Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail?
 

A serious question. Every thread I read here smacks of eager anticipation for failure, disaster, and a gleeful counting of US deaths in Iraq. I realize there is a lot of hatred toward George Bush, but these events are bigger than the president, and your anger toward him is recklessly endangering the lives of our servicemen while undermining our chances of success.

In my opinion, winning the war on terror and setting up a stable Iraq is infinitely more important than who gets elected in November.

So why are so many people so eager to snatch failure from the jaws of victory?

Our differences should end at our nation's borders. You may not like Bush, but at least recognize the good we're doing in Iraq and get behind our military. War is hell enough on its own. The last thing our troops need to hear is a bunch of hateful rhetoric from the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy dooming them to failure.

That's a good question. Perhaps you loaded it to the degree that folks will get defensive and say something to the effect of "we aren't against our country - just the government." That's the most common response.

I agree with your assessment. Bashing one's country excessively is not very becoming.

I wouldn't classify myself as liberal, but I'm guessing it's because if your leader is flat out corrupt, it'd be a good thing to have him fail so he can get out of office.

Not to say Democrats aren't corrupt either (pretty much all politicians are), but... you'd see the same thing if a liberal were in power. The conservatives would love to see them fail.

Ah, the beauty of politics..

Because I'm consumed with hate! And if I'm not happy, no one should be. :D

For a serious answer, it's our duty to question the government. At least we are basing our anger and arguments on criticisms of the way our leaders are making their decisions.
It's a far cry from the months long national circus of Republicans trying to ruin the Clenis for things that didn't affect this country. What it did do though was occupy Balls Clenis' attention for a ludicrous amount of time, time he could have been spending running the country. And it created an atmosphere of doubt where every decision he made (see. Desert Fox/Wag the dog) Was seen as smoke screening.

"Our differences end at the borders"
Qualifications for that statement is hard to define. In a sense we follow that. Dixie Chicks and Al Franken, both outspoken opponents of the war have donated their time and energy to visiting and entertaining our troops in Iraq and in veterans hospitals. Criticism for the war can very well be a method of troop support. It can help get our troops out faster, and force changes at the administrative level for the benefit of our troops.

Tell me, to you, what coverage of the war can do to endanger our troops.
And how are we snatching failure from the jaws of victory? Do you think we are anywhere near seeing victory in Iraq?

Finally, please tell me, (in your own words because it is important to see where you are coming from on these issues) why did we go to war with Iraq?

I love this country. America is a great country, with opportunities for all that you just can't get everywhere in the world. I believe we are a nation that is as free as they come.

That doesn't mean I don't think our "elected" representatives- at all levels of government- are doing a good job. Rights have been abridged, personal agendas are made policy, and I believe there are few people in politics who actually, sincerely, carry out the will of those they represent.

And that's sad, because that's SUPPOSED to be what they're there for.

I say "elected", because in today's political realm, no one runs on a platform of, "this is who I am, and what I can do for you"- except maybe in small, local elections. All other positions are filled by special interest groups and corporations, depending on how much money they're willing to throw at a candidate.

Corporations run our government, whether democrat or republican, and if people can't see the facts for themselves, they will remain thinking the government cares about them.

Which, really, they don't.

I totally agree with this statement.

People in general tend to be very forgiving if a politician or government try something and in the end, if it fails, providing a level of honesty and sincerity was attached, are willing at times to move on and try again.

There are times though when entire governments lie, cheat, steal and are so corrupt even those who represent said parties, can do nothing but follow the party line simply in order to save face, at least what is left of it. Hence the vicious cycle of voter apathy.

An excellent example of this is presently occuring in Canada.

Re: Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail?
 

You and that Goering guy would get along great...

" Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't wat war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood.

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. And it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Herman Goering "

And the flipside to that coin.



Other good ones.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/avatar....ine=1067219432

I guess I'm still waiting for any evidence that this will happen. A single admission that the man has done something right might lead me to be more open to others' criticisms of him.

He did a very good job immediately after 9/11. He acted in a reverent and solid manner. His run up to and invasion of Afghanistan was done in a way that leaves me without any criticism. Afghanistan was a military action that I fully supported.

I've always felt that way about that period of his presidency.

