[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:22:08 -0800

Does anyone believe what Omar implies, namely that Conservatives are engaged
in hypocrisy for supporting Saddam in the 80s and criticizing the Liberals
for supporting him in the 00s?  Well, yes, some people do believe that --
those who hate America and credit it with the diabolical pursuit of evil --
which is the real "complete nonsense."

 

I won't try to guess what Omar and those who hate America should know, but
for the rest, and this is something discussed previously, we were once upon
a time engaged in a Cold War and the operative Foreign Policy that we and
our enemy both engaged in was realpolitik.  We would support those who sided
with the West and oppose those who did not.  It was believed that Communism
represented the "diabolical pursuit of evil" and the tried and true European
realpolik seemed the way to bulk up our side and detract from theirs.
Presidents whether Democratic or Republican all practiced realpolitik during
the Cold War.  It wasn't a uniquely "conservative" characteristic.
Information exists describing the thought processes that led up to
supporting Iraq against Iran during their war.  I've read about this period.
It was decided at the time that it was safer to support a "thug" than a
religious fanatic bent upon converting the Middle East to his form of
fanaticism.  You will find no Conservative at that time suggesting that Iraq
was better off with Saddam than without him.  

 

After the Cold War ended, a number of people on the American Conservative
side (not so much, interestingly, on the Liberal side) thought we should
abandon realpolitik and operate out of principle.  We should advocate
American principles around the world and not engage in realpolik any longer.
These New Conservatives had their name shortened to NeoCon.  

 

Perhaps Brian is more of a NeoCon than I am because I have read Fukuyama's
repudiation of the particular Conservative position he helped create.  Also,
even if it is good to advocate Liberal Democracy around the world I don't
see how we can make much headway when a significant element in government
sides with our enemy.  Yes, there are Liberals who repudiate this Liberal
hypocrisy (Paul Berman, for example, in Terror and Liberalism), but the
Leftists don't seem to care and make such anti-Liberal (at least they used
to be anti-Liberal) statements as those Brian mentions.  

 

Lawrence

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:36 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq

 

 

--- Brian <cabrian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

In this

> debate on what to  

> do in Iraq the Left is preoccupied with this idea

> that America is at  

> fault and is creating terrorism instead of fighting

> against it.   

> Commentators from Hans Blix to Kofi Annan to Bill

> Maher suggest that  

> Iraq would be better off today with Saddam Hussein

> in power.  That is  

> unthinkable to a conservative and even one who

> disagrees with the war  

> and the way it has been handled.  

 

*This is complete nonsense. It was the conservatives

not "the Left" that supported Saddam Hussein in the

1980s, as well as Marcos, Pinoche and many other

useful dictators.

 

O.K.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________
________

Cheap talk?

Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

http://voice.yahoo.com

------------------------------------------------------------------

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: