I hope someday soon all of my progressive friends start thinking again and stop generalizing

[stevenleser]

When I started out as a progressive, I was proud to be part of a movement of thinkers. All of my fellow progressives examined governmental decisions and proposals individually (yet at the same time with an eye toward history) and with a sharp logic and keen mind.

A segment of my progressive friends have seemed to throw that all away. All wars are now the same, they are all about oil (even when they arent), they are all illegal by both national and international standards (even when they arent) and they are all just like Iraq (even when they arent).

Unfounded generalizations and stereotypes seem to be the order of the day for a segment of progressives. Not only are those kind of arguments unconvincing, they are delegitimizing of progressivism in general. People who CAN think who are presented with arguments like these I am sure start to wonder about the people who would offer such arguments and the movement they represent.

I hope sometime soon all progressives start thinking again.

[whoneedstickets]

1. +1 The facts have a liberal bias...

we just need to keep presenting the truth and be the party of the real world.

[Toucano]

2. I think you might have jumped on the wrong bandwagon.

It's not "generalization", it's PRINCIPLES.

What was wrong in 2003 is wrong in 2011. That's a matter of principle. No one has said Libya and Iraq are the SAME THING.

But that doesn't mean they're BOTH WRONG.

It's the corporate foreign policy that has to change, not the personalities operating the levers.

[stevenleser]

3. Its not the disagreement with policy that I have an issue with, its the arguments

and I will repeat:

(regarding all wars, including Libya)they are all about oil (even when they arent), they are all illegal by both national and international standards (even when they arent) and they are all just like Iraq (even when they arent).

Where do you stand on these arguments being made?

And if you cannot field good arguments against a policy, why are you against it?

[Toucano]

9. Read the War Powers Act

The action of the current administration is against the law. The U.S. is under no eminent threat of attack by Libya. The administration hasn't even made such a claim.

The action against Libya is against the law.

But then so is the repeated targeting of unarmed civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But, hey. When a Nobel Peace Prize winner attacks a country without provocation or a declaration of war, it's all sunshine and lollipops.

Democracy requires adherence to principles of law. Without the people's representatives being heard, you have something quite different than a Democracy.

[stevenleser]

12. Ive read it. Read Article 2 of the constitution (Specifically Section 2) and the UN charter. n/t

[Toucano]

17. US participation in the United Nations doesn't nullify U.S. law.

Nor does it nullify the laws of the U.K. and the EU.

Even a lover and staunch adherent of the law like George W. Bush could tell you that.

[stevenleser]

20. The UN Charter is considered a treaty. It was approved by the senate it is federal law.

So unless you have an argument that the UN Charter is unconstitutional, you have no argument.

Keep in mind that the Charter was approved 60+ years ago and we have gone to war several times based on UN Security Council Resolutions and no one has raised a Constitutionality issue on it before.

Face it, this entire line of reasoning is wishing something so that isnt.

[Toucano]

25. Your facts are wrong.

It's been raised repeatedly which is why we have the War Powers Act.

The executive branch may not act unilaterally without the consent of Congress except in cases of eminent threat.

I never said the UN charter was unconstitutional. I said the presidents actions are illegal.

He is in violation of U.S. law.

The UN treaty does not nullify the executive's obligations under U.S. law.

No treaty exceeds neither the US Constitution nor the statutory law.

[stevenleser]

26. If the UN Charter isnt illegal or Unconstitutional, your entire argument falls down. Here are links

The UN Charter provides for the UN Security Council and for member states to heed the security council's resolutions.

Its all very simple. As I said, congress (specifically the senate by 2/3rds vote) can approve treaties like mutual defense pacts that compel the use of US Armed Forces in certain situations. The approval of the UN Charter in this way is no different.

Once approved, any treaty becomes Federal law. You can claim that this is false, but a very quick internet search will show I am right.

So, lets review the facts:

1 The UN Charter is considered an approved treaty
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-senate-approves-united-nations-charter
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

2 Approved treaties are considered federal law
See http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=treaties+considered+federal+law&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=treaties+considered+federal+law&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=87a89c5b1abc39eb

and any of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

3 The UN Charter accounts for the actions by the Security Council and that member states must try to carry out these actions http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml

4 The Security Council has called for a No fly zone in Libya and all measures necessary to protect civilians (a pretty elastic resolution really)

I assume you do not need a link for this

5 You are making no argument that the UN Charter is Unconstitutional

As you yourself have pointed out

6 The Presidents actions are thus legal both nationally and internationally.

There is nothing sophisticated about this. Its all very simple and you have no argument against it. You try to claim I am wrong but each of these things is easily verifiable. You want so badly for this action by Obama to be illegal and it just isn't.

