[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Don't be budging on that. Fascism is indeed a left-wing thing.

What a bunch of non-sense. You are readjusting history so it fits your ideology -- and you are pretty much alone with that judgement.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Check Mussolini: leftie before fascist.

This is where the name `fascism' actually comes from

Originally Posted by Doofy

Check Hitler: Didn't like Jews because they were capitalist (much the same reason that the modern left doesn't like the Neo-Cons (read: Jews) today).

… and now you are not just pretending Hitler was a prominent member of the radical left wing, but also allude a similarity between the Nazis and the current left

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

What a bunch of non-sense. You are readjusting history so it fits your ideology -- and you are pretty much alone with that judgement.

This is where the name `fascism' actually comes from

… and now you are not just pretending Hitler was a prominent member of the radical left wing, but also allude a similarity between the Nazis and the current left

What do you think the full name of the Nazi party was? National Socialist German Workers Party. Not only does it claim to be 'socialist' it claims to be a 'workers party'. How much more proletariat can a party get? Why does Hitler paint his party with socialist imagery and nomenclature if he isn't a socialist?

Remember, just because Hitler hated communism does not mean he was right wing. What he really hated was Stalinism, which was in common parlance called 'communism'. And Hitler was not the only left wing person to hate this form of communism - why else do you think there were these massive leaderships battles between Trotskyites and Stalinists (Trotsky hated Stalinism, and he was even more left wing than Stalin!) and not to mention the Mensheviks (which Trotsky left) and the Bolsheviks. Socialists, who often disagreed on very little, hated each other viciously.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Oh yes, I forgot about that! Those were some of the reasons which led to think that fascism is left-wing. I'm still awaiting for a decent explanation on why fascism is 'right-wing'.

Fascism developed as a counter movement to communism (read the definition of fascism by Mussolini) and socialism in the first place. Fascism is as much anti-democratic and anti-liberal as it is anti-communist.

Bigger companies were profiting from fascist regimes, they didn't fear their assets would be made state property, for instance. Even industrialists abroad, such as Henry Ford, sympathized with the NS regime. Also politically, in the 1920 when the German Republic was just given birth to, National Socialists and Communists were dire opponents, shooting each other on the street. The reason Doofy wrongly attributes fascism to be a leftist movement has two main reasons: (i) Fascists frequently used pro-labor rhetoric to gain support of simple laborers and (ii) some of the prominent figures of fascist governments had their political roots in the left.

However, fascist governments rose to power by crushing communist movements (Freikorps in Germany in 1918 and Mussolini's fascists in 1922), feeding of anti-democratic sentiments in all layers of society (e. g. the aristocracy and industrialists).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by undotwa

What do you think the full name of the Nazi party was? National Socialist German Workers Party. Not only does it claim to be 'socialist' it claims to be a 'workers party'. How much more proletariat can a party get? Why does Hitler paint his party with socialist imagery and nomenclature if he isn't a socialist?

That move was only propaganda to get more support from the working class. That doesn't mean he was a socialist or anything even close. Fascism promised the same things as communism, but a different solution. Both movements were anti-democratic and wanted to replace democracy with their own idea. When fascism was `born', the working class was impoverished and so if you wanted to gain considerable support among the population, you had to address that.

In the course of time, the shape of the movement changed, from a union of disgruntled WW1 veterans to anti-democratic and anti-communist militia to a political party which formed coalitions with conservative parties against the communists (again: the NSDAP coalesced with the arch-conservative DNVP - German National People's Party).

Originally Posted by undotwa

Remember, just because Hitler hated communism does not mean he was right wing. What he really hated was Stalinism, which was in common parlance called 'communism'. And Hitler was not the only left wing person to hate this form of communism - why else do you think there were these massive leaderships battles between Trotskyites and Stalinists (Trotsky hated Stalinism, and he was even more left wing than Stalin!) and not to mention the Mensheviks (which Trotsky left) and the Bolsheviks. Socialists, who often disagreed on very little, hated each other viciously.

Fascists such as Hitler had the support of a great many conservatives at that time, because they were seeing fascism as a mean of protection against communism -- any form of communism. These people also entered the respective parties and contributed to the respective ideologies.

Socialists (or more broadly, though inaccurate: the left) identified with each other by class: it's a workers' movement. Fascism, and National Socialism in particular used nationality (and `race').

[Doofy]

...

Originally Posted by Benito Mussolini

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Originally Posted by The Commies

All within the people, nothing outside the people, nothing against the people.

Originally Posted by The Right

You can shove your state/people up your @ss.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Originally Posted by The Right
You can shove your state/people up your @ss.

Unless it's there to protect your propertaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! N'est-ce pas?

Oh , and fixed™. ->

Originally Posted by Doofy

Originally Posted by The Anarchists
You can shove your state/people up your @ss.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Oh , and fixed™. ->

Wrong. The anarchists *are* the state - so it's essentially just another form of communism. And it's not like any anarchists make enough sense to be taken notice of anyways.

[analogika]

You can simplify ANY ideology to the point where they all sound exactly the same.

That's neither truthful, nor even remotely useful, unless your aim is the spread of propaganda.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by undotwa

What do you think the full name of the Nazi party was? National Socialist German Workers Party. Not only does it claim to be 'socialist' it claims to be a 'workers party'. How much more proletariat can a party get? Why does Hitler paint his party with socialist imagery and nomenclature if he isn't a socialist?

For propaganda reasons?

C'mon, you're the one who's just coming to realize that the world's greatest "Compassionate Conservative™" is neither. Why would Bush call himself that?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wrong. The anarchists *are* the state - so it's essentially just another form of communism.

Wrong. Anarchists reject all form of government or leadership.

[voodoo]

Hey, I'm a Catholic and a hard core conservative too undotwa and I have never supported Bush, his ideas or actions. Nothing to do with disillusion, but rather the instant recognition that Bush and his administration aren't conservatives.

I don't agree with them any more than I agree with socialists or communists because none of those groups (GWB included) is conservative like I am.

V

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Wrong. Anarchists reject all form of government or leadership.

I wasn't talking about what anarchists do or don't accept. I was talking about the reality of their vision.

[subego]

Back on topic...

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I disagree here as well and believe it's an Administration who cowered to International pressure. The Powell doctrine of awesome force would've been more effective. Rumsfeld's ideal of a "small and mighty" crew looks good on paper and helps sell it to a people who are not accustomed to watching their children fight for freedom, but is not sound military strategy.

So did we "cower to International pressure", was Rumsfeld's military strategy unsound, or as you argued earlier, did Rumsfeld's strategy lead "to the awesome military advancement of the coalition which accomplished unprecedented success in its task."?

I must note that "cowering to International pressure" is a ridiculous counter-argument to "George Bush or his cabinet failed to adequately plan Iraq's reconstruction or foresee the potential problems that would emerge after the war". One of the pillars of the Rumsfeld doctrine is that a "small and mighty" force can accomplish its goal so speedily that there isn't time for International pressure to build.

In simpler terms, if you plan to skirt an obstacle and your plan fails miserably, t'ain't the obstacle's fault.

On the other hand, I would say your following arguments are both true, which is why I'm curious you disagree with the simplest (and seemingly most supported by evidence) analysis that Rumsfeld and co. didn't adequately plan for the reconstruction because they genuinely thought they would "greeted as liberators".

As an example, Rumsfeld was insistent that the military have an "off-ramp" plan, i.e. a plan to actually start recalling troops before they had reached full deployment. Not only could we use a minimally sized force, but we wouldn't even need that. This was how sure of himself Rumsfeld was.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I was talking about the reality of their vision.

Oh, and who's vision were you talking about exactly?

[OreoCookie]

Good post.
I think part of the problem is this whole `look weak/look strong' attitude. Olmert wanted to look strong, too, but instead, he failed at his ultimate objective (to weaken and contain the threat posed by Hezbollah) -- and now faces the consequences at home. In a way, Israel played right into Hezbollah's hands.

Similarly, the old rhetoric of how good the US is doing in Iraq (and what about Afghanistan again?) has finally worn off. The US has looked weak long enough by trying not to look weak.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Hey, I'm a Catholic and a hard core conservative too undotwa and I have never supported Bush, his ideas or actions. Nothing to do with disillusion, but rather the instant recognition that Bush and his administration aren't conservatives.

I don't agree with them any more than I agree with socialists or communists because none of those groups (GWB included) is conservative like I am.

V

I didn't realise you claimed to be a conservative Catholic. I thought you were ex-some wacko Protestant perhaps calvinist sect from Switzerland that happened for some reason to be living in Spain. I don't know why I thought that. Perhaps it's because 'Catholic', 'conservative' and Spanish don't necessarily correlate these days (although they used to). Are you practising?

Edit: After rereading this message, I realise that my comments seem a little bit provocative. They were made in jest and no insult was intended. I apologise for my lack of tact.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by analogika

For propaganda reasons?

