education, one step at a time part two

[jianantonic]

Oil. Your beloved president is ruining the environment and foreign relations all at once to keep his family business profitable. Why do we have tensions with the middle east? If you think it's because of their bad government that we have a mission to correct, think again. American tax dollars are sent to Israel in the form of weapons to suppress the Palestinians in brutally violent ways. Example, there is a famous picture available on the web, I'm sure, of a Palestinian nationalist throwing a rock at an advancing Israeli tank, with an American flag on it. No, I don't approve of Palestinian violence, but I understand why they're upset. Americans, in recent history ie: your lifetime, used to support Saddam Hussein. Americans have supported a great deal of mass genocide in recent history, as a matter of fact. All of this was behind the leadership of a Republican president and/or Congress. The US is involved in the middle east over OIL INTERESTS. Dick Cheney's former company (for which he still maintains a good chunk of stock options) was recently granted a monopoly on Iraqi oil. This oil, however, isn't even necessary anymore! Electric cars are ready! It will cost you no more than it costs for a gas-powered car to purchase a brand new electric car within the next five years...if development is budgeted...which, with Bush in office, the oil tycoon, it is not. If Gore had been elected (wait, he was), if Gore had ascended to the Presidency, we would not have the oil crisis we have now, because Gore was an environmentalist. Without the oil crisis which perpetuates our involvement in the middle east affairs, we would not be pissing off middle eastern radicals who see US involvement there as a threat to their ways(rightfully so, because it is). Now, if all these people had not been pissed off by Bush's plan for the middle east, would the world trade towers still be standing? Would a soldier a day be dying in Iraq even now in this supposed "peace?" My answer is, doubtful. Gore's plan of action was to withdraw American interests from OPEC, from the middle east, and focus on environmentally safer and more diplomatic means of combating the energy crisis. Gore did not have a family oil business at stake. And I'd like to ask, if America's objective was to liberate the Iraqis because of the moral necessity, why then, was the attack called "operation shock and awe?" That just sounds cocky, to me.
I don't mean to offend you with what I've said. I just think that it's time you opened your own eyes before insulting democrats as you have. I am from your area, educated in the same system, and I'm willing to bet my family is of the same social status as yours. I have no idea who you are, though, so I will avoid making claims about you. These were some of the things that I had to awaken to back when I was in eleventh grade, thinking I was a Republican, too. And I realized that not only am I left wing as they come, I don't know why any educated person with sympathy for mankind would be a Republican. Thanks for reading.
~Meg
Vice President, Bridgewater College Young Democrats
Senior History Major, Bridgewater College
Teacher of your future children...unless you take a private school grant.


That's it. I feel so good having written that, even though I doubt that girl will even read it all. I hope she does, though, because it's that very argument that six years ago made me come to my senses (thank goodness before i was old enough to begin voting)

Comments

[queerintheburg.livejournal.com]

Well said girlfriend!!! :-)

[qparom.livejournal.com]

I agree with pretty much everything you said; however:

Close minded and liberal is very definitely not an oxymoron. I know so many people who, while they might be hardcore welfare advocates, pro gay-marriage, even Communist (etc), refuse to hear opinions different from their own on many issues. I believe that you need to hear all sides of a controversy in order to make a good evaluation, but many people, Democrats included, refuse to listen to counterpoints.

It is this stuff that drives me nuts. I really have found that, in general, a moderate viewpoint works best, at least for me.

I can't really concentrate on what I'm writing since my mom won't stop talking so loudly on the phone, but seriously, think - I'm not saying you do this, but think about how many people you know immediately change the channel whenever Bush comes on proposing a tax cut - That is close-mindedness.

- Camm, moderate liberal

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

I have never changed the channel on Bush just because I hate him, and no good Democrat would, either. So far, though, everything I've ever heard him say has made me feel more justified in my disagreements with him. To me, open-mindedness is a prerequisite for being liberal, but I think I define liberal a lot differently than many moderates, maybe. I can't believe I didn't mention gay rights! I'll have to write something about that later. *wink*

[cptnorr.livejournal.com]

how do you define liberal, then?

Re:

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

Liberal is openness to differences. It embraces socialist policies, such as graduated income taxes, welfare, and nationalized medicare. Most of all, to be liberal means to accept other people's differences. By this I mean personality and lifestyle, not their desires to kill and be violent.

Liberal v. Democrat

[(Anonymous)]

I think its important to make a distinction between "Liberal" and "Democrat." While Democrats, traditionally, have been more liberal than their Republican brethren. If you look to the Democratic party as it exists today to embody the ideals you have just laid out you will be quite disappointed. The two party system currently in place has done a wonderful job of mitigating any meaningful difference that may have once existed between them.

To their credit, however, when a substantive difference does arise (such as over the latest round of tax cuts) I tend to fall on the Democratic side.

A few things...

[(Anonymous)]

First, Haliburton (Cheney's former company) does not have a "monopoly on Iraqi oil." Haliburton manufactures and maintains well equipment; it does not sell the oil.

Also, Cheney does not retain Haliburton stock options. He (and all other officers of the executive branch) are required to divest. Admittedly, he did so belatedly.