[stevenleser]

33. And FURTHER, Supreme Court decisions say that treaties can encompass any congressional or presidenti

Presidential power. Thats the whole point. Treaties about trade or mutual defense must necessarily be able to compel congressional and executive action and consent. They can even encompass rights delegated to the states, See Missouri v Holland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland


See also
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf

[GOTV]

47. If it wasn't so, no one would ever sign a treaty with us.

No one in their right mind would sign a treaty with us if, when it came time to act on the provisions of treaty, congress or the president could just say "don't wanna".

[stevenleser]

53. Exactly and not just congress and the President and the states. I gave the example in another thread

of a company that owns fishing boats and a weapons manufacturer. If a treaty that governed weapons or fishing rights did not carry the weight of the rule of law, I am going to continue fishing anywhere I want and manufacturing as many and whatever weapons I want.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. Many of those arguments put forth begin with a false premise. That's the problem.

The arguments then get lost because the assumptions are either wrong or based on faulty information.

Liberals/progressives are passionate when it comes to their principles, just as conservatives are. The problem with both sides of the coin is that often they are narrow in thought and approach...

[dennis4868]

6. Many believe the foreign policy has changed dramatically...

under Obama from Bush....

Mother Jones; David Corn

Obama Crafts the Anti-Bush Doctrine
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/libya-obama-anti-bush-doctrine

[Toucano]

11. Many believe the earth was created in 6 days. n/t

[stevenleser]

14. Previous poster was still talking about politics. This is part of what I am talking about

this kind of argument delegitimizes you and the points you are making.

[Toucano]

18. How? "Many believe...XYZ" doesn't make it so.

Delegitimized?

Are you calling me a bastard?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toucano]

24. You haven't answered the question. n/t

[stevenleser]

27. There is no question to answer. n/t

[dennis4868]

16. well David Corn....

is a fine journalist and investigator and should be taken seriously....plus there are many more experts that clearly state how different Obama's foreign policy is from Bush's, inlcuding tonights RM show....

[Toucano]

19. Yes, it's quite different...Bush had congressional authorization.

Obama does not.

[stevenleser]

21. Yes he does. He is operating under the accords of a senate approved treaty. Just like mutual defense

treaties, treaties can be approved that compel US military involvement in various circumstances. THere is nothing unconstitutional about that. In fact, the very fact that treaties are specifically accounted for in the Constitution implies that these kinds of treaties, which existed at the time of the Constitutions creation, are Constitutional.

[Toucano]

23. To which treaty are you referring?

Statute and treat are equal and "...no superior efficacy is given to either over the other."

The Constitution is supreme over both statue and treaty.

The court has ruled so repeatedly.

The Constitution clearly states that war is a matter for the Congress and the statue law (the War Powers Act) affirms this.

[stevenleser]

29. See #26

[stevenleser]

10. P.S., the truth is never the wrong bandwagon.

Being against arguments that are easily proven to be wrong and untrue cannot be a bad thing.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. What's the exit strategy? What's a precedent for this type of thing working out

without tremendous escalation?

Those are my problems with this policy.

[GOTV]

48. I don't know if there is an exit strategy but I know what I think it should be...

... The NFS ends when either of these conditions are true:

1 - Qaddafi falls OR
2 - The rebellion has been ended

[MNBrewer]

5. Generalizations like all progressives have stopped thinking and started generalizing

[stevenleser]

7. That's why I didnt say "all" had stopped thinking, I said a segment.

I realize my subject line is more ambiguous, but the body text is not.

[stevenleser]

8. That said, I am glad you weighed in since I have seen you express the very generalizations I am

talking about. Is it still your contention that:

1. Libya is about oil

2. Libya is both nationally and internationally illegal

3. Libya is just like Iraq?

Here is your chance to stop generalizing and start thinking.

[MNBrewer]

13. You must be thinking of someone else

1. I've never said Libya was about oil. I think that SOMETHING had to be done to prevent Ghadaffi from slaughtering the rebels, don't know if this is the best course of action, but I haven't condemned it at all.
2. I've never said Libya was illegal
3. I've never said Libya was just like Iraq.

If you can link to comments where I've said what you claim I've said, I'd be glad to modify the above statements.

