Timebuilder said:
Well, let's see. Among other things I read a book, written by Churchill. It's title is Liberalism and the Social Problem which, according to him, outlines his political philosophy. You might read it.
No, I'm not suggesting what Churchill would or would not support. History does that far better than I could. I am suggesting that you don't seem to know very much about Churchill. I'm further suggesting that your thoughtless branding of people into what you define as elitist liberals dislplays a remarkable lack of intellectual depth on your part.
The relevance of whether one is labeled as a conservative or a liberal is of little consequence. Churchill's politics appears to confirm that.
If anything Churchill was far more a "nationalist" Briton, than a conservative or a liberal. Whatever was seen, by him, to be in the best interest of the British Empire is what Churchill did regardless of labels. That this included a great many reforms that you might label as socialist or secular-humanist, speaks volumes. That is what made Churchill the great man that he was.
That statement is a perfect demonstration of the thoughtless rhetoric that appears to infest the line of thinking to which you subscribe. If you choose to reply to me you can spare that nonsense, it is meaningless hype designed to antagonize and will get nowhere. If you have something to say, which you often do, then say it. Otherwise, save that stuff for the Rush Limbaugh listeners group. It is wasted on people that have the ability to think for themselves, and yes, that includes me.
No, that's not why they are number one. They are number one for the same reason that songs by people like Eminem and "P" Daddy pollute the airwaves and channels like MTV can thrive. The audience is intellectually challenged and that provides an opportunity to shower them with buzz words and hyperbole on subjects about which they know next to nothing. It is not news, it is marketing spin. It fools many and caters mainly to those whose lack of knowledge does not equip them to challenge the bullsh!t. Fortunately there are still enough people in our country who do not believe everything that they see on TV. Hopefully you are still among them.
Popularity and truth are not synonyms. You evidently see the Fox Network as the place where spin ends. I see it as the place where spin begins. You are of course entitled to your opinions and I realize that if you had your way, people like me might no longer be entitled to ours.
The political behavior of the current administration does have similarities to the politics of Churchill. Not in its substance, but in its opportunistic manipulation of the body politic. Churchill was also a political opportunist who switched from one party to another, regardless of its philosophy, that he might ensure his election to office and retain the power to influence his country's government. The contrast lies not it whether he called himself a "conservative" or a "liberal" as dictated by convenience, but in what he did.
Churchill was a great statesman, an itellectual giant, and a prolific writer (of things worth reading). The man in the White House today is none of those things. He has difficulty with the language, possesses no intellect worth mentioning, can't write, probably has difficulty reading, and could never be confused with a statesman. The similarities begin and end in political opportunism. Churchill was a leader, Bush is but a tool of those behind the scenes.
The issue of our country's invasion and occupation of Iraq however, leaves little doubt that we have learned much from the British and seek to emulate their imperial exploits of the past.
I have no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and the world is better off without him, but that begs the question of whether we should or should not have invaded and occupied his country. Perhaps both the invasion and occupation are in the best long term interests of the United States, however there is little doubt that the administration has deliberately misled the American people as to the true reasons for this war.
A serious study of where these policy ideas (now being carried out by the Bush administration) originated can and should be made. The are not new, and their purpose is not really as "secret" as might first appear.
Suffice to say, this war has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, has nothing to do with "liberating" the people of Iraq, and has nothing to do with our manufactured "outrage" over Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his neighbors or his own people.
The fact is that Saddam learned the effective use of chemical weapons against dissidents from none other than the British, who were the first to use such weapons against the Iraqi people and the Kurds. The British killed thousands of Iraqis who rebelled against their occupation and used poisoned gas in the process, indiscriminately against civilians, women and children.
What is ironic about this is that the principal advocate of the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqis was none other than Winston Churchill who, at the time, was Minister of War and Air.
Churchill suggested that chemical weapons should be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." He added "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" in Iraq. Mr. Churchill's recommendation was carried out by the Royal Air Force. The year was 1923-24.
It is interesting that we call Saddam Hussein a devil for deploying chemical weapons against his own people, but we regard Sir Winston as the most important leader of the twentieth century. To the victor goes the spoils.
What we are doing in Iraq today is quite similar to what the British did in Iraq after the first World War, except that we have not used chemical weapons. The British essentially created what is now called Iraq. They provided Iraq with a "constitution" just as we are now pretending to do. They established what they called a "democracy" with a political structure similar to their own (a Monarchy with a Parliment) and made it their puppet, and they did it all without the consent of the people that live there. We are currently doing pretty much the same thing.
Was there a similarity in the reasons for which the British did it and the reasons for which we are doing it? I think there is. The British did not have available to them the cover of alleged WMD possed by Iraq. They did it anyway. We fabricated the WMD claims because our government is unwilling to reveal the true reasons for its military activity in the Middle East to the general population. Like the FOX Network, it has developed a clever marketing scheme to convince the people and has effectively exploited the terrorist horror of 9/11 as part of its "cover".
Is this a war for freedom? No it is not. It is a war for empire and a desire to secure America's world power. More simply put, the nation that contols the energy resources of the Middle East, controls the world, both directly and indirectly. That is why we have siezed the opportunity to invade Iraq.
Will the Iraqi's and other peoples of the region come to experience more freedom as a consequence of what we are doing? Yes, they probably will if we succeed in imposing our political system on them. Is that better than what they had? Undoubtedly it is. Helping them to achieve it on their own, including military assistance if necessary is a good thing. However, pretending that we have invaded their country with the primary objective of liberating them is hogwash. Their liberation was of no consequence in the decision making process.
This may well be vital to our long term interests. I don't have enough information to decide that. However, there is little doubt that our government has lied to the people of this country. I don't like that. The end does not justify the means.
This thread is about the alleged paradox of pilots being Republicans. Why we vote the way we do is of course a matter for personal decision, but in my opinion it should be based on far more than liberal/conservative cliches and policies as narrow as which political party will benefit more or less our individual jobs. The future of the Repulic is far too important for such a shallow perspective, in my not so humble opinion.
As an aside, today the Library of Congress opens an exhibit of Sir Winston Churchill's papers and effects. If you have a chance I encourage you to visit it.
I just listened to the President give a speech at the openening ceremony. It was a good speech and I think his writers did well. However, they did not miss an effort to attempt to link Mr. Bush himself to the leadership qualities of Churchill.
To paraphrase a good Republican debater, Bush is no Churchill.