C'mon, you're the one who's just coming to realize that the world's greatest "Compassionate Conservative™" is neither. Why would Bush call himself that?

I think we should leave this fascism issue. While it is very interesting, it is diverting the thread.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Oh, and who's vision were you talking about exactly?

Ummm... ...the anarchists?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I didn't realise you claimed to be a conservative Catholic. I thought you were ex-some wacko Protestant perhaps calvinist sect from Switzerland that happened for some reason to be living in Spain. I don't know why I thought that. Perhaps it's because 'Catholic', 'conservative' and Spanish don't necessarily correlate these days (although they used to). Are you practising?

Edit: After rereading this message, I realise that my comments seem a little bit provocative. They were made in jest and no insult was intended. I apologise for my lack of tact.

That is fine.

Yes, I am Catholic, yes I am practicing. Trust me, 'Spanish Catholic conservative' carries immense weight. There is great tradition for it here.

Politically I am very conservative as well and follow the Church's stance on moral decisions, such as abortion.

I don't see how, as a Catholic European conservative, I should have any inclination to support the US while controlled by Bush. He is a neo-conservative (i.e. totalitiarian-leaning, supporter of big government), US-centric and most of all he belongs to a heretic sect which openly undermines the teachings of the Church. All the while despising and distrusting Catholics, not willing to call us Christians..

Naturally I supported John Kerry, because he is Catholic. It has been a long time since a Catholic was president in the US - and the last time the bastards shot him.

V

[subego]

Wherefore art thou, ebuddy?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego

Back on topic...So did we "cower to International pressure", was Rumsfeld's military strategy unsound, or as you argued earlier, did Rumsfeld's strategy lead "to the awesome military advancement of the coalition which accomplished unprecedented success in its task."?

You're wondering where I went when it seems you've not been paying attention to me when I'm here.

The initial airrades, subsequent troop advancement, first stage of action, the removal of the feared "Republican guard", and the ousting of Saddam Hussein has been touted as some of the most effective military strategery in history. The real work now begins with rebuilding the country. This is where awesome presence would've been most effective and where this Administration has cowered to International Pressures via indictments of "occupation".

I must note that "cowering to International pressure" is a ridiculous counter-argument to "George Bush or his cabinet failed to adequately plan Iraq's reconstruction or foresee the potential problems that would emerge after the war".

Right, but since you weren't paying attention, you've extrapolated BS mistakenly. That's not what I've said. What I said was that there are a great many things unpredictable. It seems apparent that we needed more laborers now, but was that the mantra of the left at the time or was it "NOW YOU CAN BRING OUR BOYS HOME!"

One of the pillars of the Rumsfeld doctrine is that a "small and mighty" force can accomplish its goal so speedily that there isn't time for International pressure to build.

... and the initial action was extremely swift.

In simpler terms, if you plan to skirt an obstacle and your plan fails miserably, t'ain't the obstacle's fault.

The plan failed miserably? It's not even done yet. How long did you expect it to take, 5 years? Not even Ralph Nader could accomplish this!

On the other hand, I would say your following arguments are both true, which is why I'm curious you disagree with the simplest (and seemingly most supported by evidence) analysis that Rumsfeld and co. didn't adequately plan for the reconstruction because they genuinely thought they would "greeted as liberators".

I've got footage of us being greeted as liberators. I have cds full of pictures of pleasant interactions between my military friends overseas and native Iraqis. The folks fighting us in Iraq are not Iraqis. You knew this right? This Administration underestimated the numbers of those willing to travel into Iraq to fight the coalition, but this was not an easy estimation by any gauge. Again, what I find most interesting is the woeful lack of any ideas from the armchair quarterbacks prevalent in the media today. They've got all kinds of things to say until someone pipes up with; "what would you have done?"

As an example, Rumsfeld was insistent that the military have an "off-ramp" plan, i.e. a plan to actually start recalling troops before they had reached full deployment. Not only could we use a minimally sized force, but we wouldn't even need that. This was how sure of himself Rumsfeld was.

This is not "assuredness of one's self", this was correctly assigned confidence in the US military. What was unpredictable was the number of those interested in fighting against the US from across the Iraqi borders. You might know it is impossible to know this ambiguity for certain. Where I disagree with you is the notion that our actions in Iraq were a failure. I'm not resolved that it was. Who would've thought Falujah would now be a save haven for civilians?

This Administration must also be aware that there are other fronts to maintain, not just Iraq. This isn't playing solitaire.

[subego]

I believe I cover most of your points here. Should you think I have omitted something vital, say so and I will gladly address it (though I would hope in the meantime you'll cover some of the points I did bring up).

