Why Do Progressive Liberals Fall for “Humanitarian War”?

George Washington's picture
anthony+freda+HumanitarianBombs Why Do Progressive Liberals Fall for Humanitarian War?

Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

“Humanitarian” War Contradicts 200 Years of Liberal Thought

The Founding Fathers – the basis for American values – warned against standing armies and foreign entanglements, saying that overgrown military establishments destroy our liberty.

Liberal economists – such as Nobel prize winner Joe Stiglitz and James Galbraith – have demonstrated that large military budgets and war destroy our economy, and help the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Progressive University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – points out:

Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn’t to blame — the root of the problem is foreign military occupations.



Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined.




New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture.


More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research [co-authored by James K. Feldman - former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies] that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.


Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.


Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings — for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.


The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.


Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).


Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community — this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as “crusaders” motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population’s way of life.


The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.


One of the most important findings from our research is that empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism. In Iraq, the surge’s success was not the result of increased U.S. military control of Anbar province, but the empowerment of Sunni tribes, commonly called the Anbar Awakening, which enabled Iraqis to provide for their own security. On the other hand, taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism. In Afghanistan, U.S. and Western forces began to exert more control over the country’s Pashtun regions starting in early 2006, and suicide attacks dramatically escalated from this point on.




The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don’t make Americans any safer — in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.

Security experts – including many liberal doves – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

Killing innocent civilians is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this).   As one of the top counter-terrorism experts (the former number 2 counter-terrorism expert at the State Department) told me, starting wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism because:

One of the principal causes of terrorism is injuries to people and families.

(Indeed, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.)

Liberal icon Noam Chomsky agrees that 9/11 happened because of American imperial policies in the Middle East.

Regime Change: A Decades-Long Neocon Project

Liberals – justifiably – despised Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neoconservatives’ warmongering.

The U.S. government – and especially the neocon element – has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change for 50 years.

Why are progressives are falling for a continuance of this decades-old neocon effort?

Why Are We Fighting on the Same Side as Al Qaeda?

The Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.  See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

Terrorist rebels have been responsible for much of the violence inside Syria. And outside monitors have confirmed that the situation on the ground is much different than it is being portrayed in the Western media. (And according to the large German newspaper FAZ, those recently massacred in Hama were on the same side as Syrian leader Assad).

The United States is actually fighting on the same side as 3 terrorist groups in Syria.  And see this.

Reuters notes that the leader of Al Qaeda – Ayman al-Zawahri – is backing the Syrian rebels, and asking his followers to fight the Syrian government.

Some of the main Al Qaeda fighters who overthrew Gadaffi – and now appear to be in control of Libya – are already helping the Syrian rebels.

Even Pat Buchanan asks:

If its good for Al Qaeda, can it be good for us?

The U.S. is arming the Syrian opposition, even though Secretary of State Clinton admits that will help Al Qaeda.

American government officials and corporate media are applauding Al Qaeda attacks in Syria. See this, this and this. Rather than condemning suicide terrorist attacks, they simply say Al Qaeda’s bombings show that the “window is closing” for Assad, and he should give up power.   (Samples here, here and here – the latter tweeted by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice right after an Al Qaeda bomb attack.)

We supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.  Are we going to create another 9/11 by backing Al Qaeda in Syria?

The Antithesis of Real Liberal, Progressive Values

Given that U.S. support of Middle Eastern battles increases terrorism, weakens our national security, hurts our economy,  continues a long-held Neocon agenda, supports Al Qaeda, hurts freedom here in America, it is the antithesis of real liberal, progressive values.

Public Relations to Blame?

 Why Do Progressive Liberals Fall for Humanitarian War?

Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University James Tracy notes:

In April 1917, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson led America into the war that he promised would “make the world safe for democracy,” he called on some of America’s foremost progressive journalists to “sell” the war to a reluctant American population through the greatest propaganda campaign ever put together. Wilson’s anxiety over securing liberal support for the war effort brought him to recognize how well known “Progressive publicists” exercised credibility in the public mind through their previous work in exposing government and corporate corruption. One such journalist was George Creel, who Wilson tapped to lead the newly formed Committee on Public Information (CPI). New Republic editor Walter Lippmann and “father of public relations” Edward Bernays were also brought on board the elaborate domestic and international campaign to “advertise America.”


Because of Creel’s wide-ranging connections to Progressive writers throughout the US, Wilson was confident that Creel would be successful in getting such intellectual workers on board the war effort, “to establish a visible link between liberal ideals and pursuit of the war,” Stuart Ewen observes. “On the whole, Wilson’s assumption was justified. When the war was declared, an impassioned generation of Progressive publicists fell into line, surrounding the war effort with a veil of much-needed liberal-democratic rhetoric.”


Well known for his derisive critiques of big business interests, such as the Rockefellers and their infamous role in the Ludlow massacre, Creel was the perfect candidate to lead a propaganda apparatus at a time when suspicion toward “a ‘capitalists’ war’” was prevalent. “When the moment to lead the public mind into war arrived, the disorder threatened by antiwar sentiments—particularly among the lower classes—was seen as an occasion that demanded what Lippmann would call the ‘manufacture of consent.’”


The sales effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication. The CPI was not only able to officially censor news and information, but to manufacture it. Acting in the role of an advanced and multifaceted advertising agency, Creel’s operation “examined the different ways that information flowed to the population and flooded these channels with pro-war material.”


The Committee’s domestic organ was comprised of 19 subdivisions, each devoted to a specific type of propaganda, one of which was a Division of News that distributed over 6,000 press releases and acted as the chief avenue for war-related information. On an average week, more than 20,000 newspaper columns carried data provided through CPI propaganda. The Division of Syndicated Features enlisted the help of popular novelists, short story writers, and essayists. These mainstream American authors presented the official line in a readily accessible form  reaching twelve million people every month. Similar endeavors existed for cinema, impromptu soapbox oratory (Four Minute Men), and outright advertising.

Creel himself recalls the unparalleled efforts of the thought control apparatus he oversaw to sell the war to a skeptical American public

“It is a matter of pride to the Committee on Public Information, as it should be to America, that the directors of English, French, and Italian propaganda were a unit in agreeing that our literature was remarkable above all others for its brilliant and concentrated effectiveness.”

Alongside Creel’s recollections, out of their experiences in the CPI the liberal-minded Lippmann and Bernays wrote of their overall contempt for what they understood as a malleable and hopelessly ill-informed public that could not be trusted with serious decision-making. In their view, public opinion had to be created by an “organized intelligence” of technocrats (Lippmann) or “engineered” by “an invisible government” (Bernays), with the average citizen relegated to the role of idle spectator.

Anyone who doubts that the government continues to hire numerous well-known liberal reporters to act as propagandists to sell war should read this, this and the rest of Tracy's post.

Amediawar War Is Sold Just Like Soda or Toothpaste


Note 1:  I believe that true progressive liberals tend to be against war,  just like true conservatives.  On the other hand, neoliberals and neoconservatives are actually very similar.  The liberals who follow Obama’s justifications for war are being duped just like conservatives who followed Bush’s siren call to war.

Note 2:  We are in no way endorsing the official 9/11 story. A discussion of 9/11 is beyond the scope of this essay.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
sadmamapatriot's picture

Let me just put this out there. The only reason why governments even exist is to create militaries. People organize either to protect their own resources or go get some more. Anything else a country does is window dressing. I have no problem with the US militarily dominating the rest of the world. I guess I am just a bitch like that.

However, I do recognize we just don't have the money for that though. We can't always get what we want. I wish my friends would reach the same conclusions about their own beloved social programs.

And I really don't have a problem letting the Middle East stew in thier own shit. We just need to quit being such assholes about our own energy resources so we can afford to give them the middle finger.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

Progressive liberals are mentally weak.  They are not nearly as smart as they think they are.