Outside of that, there really is nothing though that I can think of that he did in a way I approve of.
Please list me some of what you think are his positive accomplishments and I will see if I feel I missed any.

Wouldn't you say that whackjobs out in San Fran who stood in the way of supplies that were being shipped out to our troops unpatriotic, and though completely ineffective, their intentions if at all successfull (haha - i love that pic of that dumb bitch with the big welt on her neck from the sand bag guns) could have exposed this country to danger.

When are you guys gonna get it? Questioning the war is not unpatriotic, disagreeing with our president is not unpatriotic, disliking your president is not unpatriotic. This kind of idiotic behaviour is, and these are the people you align yourself with. Making your little 7 year old girl hold up a sign that says "Pull out Bush, your daddy should have" if it wasn't so ignorant would be unpatriotic.

So that's where that comes from, and i think if anyone here has perfected goering's tactics it's the left:

- What??? You question MY patriotism - go have dinner with Nazi's...YOU, YOU NAZI!!

-What??? You don't want affirmative action. YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE!!!! RACIST!!!

-WHAT???? No universal health care, You want my MOM to DIE!!!! YOU HATE OLD PEOPLE, YOU HATE MY MOM!!!

and so on and so on and so on....Goering would be proud, not philosophically but certainly in practice (judging from that quote you posted, anyway).

If we are alligned with the people in San Fran who tried to prevent the shipment of supplies, then you are alligned with the Coulters, Limbaughs, Falwells, Robertsons, Hannity's etc who want to bomb all the arab countries, kill their leaders and forcibly convert them to christianity.

Yeah! Nice allies you got there! If I had to pick one group over the other, I think I'd stick with the Frannies.

(Obviously, well at least I hope, neither of us are "allies" of either of these groups of people. Just because they have a semblance of similarity with the rest of us does not mean they are interchangeable with us. They are the minority, they are a fringe.)

I also disagree with your assessment of Goering. You might want to read it a little closer. All you need to do is change several words and it seems like something Bush, Rummy or Ashcroft have said in the runup to war.

Quote Comparison
 

Virtually interchangeable in the purity of the message.

Ashcroft: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."

Goering: "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. And it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

OK here you go. First, I voted for Bush because I had high hopes that he would turn out to be to sort of president that I had hoped he would be, and I hate Al Gore. Second, I think most people (not all) were glad Bush was the man in office come 9/11, I sure know I was. Here he had a great opportunity to do awesome things in this country at home and abroad. In my opinion, going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and he did it well.

It wasn't until Bush started bungling foreign policy over Iraq that I started to become critical of his administration. I tried defending him for awhile, but as events unfolded I finally had to admit he was making some huge mistakes. Now I've been to Europe and the Middle East to talk with people there over US foreign policy and it is amazing how fast there sympathy and support over 9/11 turned to animosity and hatred over Iraq. Most of them (including the French) still love Americans and America, what they don’t like (like many of us) is our leadership. The first step to repairing US foreign policy is getting rid of George Bush, because it is the president who dictates this country’s foreign policy stance. (Personally I think the president should be limited to foreign policy and leave domestic policy concerns to the Congress who by its nature is much more representative of the American people.)

Now, I personally don’t see how being critical of our administration hurts our troops abroad. If anything being critical at home works to insure that their lives will not be senselessly wasted when a little diplomacy could have been used.

Certainly you give some credit but anyone who can only point to a single thing that a President has done during nearly 4 years in office isn't trying very hard.

Things that I feel he's done a good job on (I'm tempted not to provide a list because we'll get distracted in debating the merits of them) but here are a few. I'm fairly certain you won't agree:

Prescription Drug Benefit (people can detract from it all they want but the fact is it's better than what low income seniors had before)

Decision not to tap into the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower prices (Americans are spoiled by low gas prices and thinking that tapping into the reserves in a time of war just so we can pay a few cents less a gallon is assinine IMO)

Tax cuts (again you will disagree but I definitely don't believe the government needs more of our money, they need to become more efficient with the massive sums they already get)

Not continuing to be extorted by Kim Jong Il in North Korea

Filing suit to get the 527 organizations to stop skirting campaign finance reform

Standing up for the countries that joined us in Iraq by keeping France and Germany from profiting from reconstruction monies.