"Now, if all these people had not been pissed off by Bush's plan for the middle east, would the world trade towers still be standing?" Certainly they would not be. The attack was in the works long before Bush even took office. In fact, it was not clear he had a plan for *anything* until after the attack. I'm as anti-Bush as the next guy, but lets not blame him for everything.

Nothing was ever called "operation shock and awe." It was a term thrown out by a pentagon source to CNN (albeit, in a bit too cavalier a fashion for my taste) which stuck in the media. the operation was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." This is clearly bullshit, but at least they tried :)

wtc

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

Actually, the intelligence officers, who were a little too late to the punch, say that the WTC attacks had been in the making for about a year (which would take us right back around election time 2000). Gore's plans were clear (this is one of few points on which Gore was clear about anything) that he intended to undergo a major scaleback of oil interests across the globe, particularly in the Middle East. He was an environmental guy. Instead, Bush made it equally clear that he was all for tearing up national parks and forests for a little extra profit. Remember, this profit-monger entered office with a few trillion bucks in budget surplus. Right now, the national deficit grows by 6 billion dollars a day, and we're pretty far (though I don't know the exact numbers to say) in debt again. I'll bet there are some Americans who could use that 6 billion dollars a day, but Bush doesn't really put American interests first. That's a tangent. So would the WTC attack have been a go if Bush hadn't come into office? I maintain a resounding maybe. Most of the anger over there arises from American pushiness in the Middle East, particularly troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, which are about to be withdrawn and moved into Iraq, because the Bush administration does recognize the huge annoyance/insult to Islam these troops are. However, moving them to another location to continue the same "peacekeeping" attrocities is not going to be as beneficial as some in the administration would like you to think.
As for Cheney, ever heard of kickbacks? It's highly common in Washington (across political lines) and it's hard to track and harder to convict. He may not have stock options, but I don't doubt that he maintains interests within the company. Maybe that's a shallow and judgmental thing for me to think about the Dick, but that's the way I feel about him.

Re: wtc

[(Anonymous)]

You are mistaking my taking issue with your specific facts with disagreeing with your position. Cheney not getting kickbacks? An absurd proposition. But the fact remains that he does not have stock options. Your being mistaken on this does not invalidate your position, but it does weaken your credibility.

Secondly, it's folly to suspect that Bush is to blame for terrorist operations. True, his hard-line stance certainly aggravates many in the world community, but it's not like no one else has done so. Tensions have long existed between America and Middle Eastern countries as a result of our interventions; the Iran hostage crisis (during Carter's term), for example (notably, also, the hostages were released around the time of Reagan's -- a Republican -- inauguration). Likewise, terrorism did not start the minute Bush was elected (he was, by the way). Al Qaeda wasn't started to combat Bush. It's goal is to wage jihad against the enemies of Islam, specifically to get the United States out of Saudi Arabia and to end our support of Israel. If you have a problem with our involvement, you have a problem with a lot of Americans, not just Bush (don't mistake me, I want us out of there too). You also underestimate how far the removal of troops from Saudi Arabia will go toward cooling some tensions. While their presence anywhere in the region is to be scorned, one can't deny that the removal of US troops from that country is a cornerstone of Al Qaeda's mission; thus, we may hope that their withdrawal will serve as some form of appeasement. It is also worth noting that they will be permanently stationed at Camp Doha (or thereabouts), Qatar, not in Iraq.

The point is this: terrorists don't care which party is in power, or even which president.

I'm not debating your position; I don't like Bush's policies at home or abroad. But your facts are flawed, and they make for a leaky argument.

Re: wtc

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that terrorists would prefer a democrat over a republican, but I am saying that Gore's policies would have been favorable over Bush's and I don't believe that the US would be so involved in the Middle East if not for Bush's policies, which tend to be more in line with the conservatives of the US (and now a lot of Democrats, too, because it would be political suicide to disagree with Bush about the terrorist problem).
Your use of jihad is improper. The Qu'ran explicitly forbids violence as a means of promoting Islam. The Qu'ran also makes it clear that the idea of jihad is not war in the sense of violence and weapons, but rather a moral struggle, which is mostly internal. Your run of the mill Muslim would say that jihad is the internal struggle to follow the way of Allah. Al Qaeda and other political Islamicists (which have gone quite astray from the Qu'ran, which is the center and focus of Islam altogether), in conjunction with western media who love to label Islam as a violent religion/culture/political movement have made it difficult for Americans to make a necessary distinction. I haven't been very clear in my response here...I'm in a hurry to get to a wedding, but I will write more. Peace.

Re: wtc

[(Anonymous)]

I fully agree with your definition of Jihad. The point is not that I think Jihad is to be armed conflict, but that Al Qaeda does.

Re: wtc

[(Anonymous)]

Its worth noting that the administration actually takes great pains in convincing the public that its withdrawal from Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the easing of tensions in response to terrorism. They maintain (perhaps truthfully) that the "pacification" of Iraq makes their presence of less importance. Whether this omission is characteristic simplemindedness or an intentional PR move on the administration's part is an open question.