AnAnonymous's picture

All US citizen wars are humanitarian wars. It cant be otherwise.

Since 1776, July, 4th, US citizens have hijacked humanity to pursue their own US citizen selfish best interests.

Every US citizen war is fought on the behalf of humanity as US citizens are the guardian angels of humanity.

Usually, US citizens kill non humans or sub humans. Very rarely human beings.

Such is the path dictated by US citizenism.

Tsunami Wave's picture




AnAnonymous's picture





Lednbrass's picture

Shouldn't you be threatening some Tibetan to protect your ant hive or crapping in the river your neighbors drink from instead of blobbing up here?

AnAnonymous's picture

The evidence I should not.

In China, US citizenism is spreading. Anyone can count on chinese US citizens to deal with Tibet the US citizen way.

Lets the specialists work. Nobody can beat US citizens when it comes to solve the tibetan problem the US citizen way, the most effective way to do it.

The others, either, they adopt US citizenism or they admit they are way out of their league.

AnAnonymous's picture

Classical offuscation job as usually delivered by this US citizen propagandist author.

Liberals, conservatives, etc... Who cares?

They are all US citizens.

It is the only mattering point here.

Islam is the problem.

In US citizen economics, theft has a key role.

US citizens cant afford not robbing. They must rob, it is part of their inner self.

Therefore pointing at the absence of theft is pointing at an inexistent option from US citizens' perspective.

US citizens must rob, kill etc as they run an extortion of the weak, farming of the poor scheme.

Therefore Islam is a problem because as pointed, occupied people rally around it.

US citizens can not stop themselves from extorting the weak, farming the poor. It is part of their US citizen eternal nature.

But they can aim at destroying anything that could help to smoothen the extortion, farming scheme.

Thus Islam is the problem as anything that hinders the extortion, farming scheme.

denny69's picture

You're close to enlightenment, but only close. Anyone who rallies around anything is leaving themselves open for US citizenism; but US citizens won't understand that until the bombs starts falling on them.

ISEEIT's picture

The last high profile true 'Liberal' of whom I am aware was Camille Paglia. The 'progressives' shut her down. She was effectively 'disappeared' shortly after BHO assumed power. Progressives are about as liberal as Stalin and very, very dangerous. 'Progressivism' is very much akin to a religion/cult and it is the antithesis of individual liberty.

blunderdog's picture

No one "shut her down."  She still has her job. 

She only wrote one book that was worth a damn, and she was briefly a media-obsessed attention whore.

Which part of her social criticism do you think was most threatening to the "progressives"? 

(PS: I'm seeing through you, punk.  You're a poseur, and you never read any of her shit.)

Bob's picture

Beware the feminist strain. 

AnAnonymous's picture

Feminists are just US citizens who happen to be women.

Son of Loki's picture

'Spreading democracy' is Big Business.

Colonial Intent's picture

You may have confused some of your european readers with your definition of the word liberal, I'm sure this plays well to the gallery in the USA but its a disingenious use of language, i think your identification of the syptoms is entirely accurate, however i disagree with you on some of the cures.

That said those on left and the right seem to agree far more on ZH than they do in the MSM media.

Funny, its almost as if there's a MSM ploy to keep them at each others throats as some kind of divide and rule strategy.



blunderdog's picture

People fight like cats and dogs over the labels.  Huge anonymous groups of shadows in the minds of the speakers.

People agree a lot more when you talk about specific issues.  The IMPORTANCE of the label is a big part of the problem. 

If you're having a conversation about a specific issue, you can gauge how interested a person is in the subject by how often they fall back on the use of the anonymous and undefined group to make their point.

Just as one speaker may refer constantly to "right-wing religious conservatives," the other can call out the "left-wing liberal progressives."  It's just laziness.

CTG_Sweden's picture


I don´t think that the reason why Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany in 1917 was to make ”make the world safe for democracy”.