Continually standing up for those countries that joined us in Iraq by pointing out that the Democrats who claim we have no international support are doing a disservice to our relationships with them.

There are others (and there are plenty that I disagree with him about) but I have yet to hear any Democratic leader come out and say that a single action of his was "good". Hell they even criticize his handling of the hours and days after 9/11.

Go into the archives of the Tilted Politics board and see how many times the "lefties" on the board have stated he did something right vs how he's done everything wrong. Hell they are so happy that he choked on a pretzel and fell off a bike I think they'd sooner elect Rush Limbaugh to the Presidency than point to a Bush success.

You are right. I don't agree with you list.

Marginally the strategic oil reserves could count, but that is such a minor thing.

It would be ok that he tried to stop 527's. But it gets negated that he ignored the predominantly republican backing 501(c)'s.
501(c)'s include Nature conservancy, AARP, religious groups (such as the National Right to Life Committee), and the NRA.
These tax exempt groups are allowed to use their tax exempt donations to run political ads and Bush has a huge advantage on this front.
If it wasn't clear that fighting the 527's was just a political maneuver to give him an advantage I would applaud that action as well.

No it's not. The private companies that are going to provide the benefits have a horrible weapon on their side. Citizens must pick a card and stick with it for one full year. But the (HMO's) don't have to keep their benefits stable, only the membership costs. For example, An HMO could start off offering 60% off of a heart medication and then two months later drop that percentage to 15% and royally screw everyone who depends on that.

We backed off that and we are giving them aid again in exchange for not producing weapons.
I think that was one of our biggest problems. Bush focused on the impotent Saddam while Kim Jong and Osama etc were allowed to run around doing what they wanted.

I'll start with your last statement first. Being critical of the administration is perfectly acceptable but it should be done in constructive rather than destructive ways. Let's say a husband and wife go to an auto dealer to buy a car. If their goal is to get the best deal possible, should they get into a screaming match on the showroom floor and disclose their dividing points to the salesman? Of course not. Why then is it appropriate to do so in the face of an enemy who wants to kill our citizens? Exposing and fomenting divisiveness rallies the enemy. People are so quick to point out that Bush hasn't used diplomacy in world affairs yet have no concern that our politicians refuse to use it here at home.

Now, onto your first point. I too voted for George Bush. Not because I had great hope for him. Not because I agreed with him. And certainly not because I thought he was well suited for the job. I wanted McCain. Gore was simply unacceptable so that, realistically, left George Bush.

I was surprised he handled 9/11 as well as he did. I was even more surprised by the restraint he showed in the days, months, and years after it. People seem to forget that he didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq on 9/12. The US went to Afghanist in October 2001. We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003. People claim there was no diplomacy prior to the invasion of Iraq. There were UN resolutions, meetings with just about every ally we've ever had, and plenty of alternatives given to Hussein before the invasion took place. Could it have been done better? Absolutely. Were there reasons to go into Iraq also absolutely. Everyone points to WMDs as the only reason. The simple fact is we (the United States) created a reputation over the last 30 years of not getting their hands dirty. Of there being no consequence to those who commit or support terrorist acts. Afghanistan and Iraq were answers to that image. Would countries supporting terrorism have taken the US seriously if their only reaction to terrorism was a successful invasion of Afghanistan? Of course not. Iraq proved that we would risk lives and reputation in the war on terror. Is it an accident that other countries that never would have worked with us before have come forward (Pakistan, Libya, hell even Iran has opened up a bit with regard to nuclear inspections)? Not a chance they would have looked at Afghanistan as an example.

And I will close with a reiteration of the statement I made to Superbelt, anyone who can only find one or two examples of "good" from a man who has served nearly four years as our leader isn't trying very hard.

We are ideological opposites. It's to be expected.

How much good did Clinton do for you?
How about Kerry. What do you like about Kerry?

Hell, what should I like about Bush?
The things you posted are things I am just politically opposite from (Even McCain is opposed to the tax cuts). My other big issue is the environment and Bush has done nothing but roll back regulations.
Everything you posted as positives that look like they should be acceptable on the surface I have shown to have flaws that I can't accept.