[stevenleser]

15. So it seems. My apologies. n/t

[Runework]

28. Not about oil? Here's Documentation it is

"Summary: Soaring oil prices are allowing Libya to press for more stringent long-term contracts with foreign oil and gas producers."

" extant deals and extensions that involve reduced production shares for IOCs. Its confidence buoyed by favorable market conditions, Libya is playing hardball with the IOC's, sending a clear message that no deal is beyond renegotiation, no matter how recently concluded or how favorable the terms for the NOC. Libya and the IOC's have been here before: a spate of renegotiations and extensions occurred in the late-1960s and early 1970s, driven in part by the then-new al-Qadhafi regime to demonstrate to its people that it was a better steward of Libya's hydrocarbon resources than the Sanussi monarchy had been. As during that period, the current penchant for shifting the goalposts has not been well-received by the IOCs."

from---------http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/06/08TRIPOLI474.html


Qadafi certainly didn't make things easy for oil companies there, contrary to what some say.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294837/CHEVRON-MAY-QUIT-LIBYA.html

"Oil and gas contacts have noted Chevron's reluctance to adopt the prevailing "auction mentality" and accede to draconian EPSA terms, particularly low production shares, that the NOC is currently stipulating."


(also, 1953 Iran Eisenhower Oil )

[stevenleser]

30. That is not documentation that is rumor and innuendo. n/t

[Runework]

31. rumors or analysis?

Let's not be naive. Do you also believe that the Iraq war wasn't fought, in large measure, due to oil? I mean we dont have 100% absolute proof that it was, do we? Start looking at libya and youll find documentary evidence that can match that of Iraq. Perhaps you think Iraq had little to do with oil too...who knows. You seemed pretty convinced that Libya doesnt, and Id like to know why that is? Do you take tv news reports at face value? There are billions and trillions of dollars at stake, not to mention geopolitical considerations (such as China's increasing move into Libya).

**Libya's 93% tax rate on oil production makes production not especially profitable**, Gheit said, estimating that the unit profit/barrel of production was well below the company's average at about $6-$7/b. "Pound for pound the impact on earnings is less than 5%" for the US companies, Gheit said.*

In commentary earlier this week, Barclays analyst Paul Cheng said "even at $100/b Brent, we estimate the companies are making only about $5.5/b."

"Assuming full production loss, this translates to $0.14/share for and $0.13/share for annually, which is a relatively minor impact," Cheng said. "Both companies should be net beneficiaries of rising oil prices compared to the risk of production loss in the country."

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/6863374

"One cable seen by Reuters, sent from the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, shows Gaddafi's government exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and other oil companies to reimburse Tripoli the $1.5 billion Libya had paid in 2008 into a fund to settle terrorism claims from the 1980s.

The amount was the initial payment in a planned $1.8 billion fund. The cable suggests Gaddafi intended foreign oil companies to provide full funding for the scheme, which at the time was a key factor in improving ties between Libya and the United States.

Even before Libya paid into the fund, Gaddafi, "who prides himself on being a shrewd bargainer, made it clear that he intended to extract contributions from foreign companies to cover the ... initial outlay," according to the April 2009 cable titled "GOL ratchets up pressure on oil companies to contribute to U.S.-Libya claims fund"

www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/us-gaddafi-oilcompanies-wikileaks-idUSTRE71M5Y420110223

[stevenleser]

32. What you would need to prove what you are asserting, you do not have

If you are going to assert a motive for an action other than the stated one, you need some documentation of the actor stating that, not a suggestion why someone would want to do something.

If a bank is robbed near your house, I could say that I knew that Runework wanted to have more money, so Runework did it. That is the same logic you are using.

Every country has SOME sort of valuable resource. With your logic, every war becomes about a country's resources. That logic just doesnt work.

[Runework]

34. what abour Iraq? oil or humanitarianism?

You didn't answer- do you believe the Iraq war was fought, in large part, due to oil? If yes, I want to know your "documentation of the actor stating that". If no, well, that speaks for itself.

You cant take this into a historical vacuum, sorry. Middle east politics has always been intimately tied with oil. The US has overthrown governments over oil.

And most wars are fought over resources, you know?

[stevenleser]

35. I've written a detailed article on my thoughts on that subject 5 years ago. Here is a link

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060116_iraq___why_we_really.htm

and the answer is neither.

[quaker bill]

98. Iraq - not oil, just stupidity.

buying oil is vastly cheaper, even if they raise the price.

[BobbyBoring]

43. Sorry

But with the exception of the Crusades, wars throughout history were ALL about resources.