Making the World “Safe for Democracy”: Woodrow Wilson Asks for War




Although Germany could hardly be defined as a true democracy back in 1917 I think that it is hard to argue that Germany was more democratic and more civilized by official Western standards than the Bolshevik regime which the same year took control over Russia (or at least parts of it). Both conservatives, liberals and social democrats had seats in the German parliament. The reason why Germany at that point hardly could be defined as a democracy is that the Kaiser had too much power and probably also election laws (more democratic laws were announced just days after the US had declared war on Germany, I´m not familiar with these proposed laws).


It is also very obvious that Germany in 1917 was a capitalist country while Lenin and the Bolsheviks communists intended to confiscate private property on a large scale.


Judging from the facts mentioned above it should make more sense if the US had been more interested in helping Russian anti-Bolshevik rebels during the civil war 1917-19 rather than declaring war on Germany. Since the “white” anti-Bolshevik rebels controlled almost the entire Russia back in 1918 I think that helping the “white” opposition should have required less sacrifices than defeating Germany. Why not give tanks, aircraft, trucks and canned food to the anti-Bolshevik opposition in 1918 when Germany had been defeated? Why help Russia against Germany but not against the Bolsheviks? I know that lots of military equipment was scrapped after WWI. Why couldn´t they have given this equipment to the anti-Bolsheviks? Also keep in mind that Russia, before the Bolshevik coup d´état in 1917 actually had a democratically elected parliament.


It so obvious that Wilson´s intention was not to “make the world safe for democracy” or protect Russians from communist confiscations of private property. There got to be some other explanation to Wilson´s decision not to help the Russian anti-Bolsheviks. It seems as if the explanation is that there was a major conflict between some big bankers on Wall street, especially Jacob Schiff, and the Russian Czar and his followers. Schiff seems to have preferred Bolsheviks to the Czar and his followers. Back in 1911, he seems to have persuaded the Congress to repeal a trade treaty with Russia. President Taft considered to use his veto but agreed not to do that since nobody or almost nobody in Congress supported his view on the matter. I think this clearly indicates which influence Jacob Schiff and his friends had on American politics at that time and also that Schiff and his friends were determined to use their influence to fight the Czarist rule in Russia. Therefore, the stories about how Wall Street bankers bankrolled Lenin and Trotsky are probably not made up although it may, at glance, seem as a ridiculous idea that capitalists could support communists. If anyone still doubts that capitalists and communists can cooperate I would also like to mention the fact that the Swedish banker Olof Aschberg was allowed to own and operate a bank in Russia with 700 employees in the 1920s. I found this information on page 68-69 in the Swedish book “Lenin och den nordiska arbetarrörelsen” (“Lenin and the nordic labour movement”) which was published by the well-known Swedish mainstream publishing house Rabén & Sjögren in 1970. Similar information is found on p. 62 in “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony C. Sutton (Arlington House, 1974) although Sutton says that Aschberg´s bank in Moscow only employed about 300 people. Furthermore, Sutton actually claims that Wall Street bankers bankrolled the Bolshevik revolution. Is that too unrealistic to believe in? Well, keep in mind that the US in the past supported anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan who later became known as Talebans. Why shouldn´t it be possible for a Wall Street banker to support Bolsheviks if the Bolsheviks do not confiscate his own property but rather other people´s property? If he doesn´t like these people I guess he think that it is good if their property is confiscated.



As regards Syria, I don´t know which efforts the US has made in order to topple the Assad regime. I don´t know how successful the rebels would have been without possible support from the West. In any case I don´t think that people should forget that the power basis for the Assad regime and the ruling élite is the Alawi minority to which Assad himself and most of the ruling élite belong to. Since the Alawis only make up about 10 % of the population and since the differences between the Alawi religion and Sunni Islam seem to be greater than differences between Pentecostalists and Mormons it is no wonder that it is hard for the Alawi ruling élite to stay in power.

