The Left's Attempted Monopoly on "good"

[kuzadd]

But Bonam wrote this quote after you wrote your initial post on humanitarian war!

I am well aware of that, and your point is ?

[Bonam]

But, apparently you cannot or chose not to read how I pointed out the Bush regime sold the attack on Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.

The attack was launched because the US believed that Iraq had WMDs and thus posed a significant threat. It was not launched for humanitarian reasons. If the reasons were humanitarian, we'd be invading just about every country in Africa.

" Trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements in a society after you have toppled its regime and replaced it with a presumably "freer" one"

Still failing to quote or apparently read the whole sentence, let alone the whole post. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.

No one who is aware of the reality of why wars are waged would even say that in any serious way, knowing full well it is pure bullshit.

Of course not, that's why it's just the crap that the government uses to sell the idea to leftists who have no idea of reality. Meanwhile the real reasons are to ensure the national interest and security, as I already stated.

Like I said, war for humanitarian reasons, seems to be swallowed up by those willingly on the right and is about the strangest form of intervention I have ever seen.

Those on the right understand that war is fought to ensure one's security and national interest. The humanitarian crap is manufactured specifically for the left, as that is what appeals to them.

[kuzadd]

and still Bonam ignores what is inconvenient, the attack on Iraq was dubbed "operation Iraqi freedom" and was supported broadly by those who associate with the right.

Who wanted to "free" Iraqis.

Thusly humanitarian warfare.

[M.Dancer]

and still Bonam ignores what is inconvenient, the attack on Iraq was dubbed "operation Iraqi freedom" and was supported broadly by those who associate with the right.

Who wanted to "free" Iraqis.

Thusly humanitarian warfare.

You are 100% correct.

Provided you ignore the facts.

According to then-President of the United States George W. Bush and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of that time; Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[16] According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

And the original name was operation iraqi liberation

[bush_cheney2004]

and still Bonam ignores what is inconvenient, the attack on Iraq was dubbed "operation Iraqi freedom" and was supported broadly by those who associate with the right.

Who wanted to "free" Iraqis.

Thusly humanitarian warfare.

Well...gee..that was good enough to bomb the crap out of Serbia for "ethnic cleansing" (Kosovo).

Don't Iraqis deserve the same amount of heavy metal ?

Why would you discriminate against Iraqis?

[kuzadd]

Well...gee..that was good enough to bomb the crap out of Serbia for "ethnic cleansing" (Kosovo).

Don't Iraqis deserve the same amount of heavy metal ?

Why would you discriminate against Iraqis?

thanks for making my point, more war for humanitarian reasons.

Oh but that was Clinton's gig.

An interesting point, so suckers on both sides of the right vs left buy into the war for humanitarian reasons depending on wether there is a perceived right or perceived left leader in charge.

Yah, I gotta agree with that, suckers all around!

[bush_cheney2004]

....An interesting point, so suckers on both sides of the right vs left buy into the war for humanitarian reasons depending on wether there is a perceived right or perceived left leader in charge.

So called "humanitarian reasons" (e.g. human rights) have always been part of the sales job and thin veneer for other, more direct objectives. Canada has elevated this practice to an art form with such holy scripture as the "Responsibility to Protect", and Ignatieff gets to sell more books.

[benny]

I am well aware of that, and your point is ?

Answer to Bonam's question: "where you got such ideas"?

[kuzadd]

Answer to Bonam's question: "where you got such ideas"?

suggestion:

reread the posts

[Pliny]

Pliny,

Ok, I'll accept the term tinkering, as long as we agree that your assertion that "a benefit given by government to one special interest is never ceded" is false.

Michael, I am glad that you understand that a mix of government is a good thing. We need to encourage capitalism to a degree and not overtax the economy while having social programs that benefit the needy in society would probably summarize your viewpoint.

I would like to point out that the left has no such understanding of a limit on government. The Right makes the same mistakes as the left in demanding it's governments policies and plans be implemented but some on the right are centrists, such as yourself, delineating the boundaries of government intervention in society. The right does not generally rescind what benefits the left has implemented in it's plans and policies and the left does not rescind the benefits won by the policies of the right. They both do not wish to alienate voters. I'm speaking in general terms of course. The result is a larger government over time. This is the progression of socialism, and socialism is not exclusively a problem of the left, the right has it's list of wishes for public largesse as well. And that is the problem - not setting a limit on the intervention of governemnt in society.

Your concept of government is that it is reasonable and logical. My concept is that it is the sole legal agency of force in society and the larger it is the less reasonable and logical it becomes and the more forceful it becomes.

I really want to cut the petty little points you bring up like the baby bonus as a benefit is gone and I that I have to admit I am wrong. Well, the baby bonus is gone but child care subsidies and maternity leave have replaced them. Benefits may morph into other programs but they are never totally lost. You can use the American highest tax bracket as an argument that taxes have dropped since Eisenhower and that little fact is true. The point is that the broad general direction of government is that of growth in both cost and mandate, in both the US and in Canada. If that is impossible to see then I wish you well and no further discussion will be fruitful.

Sorry, but you're just sloganeering here. As I pointed out, nationalization was never a policy of mainstream parties until the recent troubles and the declining tax rate is more proof of your scare bating.

"Nationalization never was a policy of mainstream parties until recently." Well that's very predictable then isn't it. It's as I have said progressive socialism.

The declining tax rate? Very disarming. We have nothing to fear then.

Again, these are just more slogans. People also have voted (over and over again actually) for politicians who have lowered taxes. Healthcare has been neglected, even by people who claim to defend it such as McGuinty.

Healthcare has been neglected? If by neglect you mean it is underfunded then that is a very myopic viewpoint. I fail to see how it is neglected otherwise as it is a constant concern and it's budget is increased yearly. cuts usually refer to cuts in the yearly increase and never are cuts.

Who argues that people are greedy ? I don't remember that being argued, even here on MLW.

Oh come on! you have never seen the term greedy capitalists or profit seeking corporations on this forum?

Most people are compassionate and caring, but volunteer-only social programs didn't work in the 19th century and don't work today.

Oh! Oh! Better shut down the Salvation Army then. Government didn't fair any better in the twentieth century. It's an utter failure from the war on poverty to the treatment of our natives.

He's not even raising them to Reagan era levels, though is he ?

Take a real good look at how he plans on raising taxes. Read the below quote.

While not wanting to be identified as the great tax assessor and, hence, promising to cut taxes for most citizens, Obama is actively seeking ways to increase taxes for a host of Americans. Imposition of a national sales tax is a very live option sitting atop the Obama Administration's policy table. The Administration is also presently considering raising taxes on health care expenditures by taxing employer-provided health care benefits and by decreasing the deductibility of medical expenses. It wants to raise taxes on cigarettes, adult beverages, and sugar-sweetened elixirs such as soda pop, fruit juices, iced teas, and sweetened coffee drinks. Obama has proposed raising corporate taxes by $190 billion over the next ten years. He wants to place heavier taxes on commodities and option traders. Obama even is favorably considering increasing taxes on intangible drilling, an important technique in oil and gas exploration. While taxing these specific groups may be politically doable, it cannot be good for capital accumulation and economic recovery.

Again - baby bonus is gone, EI is cut back... face the facts. You even said it yourself - we're "tinkering", that is fine-tuning, that is not adding programs... but cutting back somewhat...

You mean government is noticeably smaller and less interventionist than the fifties and sixties?

Edited July 9, 2009 by Pliny

[benny]

suggestion:

reread the posts

Done.