OPINION & EDITORIAL
Republicans call on your patriotism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mattie Duppler:
Related Stories:
- An open letter to Ald. Brenda Konkel (April 30, 2003)
- Send Republicans packing (November 1, 2004)
- 'Here now fake news' (September 13, 2004)
by Mattie Duppler
Thursday, September 13, 2007
It may seem strange for us, who hail from a campus as active as this, to conceive of a group of young adults who remain, by and large, politically apathetic. Moreover, it seems almost unreal to conceive of a campus where politics are viewed as irrelevant.
This, however, seems to be the case in the Land Down Under where my sister is currently studying abroad. While in Wollongong, Australia, my sister, though not as politically inclined as me, entertains my incessant questions regarding the country's internal affairs by providing anecdotes from her friends. While she is in no way an expert regarding the Australian political consensus, with President Bush in Sydney last week, she maintained that her colleagues remained unenthused as "they feel that Australia is too far away to be threatened by terrorism."
Despite this statement probably being slightly embellished, I couldn't help but consider the parallels to this line of thought that existed in our country. How long ago did we, perhaps subconsciously, identify with the same autarkical view?
Most likely on Sept. 10, 2001, when we all felt that perhaps we were not geographically immune to the threat of terrorism, but certainly were immune ideologically. The general dialogue of the public seemed to suggest that the hegemony of the United States negated any potential threat of terrorism. Surprisingly, critics of our involvement in the Middle East hail this view as the arrogance that initially incited the attacks on our country while simultaneously arguing for us to pull out of Iraq. Do they simply hope that the ensuing civil chaos would be so great the threat of action against America could once again be ignored?
Beyond the fragile infrastructure that would not withstand U.S. withdrawal, have we also somehow disregarded the Islamic extremism we are fighting in Iraq? Their political convictions are inherent in their radically intolerant religious beliefs, completely subverting the rational actor model of war held by the West. Their emulation of martyrdom illustrates only a small facet of their frightening beliefs. While they glorify the use of one's child as an explosive devise, the hypocritical zealots adhering to the "pull-out" strategy demonize a war that, in light of General Petraeus’ report illuminating successes in Iraq, can still be won.
It seems we once again feel ideologically exempt in considering our country's place in the world. The First Amendment and democratic principles the populace so comfortably enjoys and naively lament for developing countries will never be present in an Iraq left without institutions or administration.
Democracy and peace are not innate. A government in which people are considered free can only take place in a society where the populace is willing to partake in the responsibilities that are necessitated by freedom. A solution where Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are all able to recognize that is not manifest in the immediate removal of our troops.
Removal of troops from that situation does, however, require us to once again examine our feelings of sovereignty at home. If we did take our troops out of Iraq, how long until we would have to worry about the United States becoming home to a military conflict? It didn't take much time for left-wing groups across the nation to respond with allegations of prejudice upon the arrest of the six imams who were making a sanctimonious show of prayer in the Minneapolis airport last fall.
But imagine a world where the brave men and women of America aren't keeping the fighting a safe distance away from the homeland. Imagine a world where our troops are emasculated by being brought back home just to wait for another attack and where the rhetoric against war is illustrated not by military casualties, but by American civilian casualties as attacks on our country multiply and strengthen.
Add to that those who adhere to the Islamic extremism responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and the embittered officials who are left without a political infrastructure — and the threat of action against our country grows even more. But the left, stagnated by their ignorance and terrified by conservatives, recoil at allowing anyone to admit that. If we lose there, the war will follow us to America. I just hope there are people ready to defend it.
Mattie Duppler (duppler@wisc.edu) is the vice chair of the College Republicans.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 9:38am):
Tax cuts will fix everything.
USA, USA, USA!
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 10:04am):
Yeah, I'm sure it's their location that makes them feel safe, and not the fact that they haven't been meddling in the middle east for decades. Same with Sweden, which has a lot more of that "freedom" that terrorists hate than America. That must just be location that gives them comfort too.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 10:27am):
Once again, College Republicans shows that they are becoming increasingly irrelevant on campus. How about focusing on more local issues that people will actually be able to tune themselves into (ie alcohol density plan, student safety) instead of arguing that a lost war should be continued for the sake of our soldiers not being "emasculated"?
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 10:30am):
The argument that we will have to fight the terrorists over "here" if we dont win in Iraq is nonsensical. If we are so intent on 100% securing ourselves from terrorist attacks the US needs to change its foreign policy drastically. No more unilateral support for Israel, no more geopolitics, no more support for vicious and unpopular dictators. Its time to have some sort of unconvential thinking. When you have such a dynamic enemy such as global islamic terrorism, why use rhetoric and techniques from the cold war to justify failed policy and wars?
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 10:58am):
"Tax cuts will fix everything."
So sayth Osama Bin Laden
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 11:01am):
Same with Sweden, which has a lot more of that "freedom" that terrorists hate than America.