Lednbrass's picture

Well, the Zimmerman incident had alot to do with the US going to war, it seriously undercut the large portion of the population that did not want to get involved in Europe.

Prussians were great soldiers but lousy diplomats, he was far too ham handed for such a sensitive post.

CTG_Sweden's picture





“Well, the Zimmerman incident had alot to do with the US going to war, it seriously undercut the large portion of the population that did not want to get involved in Europe.

Prussians were great soldiers but lousy diplomats, he was far too ham handed for such a sensitive post.”



I have seen many explanations to why the US declared war on Germany in 1917. Among these explanations I have seen are the sinking of Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram (which said that Germany would support a Mexican attack on the US if the US declared war on Germany), Wilson´s own explanation “make the world safe for democracy” and that companies owned by the DuPont family made huge profits on WWI.


Perhaps the first three factors made it easier to justify a declaration of war to the public. And perhaps the DuPont family and others that could profit from a war became less inclined to oppose a war, unlike other important persons like William Randolph Hearst and Henry Ford, if they could make money on a war. But I doubt that any of these factors was the driving force behind this declaration of war.

Catullus's picture

Because liberals aligned themselves with the statist in exchange for a welfare check whether it comes in the form of actual welfare or Subsidized student loans paying the comfy university professorships.

fijisailor's picture

Two very nice labels GW, "progressive liberal" and "humanitarian war".  It's really convenient for identifying the enemy.  Good luck with that.

Weisbrot's picture

nothing conservative about Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld they were just corporate political hacks under a republican banner.  not to be confused with other political hacks and puppets under all the other various banners.

falak pema's picture

Just to remind the historical perspective of this astonishing thread IMO : who are the true chickenhawk warmongers of USA. 

The eternal liberal bogeyman of the US right : Adlai Stevenson, Eleanor Roosevelt's favorite child at State.

Blacklisted during the "we lost China" rant that got the Rooseveltian liberals their INITIAL bad name, he was very involved in promoting UN role and negotiating East-West relations under Stalinist USSR, labelled then as a "dove". It started the blame game in the US as the Cold War gripped conservative America by the nuts under McCarthyism. He was labelled as the delusioned bleeding heart liberal of that age. He lost on the democratic ticket to Eisenhower in the 1952 election race, and again in 1956. THe original "egghead" liberal aristocrat, hated by the ground swell deep South populist movement of that age that preferred McCarthy. 

Adlai Stevenson II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To feed the Hegelian debate that GW has initiated on this thread :

here is an article that refutes the conservative myth : 

The Top 10 Conservative Myths

YOu can chew on this "Commie Propoganda" and it should churn a few libertarian stomachs! Happy digestion! 

I'm all for making Americans see both sides of an historical debate that never ends! 

AnAnonymous's picture

What matters is not conservative vs liberal. What matters is that they are all proponents of US citizenism, that set of beliefs that took over in the US on July, 4th in 1776.

The ten myths are to be extended to the whole set of US citizens.

US citizens have never stood for freedom. They have stood for hiding coercion under the guise of freedom.


This is what US citizens have been doing for 236 years now (and counting)

sadmamapatriot's picture

If that is what you believe, no wonder you are so sick in the head. I actually read your 10 myths crap. You want to read Levin's Conservative Manifesto and get back to me? You know, as in Liberty and Tyranny?

falak pema's picture

it ain't MY crap, its liberal C*** just like the C*** injected into the debate by the libertarians; both sides are as dumb as bats who repeat the same ideological slants! 

WHy should I come back to you if its to read the same type of hype? 

Hype is hype and it should be used to wipe...

sadmamapatriot's picture

Oh, so you believe in the Liberals are full of crap, too? Good, send me to their top 10 myth list. I am happiest when we here are on ZH are united against the banksters and giving the finger to the world instead of each other.

ebworthen's picture

People are people, whatever label or self-image they cultivate.