I agree with your analysis of the of the situation pre-"Mission Accomplished" and said as much (though perhaps too obliquely) in my previous post. My understanding of the facts however has a somewhat different order of events. Rather than cower before international pressure, we anticipated the international pressure, the avoidance of which, as I said, is a pillar of the Rumsfeld doctrine. When I discussed the "failure of the plan", that is what I was referring to. The plan that failed was "avoiding international pressure".

As to the need for more troops during reconstruction, I most stridently disagree with your assertion that this is hindsight. The planners knew this from the get go, and continually insisted on it whenever it wouldn't endanger their career. Colin Powell did too (and you can see where he ended up). That they would insist upon this even before our unforeseen difficulties shouldn't be surprising in the least. They were all weaned on the "overwhelming force" doctrine and had to have it beaten out of them by Rumsfeld and Franks.

From a personal standpoint (though I only count as "liberal" and not "the media") the best I can do is direct you to a post I made 8 months ago (4 months after I became active in the political lounge) where I say "what I would have done" or if you like, "what should still be done". One of these is to "send over more troops". Sadly, my sixth (comedic) response is what garnered the most attention.

I was using "greeted as liberators" as shorthand for "the nation-building portion of the operation will proceed apace since once given their liberty the Iraqis will, as a matter of course, form a functional allied constitutional democracy despite the fact they are being occupied by a foreign power (no matter how vociferously we deny the role of "occupiers").

Since I did not communicate that idea it was obviously the wrong choice of words (which I hereby redact). I often forget that in my case, brevity is not the soul of wit.

Lastly, with regards to me extrapolating BS.

Undotwa said "The fact that George Bush or his cabinet failed to adequately plan Iraq's reconstruction or foresee the potential problems that would emerge after the war proves that to some extent the administration was incompetent"

You replied: "I disagree here as well and believe it's an Administration who cowered to International pressure..."

If I've extrapolated BS by assuming your reply was addressing the quote you provided immediately before it, well then please accept my apologies. I am, however, failing to imagine the reason you felt justified in your compulsion to correct what is clearly an honest mistake with snark.

[thunderous_funker]

Most of the credible studies I've seen estimate the "foreign fighters" to constitute between 4-10% of the insurgency.

The continuation of the myth that all the trouble in Iraq is uppidty foreigners relies on the oversimplification of the conflict in Iraq withour recognizing that there are several factions all fighting the US and each other and for very different reasons.

And since that outcomes was accurately predicted by analysts going all the way to the orginal Gulf War, this administration can hardly claim "intelligance failure" unless, of course, they are simply refering to their own dim-wittedness.

P.S. as for the OP, takes a brave man to admit what you've admitted, undotwa, and I applaud you for your honesty. In your defence (and as pointed out by others), you can still be conservative and think Bush is a total disaster because Bush can't possibly be considered a conservative. He is a complete and total Reactionary and so are most of his loyal supporters. Their claims to conservatism are hollow attempts to mask their reactionary tendencies and medieval belief systems.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Most of the credible studies I've seen estimate the "foreign fighters" to constitute between 4-10% of the insurgency.

The continuation of the myth that all the trouble in Iraq is uppidty foreigners relies on the oversimplification of the conflict in Iraq withour recognizing that there are several factions all fighting the US and each other and for very different reasons.

And since that outcomes was accurately predicted by analysts going all the way to the orginal Gulf War, this administration can hardly claim "intelligance failure" unless, of course, they are simply refering to their own dim-wittedness.

P.S. as for the OP, takes a brave man to admit what you've admitted, undotwa, and I applaud you for your honesty. In your defence (and as pointed out by others), you can still be conservative and think Bush is a total disaster because Bush can't possibly be considered a conservative. He is a complete and total Reactionary and so are most of his loyal supporters. Their claims to conservatism are hollow attempts to mask their reactionary tendencies and medieval belief systems.

thunderous_funker, you touch on a very good point. The present situation was predicted by almost everyone who opposed the war in Iraq. What is happening is now should not come as a surprise. The general public, who lacked the same intelligence services could predict more accurately the situation in Iraq than the US government. There are only two conclusions one can conclude. Either the Bush Administration is incompetent and can't determine whether intelligence is faulty (when so many people could) or they were liars. Now, if you ask me, whether you are a liar or incompetent makes no real difference. Either way, it means you are unfit for presidency.

Edit: typo. I wrote 'can' instead of 'can't'.

[thunderous_funker]

^^Yep. That about sums it up.