So you haven't been following the news from that part of world, have you?
Ask that Van Gogh film maker fellow, opps,you can't - he was killed for offending Islam.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 12:19pm):
Thank you College Republicans. My fear level is now bright, sub-dued, translucent orange. You have won the battle. Sign me up, I will be the RAM soldier you want!
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 12:29pm):
Ask that Van Gogh film maker fellow, opps,you can't - he was killed for offending Islam.
That was in Denmark.
Anyways, the point the author of that comment was making was that this isnt some ideological battle we are facing, between democracy/capitalism/affluence vs. Political Islam.
Its time the College Republicans wake up to the facts, the war was a mistake, and its a lost cause. We've actually endangered ourselves even more by planting ourselves in Iraq. Al Qaeda didnt even exist prior to the invasion. Why are republicans so intent on never admitting that the United States can, and in fact has, made mistakes?
I call on the College Republicans, if you so believe in the merits of this war, and its so called necessity to America's survival, to enlist in the armed forces and fight it for yourselves.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 12:46pm):
Mattie, you make all these hard-nosed statements about the war in Iraq and the war against terror now, but what happens when your party's Senators, Congressmen, and even the Administration change their ideas and tactics?
I bet you loved Donald Rumsfeld and the job he was doing in Iraq, but it seems that even the president now knows that Rumsfeld thoroughly bungled the war.
So, College Republicans, make up your own minds on the issues. Don't carry water for people who will eventually fail you.
Don't wait for O'reilly and Limbaugh to give you your next marching orders. Pundits are only looking for ratings and their next fat paycheck; anyone could play to a party's base for millions of dollars per year. Honestly, I'd make wild accusations and hypocritical statements for half their paychecks.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 12:47pm):
Thank you College Republicans. My fear level is now bright, sub-dued, translucent orange. You have won the battle. Sign me up, I will be the RAM soldier you want!
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 12:48pm):
My problem with this article:
First of all, write complete sentences. That's basic. You don't need to be an English major to know this. Hell, I'm not.
"The general dialogue of the public seemed to suggest that the hegemony of the United States negated any potential threat of terrorism. Surprisingly, critics of our involvement in the Middle East hail this view as the arrogance that initially incited the attacks on our country while simultaneously arguing for us to pull out of Iraq. Do they simply hope that the ensuing civil chaos would be so great the threat of action against America could once again be ignored?"
Pulling out of Iraq isn't so much about safeguarding their interests as safeguarding our own. Does one realize the amount of money our president is squandering on an altogether unjust (yes, that's right, unjust - recent intelligence suggests that there were, in fact, no WMDs, most civilians in Iraq appreciate the soldiers' presence for security but disagree with how Bush and al-Maliki are running the war, and Bush is blatantly disregarding or lying about what has been said about what's happening in Iraq) war when that could be spent on things such as healthcare, education, and reform of the Constitution that has been degraded by the current president? Before we look abroad, we need to secure our own government!
"Beyond the fragile infrastructure that would not withstand U.S. withdrawal, have we also somehow disregarded the Islamic extremism we are fighting in Iraq?"
They're just as extremist as the Christian fundamentalists who are foaming at the mouth about fighting this war. Fundamentalism and extremism comes in all shapes, creeds, and sizes. E.g: The Traditional Values Coalition, most Republican candidates except for perhaps Rudy Giuliani, and Pat Robertson.
"It seems we once again feel ideologically exempt in considering our country's place in the world. The First Amendment and democratic principles the populace so comfortably enjoys and naively lament for developing countries will never be present in an Iraq left without institutions or administration."
There will always be an element of ethnocentrism in every society. Iraq is not exempt from this either, nor is Iran. And, pray tell, what first amendment, since Bush has conveniently demolished it? (See Hepburn vs. AT&T.) But, indeed, Iraq does not quite have a stable administration yet.
"Democracy and peace are not innate. A government in which people are considered free can only take place in a society where the populace is willing to partake in the responsibilities that are necessitated by freedom. A solution where Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are all able to recognize that is not manifest in the immediate removal of our troops."
It seems we differ on 'responsibilities', and certainly, the administration is rather hypocritical in that it fails to live up to them - for example, willingness to entertain opposing opinions and allowance of the expression of dissent. This is pertinent everywhere, not just in the United States. You also must recognize that there are rights inherent in freedom - the right to speak one's mind, the right to assemble freely, the right to believe what one wants to believe, the right to express dissent - the freedom to make one's self known and live honestly and with justice towards one's self and others - and for ALL, not just a section of the population.
"Removal of troops from that situation does, however, require us to once again examine our feelings of sovereignty at home. If we did take our troops out of Iraq, how long until we would have to worry about the United States becoming home to a military conflict? It didn't take much time for left-wing groups across the nation to respond with allegations of prejudice upon the arrest of the six imams who were making a sanctimonious show of prayer in the Minneapolis airport last fall."