Bob's picture

Who woulda thunk it?  To expect perfect consistency from any group, regardless of label, suggests the emotional development and reality orientation of a four year old: starting to think and speak pretty damn good, but still believing in Santa Claus, perfect Mommy and the boogie man in the dark.

Much of what passes for intellectually sophisticated battle between labels/brands is no more respectable than a literal pissing match between little boys, "Look, my wee wee goes farther!"

When proving inconsistency or hypocrisy in your opponent passes as proof that you yourself are the embodiment of "right," you're on a road to nowhere good.  Whether you know it or not. 

Self-righteousness is the evil from which the rest arise, imo. 

Jack Sheet's picture

"progressive liberalism" is like democracy - on sale to the highest bidder

Gringo Viejo's picture

Liberal thought is nothing more than incomplete reasoning processes which emanate from emotionally immature minds. Essentially, they are children and unaware of being such. They will continue to destroy the constructs of Western Civilization until they are stopped and frankly, I'm no longer certain they can be stopped. The Barbarians are at the gates and the children welcome them with open arms. A bloodbath awaits.............................

Hedgetard55's picture


Liberalism is a mental disorder with a death wish attached to it.


Joe A's picture

The war in Yugoslavia was the testing ground for 'humanitary military intervention'. While there was an agreement to end the war in Bosnia, Bill the Clinton told Sarajevo to reject it and the US would support them. That reignited a war that was almost over. The West then went on the demonize the Serbs. The left loved it and supported it. While to think that Yugoslavia was a socialist country. Read Diana Johnstone's books about the war in Yugoslavia and how the left fell for the mantra of humanitary intervention. And Johnstone is a staunce leftie herself.

This successful ploy for humanitary intervention became then a model for the wars that came after it. Find a bad guy, demonize him and the people he represents, highlight his atrocities and ignore the atrocities of the others, create an incident that will make the world angry and support 'humanitary intervention'. Rinse and repeat until desired effect and move on to the next target.

AurorusBorealus's picture

George, you could do with a bit of political history.  The definition of liberal is very different in Europe than in the U.S. and has changed much over the years.  Liberal meant, in the 19th century, what you would now call laissez-faire economics, real "free-market" capitalism, and libertarianism (including many of the claims of feminism).  European liberalism still has a bit of this flavor.  What Americans call liberal is nothing like liberalism. In fact American "liberalism" is a thing sui generis: an entity, in parts, socialism, fascism, feminism, and Nazism (with the racial distinctions thing being paramount).

Now, I am a conservative.  I believe, with substantial factual evidence to support my belief, that the family unit is the cornerstone of civilization (not the individual-- or the "village" / government).  I don't even believe in democracy.  I believe a "household," which has skin the game: kids, property, etc., should have the right to one vote, not an individual.  If you look at the real intent of the founding fathers ( and actually read their writings with the intent to understand- not the intent to support your position), the founders of the United States had many conservative elements (most important = is the right of 1 household to 1 vote: note 1 person to 1 vote).  Conservatives harken back to Greece in antiquity... or Rome... you know, patriarchy and all that evil stuff.

Joe A's picture

That's right. Liberal in Europe has a different meaning than in the US. In Europe it is associated with Adam Smith and the likes who proclaim liberty, free market, etc. In the US it has taken the meaning of Leftism. I think the European meaning is the right one.

Fred Hayek's picture

Back in 1988 little Michael Dukakis mostly ran shrieking in terror from the label "liberal" and got whupped by something less than charismatic George Bush sr. When it was over, I saw one libertarian say in an interview, "If they're done with the term 'liberal', can we have it back?"

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

a confession: I supported Bush's wars, Iraq and Afganistan, as both were directly attacking US .. but it was a clear belief that bush's statement prior to both: We will not engage in Nation building. Once operations in both became clearly "nation building" He lost my support. He later actions of incr gov, HLS, only made my opposition stronger.

