's overly simplistic to think of foreign policies being tied to specific parties. "Liberal" and "conservative" just aren't particularly meaningful labels when applied to foreign policy. In terms of intervention and non-intervention, for example, Clinton is much closer to Reagan than Bush II is to Reagan. I guess you could say that Republicans since Nixon (and arguably Eisenhower) have been more realist, but again this almost a meaningless oversimplification.

The notion that nations should go to war, not for territorial interests, but in order to save the lives of peoples threatened by humanitarian disaster, is potentially a noble and inspiring concept. But can an universally acceptable humanitarian doctrine be articulated and defended by the international community? If an international consensus on humanitarian intervention is to be achieved, then Governments must agree a rigorous, consistent and legitimate doctrine for the international community.

There is such a standard- world opinion. I know that's a rather relativistic way of looking at "moral wars," but it is a realistic way to conduct foreign policy. Just look at the difference between the first and second Gulf Wars. In 1991 there was UN and general Arab approval of the war, and in 2003 it was just the opposite. Even if the current war had been a complete success within months, the U.S. would still be feeling the effects of negative world opinion. In conflicts like Rwanda, where not even any middle powers had a stake, it's easy and admirable to get international approval and to act. It helps the prestige of the intervening actors in addition to the moral good.

While it would be nice to have something consistent and codified (UN Declaration of Human Rights anyone?), the fact is that power politics are always going to rule the day over any "moral imperative," so states will only act when there is an interest in doing so, or a mostly power-neutral situation.

[liberty]

I think we need to "intervene" in a few other countries (Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc.) as well.

I consider myself to be a paleoliberal.

Wow... How do you think we would be able to pay for more wars and nation building? Where will the money come from?

Just watch one way or another all our troops will come home…

[liberty]

I think we need to "intervene" in a few other countries (Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc.) as well.

I consider myself to be a paleoliberal.

Wow... How do you think we would be able to pay for more wars and nation building? Where will the money come from?

Just watch one way or another all our troops will come home…