The Department of Defense really doesn't live up to its name, does it? We aren't calling them the Department of Attack. And where does military conflict come into Muslim prayer, even unfortunately sanctimonious ones? As long as they weren't being violent, they can express their opinions, even if they're ones you disagree with.
"But imagine a world where the brave men and women of America aren't keeping the fighting a safe distance away from the homeland. Imagine a world where our troops are emasculated by being brought back home just to wait for another attack and where the rhetoric against war is illustrated not by military casualties, but by American civilian casualties as attacks on our country multiply and strengthen."
'Emasculated'? Okay, now you've really broken the barriers of logic. First of all, strength is not limited to men; second of all, war is not an act embodying strength. It is a place where strategic death happens and where certain numbers of people die in certain locations at different times in order to accomplish - say - the capture of some important object or the greatest amount of death. It is a big, violent game. Have you ever been in a war zone? No? Usually, the only ones who describe it as glorious and strong are those who are severely mentally disturbed - people like the private first class who raped a girl and killed her and her family or the man who entered Iraq because he thought it'd be fun to kill people and ended up in jail for slaughtering a family with his rifle.
Real men and real women recognize that any form of violence, other than self defense (which America's role in this war clearly is not), is damaging to society and everything else but your precious economy, and we need to replace war with something else.
"Add to that those who adhere to the Islamic extremism responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and the embittered officials who are left without a political infrastructure -- and the threat of action against our country grows even more. But the left, stagnated by their ignorance and terrified by conservatives, recoil at allowing anyone to admit that. If we lose there, the war will follow us to America. I just hope there are people ready to defend it."
Whatever happened to just defending and not attacking? Please, please, give us evidence. Here's a list of citations that you are most clearly wrong:
Most recent National Intelligence Estimate: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/August_2007_Iraq_NIE.pdf
War Stress Pushing Army Suicides Higher: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html
190,000 AK-47s Missing in Iraq: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/06/the_skinny/main3136387.shtml
US 'Underestimated' Mistrust in Iraq: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=84304
Nearly a Third of Iraqis Need Emergency Help: http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/2007/pr070730_iraq_humanitarian_crisis
Bush Wants to Send Billions of Dollars in Weapons to Iraq: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Analyst Counters Bush on Al Qaeda: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/07/26/analyst_counters_bush_on_al_qaeda/
Either you're one of the blind led by the blind or the blind led by the devious. Few Americans have the resources of the US government, and certainly, there's ample evidence that Bush has lied to us before and still is.
We're not terrified by conservatives. Stupefied and confused, perhaps. We prefer the just way of going about things, not the easy underhanded way or the habitual way (for more information about this, see 'David M. Amodio, John T. Jost, Sarah L. Master & Cindy M. Yee (2007). 'Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism'. Nature Neuroscience.') Both the Islamists and the United States government are extreme here.
Cynical? Me? Oh gosh yes.
-Katharine Dickson, sophomore and very much a liberal
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 1:33pm):
Yer right, in Sweden Viking blood runs thin these days.
"Sweden has denied reports that a diplomat apologized to Muslim leaders for the publication in Sweden of a cartoon depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad as a dog."
http://www.thelocal.se/8469/20070912
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 1:44pm):
http://www.davebarry.com/gg/hallowedground.htm
Were the heros of Flight 93 Democrats or Republicans? The killers of 9-11 were just killing Americans because they were Americans.
But then, maybe OBL will spare the Democrats next time - if they submit to his god.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 2:14pm):
THAT WAS THE LONGEST COMMENT EVER!!! HAVE YOU BEEN TO CLASS AT ALL TODAY?
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 2:25pm):
So Mattie, you're signing up for military service when exactly?
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 2:51pm):
fear losing health insurance,
fear global warming
fear an autocrat who's eroding civil rights,
fear privatized s.s.i.
fear war mongers
fear corps.
fear losing abortion rights.
fear losing allies.
brought to you by the party of fear.
the demonrats.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 2:54pm):
"So Mattie, you're signing up for military service when exactly?"
So if I believe in supporting the Fire Department, I HAVE to become a Fireman?
Against crime? You HAVE to be a Policeman?
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 2:56pm):
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
-- George Orwell
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 2:57pm):
"So Mattie, you're signing up for military service when exactly?"
So only military combat veterans should have the vote? Sounds fine to me.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 3:34pm):
Maybe Mattie's in ROTC.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 5:29pm):
"So if I believe in supporting the Fire Department, I HAVE to become a Fireman?"
If you are supporting the fire department, you should probably AT LEAST stop igniting fires that make their job more difficult.
At least Democrats don't have to rationalize their lack of military service with lame, unrelated analogies.
