Why are there so many mindless Morrissey Fans? You f***ing retard: SADDAM WAS THE FASCIST
> But anyway, wtf is with all the Pro-War right wingers ....
> I mean, Moz seems to be about as opposite of 'Conservative'
I'm not a right winger, and the liberation of Iraq is certainly NOT a "conservative" policy. It may be a lot of things, but "conservative" it sure as f***ing hell ain't!
As far as "Reich Wing," fascists have a lot in common with socialists, not with libertarians like me. I'm proudly the polar opposite of all totalitarianisms. To me, both communism and fascism are variants of socialism. Have you read Mussolini speeches? He often sounded like leftists of today.
I recommend the book The Road To Serfdom by F. A. Hayek. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226320618/qid=1035342497/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7643895-1761641?v=glance
You might also try In Defence Of Global Capitalism by Johan Norberg.
http://www.globalcapitalism.st/
As far as the war, I recommend Terror & Liberalism by Paul Berman for a liberal's reasons for supporting the "War on ISlamic-Fascism"/"War on Terror" (there's a bit tacked on about IRaq, but not much). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393057755/qid=1051706259/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/002-7643895-1761641
And have you see what has been labelled the "Red-Brown" alliance?
That's the intermingling of extreme leftists and neo-nazis in the anti-war movement. Brown referring to brown shirts. Oh yeah, we gotta brush all that anti-semitism under the rug. They only keep mentioning every JEWISH name they can find associated with the Bush administration because they love jews!
They espeically love to go after Paul Wolfowitz! Not because they know anything about him, but because, like American fascist Patrick Buchanan, they think he's some zionist conspirator!
But wait, Wolfowtiz began as a Democrat, under Carter, but then felt the Democratic Party abandoned the internationalism of Harry Truman, Kennedy and Jackson. In 1985 he got the USA to distance itself from Ferdinand Marcos.
"I actually thought it probably was the high point of my career," Wolfowitz said.
And on Iraq, somehow he's being attacked because he's been RIGHT for so long.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43339-2003Apr6¬Found=true
>>>>
Wolfowitz's preoccupation -- some say obsession -- with Saddam Hussein goes back to his first stint at the Pentagon, between 1977 and 1980, when he was asked to analyze military threats in the Persian Gulf region, particularly to oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Other officials focused on the threat from Iran, then in the throes of an Islamic revolution, and the Soviet Union. Wolfowitz thought the main threat came from Iraq, and called for the United States to pre-position military equipment in the region for use in a conflict.
A still-secret Pentagon paper Wolfowitz authored in 1979 included the line, "It seems likely that we and Iraq will increasingly be at odds."
For much of the 1980s, U.S. policy tilted toward Baghdad, which was seen as a barrier to the spread of Iranian-style fundamentalism.
But Wolfowitz's prediction proved prescient in August 1990 when Hussein invaded Kuwait. At the time, Wolfowitz was serving as undersecretary of defense for policy. He said he was dismayed by the U.S. unwillingness to support an uprising by southern Iraqi Shiites at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War that drove Iraq from Kuwait, and particularly the unwillingness to shoot down Iraqi military helicopters that were used to terrorize the rebels.
>
During Vietnam, I marched with people who thought America was the incarnation of imperial wickedness, and I marched against people who thought America was the last best hope of mankind. Both positions seemed hopelessly ideological, and at the same time, narcissistic. The issue was not fundamentally about our souls; it was about what was right for the people of Vietnam. Just as in Vietnam, the debate over Iraq has become a referendum on American power, and what you think about Saddam seems to matter much less than what you think about America.
But the fact is that America is neither the redeemer nation, nor the evil empire. It isn't always right, but it isn't always wrong. Ideology cannot help us here.
>
Michael Ignatieff, Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice, is the Director of the Carr Center of Human Rights Policy. Recent essays examine four primary themes: the moral connection created by modern culture with distant victims of war, the architects of postmodern war, the impact of ethnic war abroad on our thinking about ethnic accommodations at home, and the function of memory and social healing. His academic publications include Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment; The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on the Philosophy of Human Needs; The Warrior's Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience; Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond; The Rights Revolution; Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry; and Isaiah Berlin: A Life. His nonacademic work includes The Russian Album, A Family Memoir, which won Canada's Governor General Award and the Heinemann Prize of Britain's Royal Society of Literature in 1988, and Scar Tissue, short-listed for the Booker Prize in 1993. Ignatieff holds a PhD in history from Harvard University and has been a Fellow at King's College, Cambridge; École des Hautes Études, Paris; and St. Antony's College, Oxford.
