I agree with Chait in that Lieberman’s defense is some sort of weird defense against the Nutroots. Of course, that is rather silly as the Nutroots are gaining in spending power and can very easily be courted by actually having a spine. I think that is the definition of “progressive” in today’s partisan love-fest. Being “independent from the liberal establishment” has been equated with “progressive”. The people that the nutroots tend to support are those that break away from current liberal trends and are neo-liberal (can I coin that term or has it been used?) in that they actually talk like liberals who actually had spines.

I think the spreading of “democracy” and freedom is necessary to some extent, but it can be done without invading nations. The best freedom and most enduring freedom is freedom that is demanded by the people living in a country, not people invading the country. How did we obtain our freedom and “democracy”? This is what I mean by “lead by example”. Make the country the best it can be, lead well, don’t meddle in others affairs and show the world how it can be. We do a great job of this most of the time and I think that, more than anything, is why freedom and “democracy” is spreading. And yes, this paragraph means that if civil war breaks out in Iraq, I don’t necessarily think that is a “bad” thing for the formation of their government, but it is definitely bad for us as we are still there. I think civil strife is necessary for progress to occur in any nation. Hopefully it can occur in Iraq without a full-fledged civil war occurring, but, like I said, I don’t think that would necessarily say anything about where they will end up.

The only reason the Carter presidency “failed” is because the economy sucked and that was no fault of his. The global marketplace whipped our asses in the 70s and the early 80s. Japan worked us over. I still don’t quite know what to make of the Carter presidency. There was so much wrong with the economy in the 70s to make heads or tails of what Carter actually did to affect it.

Not even when fighting the Nazis? or the Islamafascists today?

If your point is that war is ugly, then I agree, but your plans for the peace when it comes (not how to attain the peace, which the Administration has botched in Iraq, but the kind of society you intend to build) can definitely give you the moral high ground. America seeks, and has sought throughout the 20th century, to spread democracy and freedom. It has, at times, used less than reputable methods to acheive this end, but its goal has always been more admirable than those of its enemies: the Nazis who sought to slaughter all those inferior, the Soviets and Maoists with their purges of all dissenting voices, and today, the Muslim fanatics who seek to slaughter the infidels wholesale. And the treatment of the enemies during a war also gives moral high ground. We gave Moussoui (sp?) a trial. It might not have been the fairest in the world — but then again, he isn’t going to be executed — but it is more than Al Qaeda gives to the Westerners it captures.

“Do unto others. The golden rule. No country has ever tried this.”

Jimmy Carter kind of did — the “Good Neighbor Policy,” I believe it was called. It’s one of the reasons his presidency was such a failure. What’s worse: being called a belligerent country while standing up for the weak and helpless — like the French, the Koreans, the Poles, the Slovaks, the Hungarians, the Kurds, the Iraqi Shia, the Iranian people — against those who are stronger, or laying back and letting others be slaughtered just so that we as Americans can claim to be peaceful?

I don’t care much for Biden. But, then again, I don’t care much for most politicians. I did happen to agree with Biden’s overall point though. We should act as humanely as we can when fighting the war of the president’s choosing.

I don’t necessarily agree with your sentiment regarding people acting like monsters and animals. That is a long discussion though that I don’t have time for today. My position in a nutshell: Vengeance is poor public policy. There is no high moral ground when fighting a war. My father, too, also seems content to go over there and try to kill them all, but I just don’t think that is good policy. We need to lead by example. Do unto others. The golden rule. No country has ever tried this. Talk about high moral ground we could have taken. Oh well. War is much more satisfying.

That aside, mikebdot, I concur. It was ridiculous when Biden was lecturing (I don’t even remember who was on the receiving end of it) about how we should follow the Geneva Convention so that his son wouldn’t be tortured by Al Qaeda if he were captured.

Nothing the US can do will ever cause these people not to act like the monsters and animals that they are (short of killing them, of course), but we shouldn’t bring ourselves to their level if for no other reason than to go up even further on the moral high ground we already occupy.

Also, shout out to Aaron, I graduated from RHIT in ’02.