[stevenleser]

44. No, they were not. See my #45

[Mimosa]

38. Runework, big welcome to DU & thanks for the facts

Obviously you not only think but you do research to back up your posts. :D

All wars in the history of mankind have been fought over territory or natural resources. Popular ideals and religious sentiments are employed to persuade the warriors (whether volunteers or conscripts) that lives will be sacrificed for noble purposes including 'freedom'.

[stevenleser]

42. Actually, you are wrong, most recent wars are not fought over resources, they are fought over power

The reason why Qaddafy, Mubarak, et al want to stay in office is because they want to stay in power. They have plenty of money stashed away in secret bank accounts. This isnt about money or resources, it is about their desire not to give up power.

[boppers]

36. "all ... stop generalizing"

heh.

[stevenleser]

41. I know, the title is a bit ambiguous that way, but the body text is not. n/t

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clio the Leo]

40. Bless you. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. I'm a liberal, progressive or whatever you want to call it. I'm ashamed at how shortsighted many of

my fellow progressives are. It gives us a bad name and makes it that much harder to convince people why it is in their best interest to be a liberal or progressive as well.

Most people wrongly believe that if one is a liberal, one cannot therefore be a pragmatist. I beg to differ. Pragmatism has nothing to do with ideology. It's about looking at the facts on the ground, paying attention to context, and behaving accordingly.

I wish my fellow liberals understood that although the world is changing and people are probaby MORE--not less--liberal than they realize, the reality is that most people don't think as we do. It's going to take a lot of time, work, and effective messaging to convince people that we are right. Not ALL of the time, but many times.

Liberals/progressives need to stop behaving as if we have all the right answers. We don't. We may be correct, but we're not always right.

[jenmito]

49. K&R. It drives me crazy seeing all of the posts claiming Obama is helping in Libya

because of oil and/or the "Military Industrial Complex," and they use this to claim Obama=Bush and Libya=Iraq. :eyes:

[OwnedByFerrets]

50. The ones in power can ALWAYs rationalize their reasons for war.

STARTING one should never be an option.

[jenmito]

52. Strange that the Libyan people are pleading for more bombing then. This is NOT a war. It's

a humanitarian mission.

[MNBrewer]

60. Humanitarian bombs

We're waging peace

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNBrewer]

67. TO say that this is not a war ignores the obvious

[stevenleser]

71. And now you change the subject. You had asserted that this was a war for peace

I understand you running away from that at high speed once I proved how wrong that assertion was.

[MNBrewer]

73. Perhaps I should have included the "dripping with sarcasm" smilie

:sarcasm:

It should have been obvious, but I guess it wasn't.

Is this better?

We're waging peace :sarcasm:

[stevenleser]

81. Don't bother, you are now on ignore n/t

[MNBrewer]

83. yay... I'm on ignore!

:sarcasm:

[MNBrewer]

74. what did you prove, and where? Because I saw no such proof

by the way, I'm the same person you accused of holding certain beliefs, the person to whom you apologized earlier.

[Telly Savalas]

90. Indeed, but so does saying the UN started it.

[jenmito]

84. We're doing what the Libyan people ASKED us to do!

We are NOT bombing people.

[OwnedByFerrets]

93. When they explode, they sow flowers of peace.

[Marrah_G]

51. Do you actually mean "start thinking again like you"

Or do you mind if people think and come to other conclusions on these topics? If you did not mean the former then I do apologize, but you should know that is how it came across to myself and probably to many others.

[ItNerd4life]

54. It sure seems that way.

Libya is a Neocon action, but because it's a Democrat president doing it, suddenly it's okay!

[displacedvermoter]

55. You hit the nail on the head

[stevenleser]

56. Yes and no. Yes to use a logical and rigorous approach. No to necessarily arriving at the same

conclusions.

[Jakes Progress]

57. Ahhh. Here we have it. Logic is in the eye of stevenlesser.

No one else can decide what is logic. If it doesn't agree with him, it is neither logical nor rigorous.

Whew. Glad we can stop doing our own thinking now. steve's on the job.

[stevenleser]

63. At least if I decided to write your name, I would spell it properly. Particularly since

its right in front of you.

Should we trust my logic, or the logic of someone who cannot even transcribe someone elses name that is on the screen for them.

[MNBrewer]

68. Wow... you misspelled my name, therefore your argument is invalid.

[stevenleser]

70. When it is right in front of you when you reply? Yes. n/t

[MNBrewer]

77. wow....

just, wow.