Sorry, but if everything he does is the opposite of what I see as good, it isn't my fault that I can't change to like it.
He is not a president who espouses my views and values.

-Gone for Memorial weekend

This is precisely why I was hesitant to post a list. You've ignored a central point that I made about the simple fact that anyone who can only find one or two examples of good from a leader in four years isn't trying.

In response to your criticisms of my list:
There are 501cs on both sides of the fence and they differ in that they are not purely political organizations. They are typically geared towards a specific cause first and the political support is an offshoot of that cause. Groups like Move On stand for what cause exactly that isn't motivated purely by politics?

In terms of the Prescription Drug Benefit your arguments hold no water in relation to my point. You assume the HMOs will do this when it's the antithesis of what they need to do to make money. How many Seniors will renew or sign up for that card if they followed your business model? Seniors with high drug costs are better off with the card than without it. These cards force prices down because the prices are listed along with the card description. The companies administering these cards will only be profitable if they can convince people to sign up and renew. They can only do that by offering the best prices on the drugs the seniors in their geographic areas use. I work in the pharmaceutical industry and not a single person has ever said "oh boy this is a boon for us".

Osama has been allowed to run around doing whatever he wanted? I presume one of his biggest wants is to attack the US again. Haven't seen that happen since 9/11 though. The only reason we know about Kim Jong Il's nuclear program is because Bush cut him off. Otherwise we'd still be in the dark and been paying him off for the last several years.

Despite the fact that I disliked Clinton's morality and many of his beliefs there were many things I thought he did a good job on. Since you're not willing to even try to find anything redeeming in Bush I won't bother to compile a list.

i havent' read more than a couple responses, so if something to this effect has been said already, sorry.

i'm liberal, but in the more moderate area. it really depends on the particular subject. anyways. i'm not "eager for the US to fail." well, i sort of am. let me explain. i think the direction the current administration has put us in is the wrong direction, that their policies are failing us, failing the american people. to make an analogy... the US is currently getting an A+ in raping little school girls and i would love to see us fail that. not a pretty analogy, but it pretty well sums up how i feel about what this administration has done to our country.

it seems to me (i'm just reading into things and making assumpitons though) that what you probably consider "liberals wanting the US to fail" is not that. it's that we think things are already going horribly astray and want things to change positively, and for that to happen bush needs to get out of office. things like body count and other things said (although i'm sure there are some on the fringes who have other motives for saying things) is to remember and keep people from forgetting what's going on, why, and what the results have been so far and that is why we need change.

my probably incomplete $.02, but that's enough for now.

John McCain yes! Now here is the guy that I wish was running the country for the past 4 years (I too was a big supporter of McCain in 2000) Unfortunatly we got stuck with a choice between two evils and I picked what I thought to be (and still believe to be) the lesser of these evils. (Its just too bad we are once again faced with a similar choice. Damn the two party system!)

As for the last part, what is there to find that is good? I disagree with everything, and I do mean everything, that Bush has done domestically (or should I say allowed Congress to do to us) and well you already know how I feel about his foreign policy. So let me TRY to find something good he has done. Well lets see, he choked on a pretzel once, that was good (but he actually did that fairly poorly). And he fell off his bike last week, that was good too (well it would have been if he hadn’t been wearing a helmet).

Back to protesting Bush’s actions at home and political infighting, well that’s politics, that’s how it works, that’s how the founders intended it to happen, and when it stops happening then we might as well be living in Saddam’s Iraq because that is what you get when nobody openly questions governmental leadership. Oh, and just let me point back to almost every war the US has ever engaged in, there had always (without exception) been those who questioned how the (then) president was handling the situation. Did it hurt us then? Maybe, but are we better off today for it? Defiantly.

I think you're confusing "wanting to fail" with "wanting to not be dragged into a war of questionable merit".

I think your war of questionable merit has been a long time coming and justified.

Which justification for war are we talking about this time...phantom WMDs or the suffering of the Iraqi people?