I freely express my regrets to all, I now fully support R Pauls view of very limited military .the folly of the current use of US military is clear to those who wish to see it. to those who serve I wish the best, but your service is to elite monsters who are not supporting our freedom or our constitution. a sad lesson learned.

blunderdog's picture

     I supported Bush's wars, Iraq and Afganistan, as both were directly attacking US .

So where were these direct attacks you're talking about?

AnAnonymous's picture

Oh yes, and see how Bush suffered from the withdrawal of your support. Holy cow.

US citizens, in their quest for redemption, would like to sell the idea that everything is reversible.

Well, big news, it is not.

So thanks you for serving, it was much welcomed, your support was much appreciated as it enabled a momentum that your withdrawal can not stop.

Penance of life and all the stuff...

AurorusBorealus's picture

George, you could do with a bit of political history.  The definition of liberal is very different in Europe than in the U.S. and has changed much over the years.  Liberal meant, in the 19th century, what you would now call laissez-faire economics, real "free-market" capitalism, and libertarianism (including many of the claims of feminism).  European liberalism still has a bit of this flavor.  What Americans call liberal is nothing like liberalism, in fact American "liberalism" is a thing sui generis- an entity, in parts: socialism, fascism, feminism, and Nazism (with the racial distinctions thing being paramount).

Now, I am a conservative.  I believe, with substantial factual evidence to support my belief, that the family unit is the cornerstone of civilization (not the individual-- or the "village" / government).  I don't even believe in democracy.  I believe a "household," which has skin the game: kids, property, etc., should have the right to one vote, not an individual... like the United States when it was founded... or like Greece in antiquity... or Rome... you know, patriarchy and all that evil stuff... that is what I, and all conservatives, believe.

cherry picker's picture

Remember the old adage, "Land of the Free"

In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed a ban on large sodas, the first of its kind in the nation, which New York's Board of Health is expected to pass in September.

Bloomberg's proposal would limit servings of sugary drinks to 16 ounces (473 ml) at most restaurants, theaters, delis, vending carts and stadium concessions.....yahoo.com

Since when did a politician have the right to tell citizens how much of something they could or could not drink.  It is like living in a gated community where the HOA is akin to the Gestapo.

Old Orwell was right and we are seeing it.

disabledvet's picture

We're LOSING George Washington. The answer by these clowns in New York City is to kill Americans. Jamie Dimon has had enough of everyone of them...his bond holders have given him free reign to "fire at will"...and he has. Interest rates were crushed on Friday and the worst Government in US history has its "policies of terror on the American people" realized...food riots, starvation, hangin' the mayor by his balls. we'll see if "Syria joins in the fun" here soon enough. Don't phuck with Russians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6b1PNWqpbM

disabledvet's picture

that's 1.5 million people...KILLED IN SINGLE BATTLE.

fuu's picture

"The River Crossing To Stalingrad" is a nice piece of music, it complimented the images. Thanks for the link.

cherry picker's picture

There is no such thing as a humanitarian war.  The only justification ever for the picking up of arms is defense.

If there is such a things as evil, and I believe there is, it is those who invented WMD's and gave the inventions to politicians and military who may not use them, but let it be known in no uncertain terms they  possess them with the intent to use them if they feel the cause is justified.  That is justification for murder.

You may not believe in religion, but I think there may be something to this "Thou shalt not murder" thing.  If God didn't make this up, whoever did, gave the human race a gift, otherwise, way may be facing a lot more carnage.

JOYFUL's picture


Why Do Progressive Liberals Fall for “Humanitarian War”?...

Actually, a better question would be -

Why do "Progressives" pretend to be anything other than minions of the moneypower, feeding off of their table scraps, and sent out to do their bidding when it is desired to sow confusion and disinformation amongst the peeple?

Progressives haven't "fallen" for anything...they fall in line with the message of the hand that feeds them. The only thing that distinguishes them from other bottom feeders is that they preen themselves constantly with the fiction that they are defenders of some great principle, and guardians of the public good...

Nachdenken's picture

Nice. So are we progressives here.