[Jakes Progress]

88. Wow. I misspelled your name and you go ape. Ego much?

[Jakes Progress]

87. That must really hurt. You know that calling on spelling is the last resort of the hopeless.

What a maroon.

[paulk]

100. +1

[ReggieVeggie]

58. Think how I think or there's something wrong with you!

great argument :crazy:

[Jakes Progress]

59. So you started out a progressive.

And now you are what? A triangulator? A centist? OMG. You didn't become a conservative, did you?

[stevenleser]

61. Since you dont get to define what a progressive is, this post is meaningless. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

89. You are the one who said you started out a progressive. I just wondered where you went?

Actually, we both know you never really were progressive.

[Donnachaidh]

62. so you make sweeping generalizing statements about progressives

And accuse -them- of not thinking? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[stevenleser]

64. You didnt read the OP.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MNBrewer]

66. Quote

"I hope sometime soon all progressives start thinking again."

[stevenleser]

69. YES, All as opposed to SOME, I agree its ambiguous, but the body text is not.

Reading is fundamental.

[MNBrewer]

75. Nice rhetorical flourish, though, to begin and end a post about the evils of generalizations

with generalizations.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LaurenG]

72. Yikes - maybe the put down should have been in the body of your op

start thinking again?? Maybe those you disagree with think the same of you.

[stevenleser]

76. Except I am not the same one regurgitating the same arguments for a distinct issue n/t

[LaurenG]

79. Just because progressives here don't agree with me I don't assume they've stopped thinking.

They may be thinking differently and I may not be swayed to agree with them but they're definitely thinking.

[stevenleser]

80. Except in this case, they definitely have. n/t

[LaurenG]

82. See I don't agree with you. They are thinking as are you.

I don't agree with your statement but I believe we are all thinking and putting the FACTS together to come to a conclusion.

[stevenleser]

85. They're not, and I can prove it.

1. The often seen regurgitation of "Going to war for peace is crazy..." argument. This is not a war for peace and has not been even attempted by anyone to be sold this way.

2. The umpteen million times "Treaties dont supercede the Constitution" meme. No one on the other side of them has asserted this. We HAVE asserted that the Constitution sets up treaties with broad powers. And as a response we get "Treaties don't supercede the Constitution." That isn't thinking, that is continually regurgitating the same point regardless of what is being said to them.

3. While I have provided links backing up my point to include text from Supreme Court justices in opinions that agree with my position, I get none of this from people who disagree with me. Just "you're wrong". Obviously, no thinking required for that.

4. As I said in my OP, the repeated statements along the lines of : All wars are now the same, they are all about oil (even when they arent), they are all illegal by both national and international standards (even when they arent) and they are all just like Iraq (even when they arent).

Thats it in a nutshell Lauren.

[stevenleser]

86. Here is a great example. Look at this comment thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=634307&mesg_id=636263

Throughout the debate on this at DU, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER said that treaties supersede the Constitution. I never said that. In fact, I have reminded those I have been debating with several times of that fact. They still try to set up that strawman BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THINKING.

[StarsInHerHair]

91. k&r to o wish itv were 100

nt

[stevenleser]

94. Thanks!

:loveya:

:pals:

[RandomKoolzip]

92. How disingenuous and smarmy of you.

"No really, it would be great to be friends with you again. I mean it. You just have to stop beating your wife."

"Oh my long-lost brother, how I miss you. If only you weren't such an asshole."

Sorry, if this is how a "friend" thinks of me and my progressive positions ("Why don't you think anymore?"), I prefer to communicate with my "friends" who don't even bother with the smirking insincerity. At least conservatives outright tell you they hate you - they don't try to pull this "let's be friends, you idiot" condescension nonsense.

[Ramulux]

95. If you want to have a real debate

I would love to hear your comments and ideas.

I made a long detailed explanation of why I believe this war in Libya is not a good idea. If you would like to have a reasonable intelligent debate about this, I welcome your comments and ideas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x704246

[YvonneCa]

96. This is a great post. I agree with you...

...that there used to be more thoughtful, logical policy discussion here on DU. The divisions between us seem to have morphed into poor 'habits of mind.' And those poor habits have resulted in more discussion of personality, rather than discussion of policy. That's sad to me.

Despite the fact that this post opened you up to attack, :7 you created one of the better threads around here lately. ;)

[old mark]

97. Good luck with that, but don't look for it here....nt

[JTFrog]

99. Kick.

Great post.