I'm no fan of brutal dictators, but Saddam's butchery was not the reason that was originally used to sell this boondoggle to the American public. We were told, over and over again, what an imminent threat Saddam was to our safety with his active nuclear program and tons of chemical weapons, although we haven't been able to find much evidence of said WMDs. We were told that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium and was involved with the 9-11 tragedy, neither of which has been proven in the slightest. All in all, Bush and Co. furiously spun bad intelligence to sell this invasion to a country already involved in another (more legitimate) war.

Now we are supposed to forget all of that misinformation and convince ourselves that we really went in there to liberate the people...yeah, that's it. Never mind the fact that Wolfowitz, Perle and company have been advocating the invasion if Iraq for use as a stable Middle East base of operations for the last decade....how could that have anything to do with our humanitarian crusade?

You say that this war has been a long time coming....perhaps the starting point of that "long time" was at this instant? If our relationships with Diem or Noriega were any indicator, we have a tendency to take down the thugs that we champion.

The Wolfowitz doctrine is a brilliant piece of foreign policy, which yes he has been advocating for a very long time. It would've been better if the UN took care of this mess a long time ago, but they didn't. I could care less about about some of the shaky allegations, a lot of other ones hold up. Besides Saddam was a brutal murderous asshat, he had it coming.

Always remember, all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

To the point of the post though is that it all comes down to Bush. You think the anti-American left would learn to never cut your nose to spite your face.

I highly doubt the UN would adopt a piece of foreign policy with a goal of taking the world for US interests...

I think your problem is summed up in what you said:

To the point of the post though is that it all comes down to Bush. You think the anti-American left would learn to never cut your nose to spite your face.

---

Simple fact is, that is not what the left wants, nor is it what they are advocating - yes there are those who do way on the left but on the same there are those on the right who want nothing more than to see all liberals killed as well.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) this is America and its their right to believe it so

And as to the original question....

Liberals aren't out to destroy the country - hell usually i'm against what many do. But I like to play devil's advocate and IMO thats what we need right now - I would say the same if Clinton were in office.

I believe that we are currently seeing the Wolfowitz doctrine in action and, in my opinion, it's brilliance has yet to be confirmed.

I brought up the Wolfowitz doctrine to illustrate how the administration's claims of humanitarianist motives in Iraq are just a smoke screen for a deeper strategic motive, albeit a fundamentally flawed one. Not to mention that the administration's first excuse for invasion was the "threat" of Iraq, not concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people. Couple this with Bush's history of dismissing Clinton's "nation-building" humanitarian missions in Kosovo , Somalia and Haiti, as well as his party's legacy of actively supporting some of the worst butchers on the planet (the Democrats do this, too) and it becomes hard to disregard the disingenuosness. I am continuously astounded by how many Americans seem to easily dismiss this chameleon-like shifting of motives . Personally, I consider starting a war under false pretenses as one of the most disgraceful actions that a leader can visit upon his nation.

One tangential point: when did the anti-war left become the "anti-American" left? America is a nation founded on protest and is big enough for a multiplicity of opinions. Vigorous debate is a cornerstone of any democracy. Accusing the opposition of a lack of patriotism implies a misunderstanding of just what America is supposed to be about. If I'm concerned with the present direction of a country's progress, isn't it my patriotic duty to right the course? Not everyone feels that destroying a country's infrastructure, divvying up it's natural resources to a select few and building airbases there is the most effective way of helping it's people (or engendering good will in the Middle East).

I find the allegations of acquiescence in the face of evil a little insulting. I've been involved with many campaigns against repressive governments, such as Burma, Indonesia and, yes, Iraq during the sanction years, and the support for these efforts by Republicans was always minimal. In fact, most human rights organizations and campaigns seem to be labeled as leftist, bleeding-heart whining by many right-wing pundits. I know that not all conservatives feel this way, but you cannot deny that this sentiment exists in mainstream American conservative thought. When you question someones patriotism, you shouldn't crudely co-opt a piece of their ideology.

Edit: corrected grammar error

Re: Why Are Liberals So Eager for the US to Fail?
 

Winning the war on terror? And how exactly do you propose to do that? This is a war that will never end and is utterly impossible to win - for either side. My main criticism of Bush has always been his inability to see that. He stumbles along with his cowboy hat cocked to one side while clicking his spurs, without the slightest realisation (or care) that he has endangered all Westerners the world over for the rest of their lives. Thanks for that George. You go off and enjoy your lifetime of secret service protection at the taxpayers' expense while I stress about whether I'll come back from the supermarket alive or not.