I like oranges, so that means I must be against bananas. You're a douche.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 6:24pm):
Mattie, I very much appreciate your article and the ideas you are trying to convey. It's a shame that so many people are narrow-minded and incapable of understanding, much less attempting to listen.
Then again, what do you expect from a bunch of moronic liberals who are only capable of placing blame? I sincerely fear for the future of this nation.
God Bless
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 6:35pm):
Yes, let's stop fighting terrorism and make it easier for there to be more attacks against the United States... brilliant idea you bunch of crazy dems!
It's disturbing that so many have already forgotten 9/11 and what it meant; what it still means. This isn't something you can just walk away from and it will be all better. The world has changed. It's not going to get better just because you don't like war. Nobody likes war.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 6:39pm):
"So if I believe in supporting the Fire Department, I HAVE to become a Fireman? Against crime? You HAVE to be a Policeman?"
No, but you at least have to pay taxes, which Republicans won't do either.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 7:15pm):
How easy it is the take freedom for granted. The threat of violence against the free world is real. It is not a New York City thing, or an airport thing, or a Middle Eastern thing---it's the single massive global crisis of our time. How we respond to terrorism is how the world is shaped for our futures. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq terrorism doesn't go away, it will only allow terrorists to infiltrate and be harbored by an unstable country thus instilling fear amongst newly freed citizens.
Those who critcize defending the ideals of a free world are always quick to judge because they don't value the liberty that gives them the right to do so. Be thankful you have the right to an opinion-- 6 years ago the citizens of Iraq did not.
"If you are ashamed to stand by your colors, you had better seek another flag." ~Author Unknown
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 7:22pm):
If it weren't for articles like this we might never know how much the libtards actually root against Americans. What a sad, sad state of affairs.
"At least Democrats don't have to rationalize their lack of military service with lame, unrelated analogies."
-The fact that many men died to give you the right to say this really must make them turn over in their graves.
Excellent article Mattie.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 7:35pm):
I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires, I hate fires.
-Become a fireman.
No, it's too dangerous.
-Then shut the FUCK up about hating fires, pussy.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 7:37pm):
If the College Republicans really want to Support President Bush, why haven't those who are healthy and heterosexual enlisted already?
Operation Yellow Elephant
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 7:37pm):
Katharine Dickson
It makes me sad to think that brave men and women left their families at home to fight and defend freedom for people like you and all you can call them are "rapists" and "mentally disturbed." I think you need a major reality check.
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 8:17pm):
"Be thankful you have the right to an opinion-- 6 years ago the citizens of Iraq did not. "
How good is the right to an opinion when it leads to your assassination the day after it gets published?
Anonymous (September 13, 2007 @ 11:56pm):
First of all, I went to class. I wrote that long comment on my two-hour downtime.
Second, I do not call all of them 'rapists' or 'mentally disturbed'. Just the ones that think war is glorious and strong and manly. Because it isn't.
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 12:10am):
I never realized how terrified of conservatives I am until now...
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 3:22am):
Mattie, I think you make many valid points in your extremely well written article. The fact that others are attacking and misconstruing your statements as a call for all civilians to rush to arms is another obvious attempt of narrow minded extremists to attack that of which they do not fully understand in order to attempt apply facts that support their own hysterical evidence. Congratulations in attempting to educate those unable to think on their own two feet and instead cling only to whatever fodder the media has fed them. Well done!
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 9:52am):
While I can agree with you that Mattie is not calling anyone to arms, I do not think a lot of her 'valid points' are supported.
Your comment about 'hysterical' evidence is laughable - I'm not sure what you mean by 'hysterical', but one can read it one of two ways: either evidence that conservatives don't like existing but points to something which they don't think is true, or facts that are, in fact, not evident of what liberals believe the facts point to. Judging from what I read on both sides of the story and the firsthand documents that are released to the public from the government itself (NIE, anyone? Read it!), I'm inclined to think it is the former.
And what 'fodder' do you conservatives use? Why do you think you understand the war more than we do? Do you have any evidence?
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 3:08pm):
Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world where hatred will "go away" if we ignore it. This is about fighting terrorism--the idealogy of hatred. Who, liberal or conservative, wants to stand by while hatred is taught and practiced? Do you think terrorists will sit on the other side of the table and have peace talks? I'm sorry but this just isn't the reality of the world. Terrorists will kill innocent people even if we're not in Iraq...it will not simply go away. Who, calling themself an American--a believer in the essence of freedom itself--can honestly be willing to stand by and do nothing to prevent the spread of hatred? We have to work together to protect each other or be crushed under the weight of a sick and destructive idealogy.
Anonymous (April 8, 2008 @ 12:54am):
I think those children and those people who are strapping bombs to themselves are more dedicated to their cause then you are. The are ready and willing to die at a moments notice, so unless you are in ROTC or joining the military after college I don't really see your commitment to this cause.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