Quote:

Our differences should end at our nation's borders. You may not like Bush, but at least recognize the good we're doing in Iraq and get behind our military. War is hell enough on its own. The last thing our troops need to hear is a bunch of hateful rhetoric from the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy dooming them to failure.

I'm sorry, but what do you mean, "the good we're doing in Iraq?" I fail to see any good coming from any of this. Not that I do not support the military. My cousin served in both Afghanistan and Iraq and I prayed for his safe home-coming every day of his duty. But I hate Bush for sending him and the thousands of others over there, directly in harm's way to satisfy his own personal agenda.

if 50% of the population agree with him, then it's not really his own personal agenda now is it?

Huh? So ideas with any popular support can't be part of someones agenda? I don't understand what you mean by that.

Firstly, what cthulu23 said.

Secondly, 50% of the people agreed with his STATED reason for the invasion. What about the reality?

Have you seen his approval ratings lately?

Well, it could be, or it couldn't be. Whether others agree with a person (or not) doesn't have any bearing on whether the person is doing for their own personal agenda or for the good of mankind.

Don't make me pull out my philosophy books!

If 50% of the population don't agree with him....he really isnt listening very well is he?

By the way...your 50% came from a poll, most people of reasonable intellect understand that the wording of a poll is set to give the prefered answer a high rating.

Never trust the polls....even if they do show 'ol GW with the lowest rating since he took office (46% approval) and an even lower stat for his handling of the war in Iraq (37%).

NY Times 05/28/04

so are you saying that we'd be better off if bush didn't do a damn thing about 9/11? Are you saying that we are in fact worse off because bush did do something about it? I agree with you that the war on terror can never truly be won, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought. Seriously...do you think 9/11 was their one shot for the century and since they got that one off they're done?? I really don't see how the war on terrorism has endangered your, or anyone elses (excluding the army, etc.) life.

By the way, maybe the next time you go to the supermarket you can pick up john mccain's book "Why Courage Matters"...then maybe you won't worry for your life coming back home.

It's seriously misplaced to blame the President for our being a terror target. It's as misplaced as putting the cart before the horse.

In any event, those who did not respond to the significant topic and instead, decided to turn this thread into another opportunity to bash the President, only reveal their inability to come to terms with the topic's pointed question.

Why do you only equate "doing a damn thing" with invading other countries? There are plenty of other things he could've done that would actually have made a difference. Invading Iraq under false pretences was not one of them.

Anti-American sentiment and terrorism didn't start with 9/11. Maybe Bush had better look at the reasons behind the attacks. Then he might have a better idea as to how to combat the problem.

You don't see how this supposed "war on terror" has endangered people's lives? Take a look at what happened in Khobar yesterday and tell me that again. Look at Spain, at Bali, at Riyadh, Yanbu and Jeddah. His reckless invasion of Iraq has made the citizens of every country he dragged into this sorry mess a target.

ARTelevision, why is it misplaced to blame the president for making the West a terror target? It's his misguided foreign policy and constant meddling in the internal affairs of others that has led to this. He is completely and absolutely responsible for it.

this:

and this:

just sadden and demoralize me. I read a fair amount of Politics here, and I see very little that "smacks of eager anticipation for failure". I see little "gleeful counting of US deaths".

The fact that some see this as a "significant topic" is silly. It's the worst possible spin on a lot of well meaning tfpers posting good questions. It's the evening news version of reality:
"what's the most sensationalistic way we could spin this story, forget about balance". It is all about ratings after all, isn't it?

I see a striking resemblance to threads on the Politics Board at the start of the war. There were some tfpers questioning the existence of WMD, many asking questions about the aftermath of war, and many expressing displeasure about the process. Those posters (including me) were shouted down as unpatriotic and not supporting the troops.

Having largely been ignored, and proven right in the last 6 months, the 'unpatriotic' issue is still on the table. Only now it's:

I see no difference between then and now in the rhetoric. Wish I had a solution...






And yes, there is some trolling on this board. But the tone of the original post isn't picking on the minority of trolls. The word "every" is my tip off about that...