[undotwa]

I would be what you call a conservative, economically and socially - pro 'market economics', pro deregulation, pro 'small government' whilst anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion etc.

Till about now I always supported George Bush (although not with votes, as I am Australian) and his counter-terorrism policies. Though now, after months of consideration, it has just dawned upon me. Since the beginning of the fabled War on Terror, what has he achieved? Iraq has plunged into civil war, Afghanistan the same. It is just so obvious that so much of the case for the war against Iraq had been fabricated or manipulated. I defended George Bush then, but in the wake of what is happening, I just cannot now.

The fact that the arguments for the war were so tenuous undermines the war's legitimacy as just. 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. To mishandle so many countless human lives, be they Iraqi, American or British (or Polish!) to me constitutes a criminal act. (Although I am not suggesting that George Bush be tried for war crimes).

My question is: Why are conservatives in America so belligerent? I cannot see how conservatism necessarily entails war mongering. I've witnessed the same here where so many conservatives, when caught off guard, would come up with some very vile comments, demonstrating a complete lack of concern for human life. When I was reading the thread "Israel is nothing but a Shitty Little Country", I clicked on a link concerning "Islam's Torture of Lebanon".(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles....asp?ID=19016). It was a very moving story. But as I searched the rest of the site, I found some very, very disturbing provocations. On the home page, there were advertisements for 'conservative' t-shirts, one of which said "Iran wants Nukes? Give them to 'em!" What does this really have to do with conservatism? Maybe I'm not a conservative after all.

[Chuckit]

See the other thread about how conservatism has been corrupted and hijacked. It's right on the money. The agenda of some so-called conservatives has replaced the actual core ideals of the philosophy. It's a shame, because I'm actually much more OK with both classical conservatism and classical liberalism than I am with either of the American parties at the moment.

[smacintush]

#1 - Conservatives aren't war mongers but war mongers tend to be conservatives.

#2 - From the beginning GWB said this was a loooong term strategery that will extend far beyond his presidency. So if you were supportive of him then, and you were expecting much more now, then you weren't listening.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

…I'm actually much more OK with both classical conservatism and classical liberalism than I am with either of the American parties at the moment.

Unfortunately, like most other American institutions the ideology and spirit has been sucked out of politics and public service and replaced with an obsession with personal success. Hence all the divisive political demagoguery by both sides.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I clicked on a link concerning "Islam's Torture of Lebanon".(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles....asp?ID=19016).

Frontpagerag is the official propaganda outlet for US fascism. A few years back somebody on this forum was constantly backing up their claims and vile garbage by posting this very American version of 'Prawda', that's how I first heard about it.

David Horowitz is the Joseph Goebbels of the 21st century.

[Ω]

I am a disillusioned human.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by smacintush

#1 - Conservatives aren't war mongers but war mongers tend to be conservatives.

#2 - From the beginning GWB said this was a loooong term strategery that will extend far beyond his presidency. So if you were supportive of him then, and you were expecting much more now, then you weren't listening.

Oh sorry, I seem to have missed George Bush's statement before he declared War in Iraq that is would be a long, drawn out conflict with thousands upon thousands of American casualties and the looming threat of civil war?

It really appears that America has no long term strategy. They were expecting a quick victory, from which they could quickly establish a democratic government and a feasible, oil-based economy. It seems that they complete ignored the threat that Islamic fundamentalism posed. America has hardly ever been successful at nation building, we should have never expected them to have been able to do this time.

Iraq is a failure. Yes, parts of the country are stable and some sectors are booming. But placed within the larger pictures, it is a dismal failure. And someone has to be held accountable.

I think we should use Iraq and even Israel's war against Hezbollah as a lesson. War has not solved anything, in fact it has only made things worse. Hezbollah has now grown in influence, civilians in Lebanon and across the world are outraged against Israel. This is not to say that Israel was not just in attacking Hezbollah, but the way they went about it was wrong. The same could be said for America. America has a duty to her citizens to defend herself against terror networks, but she cannot use this an end to justify the means. If a more humane response takes many more years (or decades) to root out the terrorist infrastructure, so be it. But as far as I can see, the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost in places like Iraq have been for nothing. Even if one disagrees with the proposition that the end does not justify the means, who could say this 'end' justifies anything?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Frontpagerag is the official propaganda outlet for US fascism. A few years back somebody on this forum was constantly backing up their claims and vile garbage by posting this very American version of 'Prawda', that's how I first heard about it.

David Horowitz is the Joseph Goebbels of the 21st century.

Another thing, I think it is a misnomer to call 'fascism' right-wing or conservative. It is only right wing in the sense that it believes itself to be in direct opposition to communism, considered to be 'left wing'. But in reality, fascism and communism are not very different. The policies of Hitler and Stalin were not very different. The only fundamental difference I can see between the two figures is that Hitler targeted races specifically, whilst Stalin would target races, but more specifically entire classes. Both are totalitarian and oppressive. They are both also 'collectivist', although this is manifested in different ways. In fascism, big business was controlled by the government by appointing government officials upon the board of directors of companies. In communism, it was more direct, with companies being nationalised. The end product though is actually the same: massacre.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Oh sorry, I seem to have missed George Bush's statement before he declared War in Iraq that is would be a long, drawn out conflict with thousands upon thousands of American casualties and the looming threat of civil war?

Oddly, the "Liberals" have been aware of that since long before the invasion. In fact, that's one of the primary reasons why we opposed it.

Also, Bush's long-term strategery for new-age colonialism has been available for years:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

No, the "neo-conservative" movement is not just some paranoid left-wing fantasy.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Another thing, I think it is a misnomer to call 'fascism' right-wing or conservative.

Absolutely not. I already pointed out in another thread why 'fascism' is justifiably considered to be on the 'right' (conservative) side of the political spectrum.

Neo-conservativism is simply a post-modern adaptation to the power-shift in society from governments to the commercial/corporate sector.

If one takes into consideration that these days societies and policies aren't politically–, but rather economically driven, the common underlying aims and goals of fascism and neo-conservativism are all too apparent.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Absolutely not. I already pointed out in another thread why 'fascism' is justifiably considered to be on the 'right' (conservative) side of the political spectrum.

Neo-conservativism is simply a post-modern adaptation to the power-shift in society from governments to the commercial/corporate sector.

If one takes into consideration that these days societies and policies aren't politically–, but rather economically driven, the common underlying aims and goals of fascism and neo-conservativism are all to apparent.

Could you point me to the thread or restate your argument? Remember, this is just my personal view and if what you say is convincing enough, I'm willing to budge.

[OreoCookie]

I wouldn't call neo-conservatism a form of fascism, but I agree that fascism and communism are very different. I also think the term `Islamic fascism' is a misnomer as well, as the main motivation to add fascism is to make it sound `more evil'. (Why not use the more accurate `Islamic fundamentalism' for instance?)

Well, I think the most harmful element of the current flavor American conservatism is to try to judge everything in two categories. Not just when it comes to foreign policies, but also the (perceived) political opponent as well. People like Coulter add the attribute `godless' to liberals, as if the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to vote Republican

This has also silenced internal debate to a large degree. Conservatives who criticize current policies often feel the need to emphasize they really are conservative and not `liberals in disguise'.

The other point I could never really understand is that the Bush administration felt the need to circumvent the legislature so often (e. g. by signing statements) when they have the majority in Congress (not to mention the Supreme Court) anyway …�why not work with your own party and make all this superfluous?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I would be what you call a conservative, economically and socially - pro 'market economics', pro deregulation, pro 'small government' whilst anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion etc.

I'm with you for the most part accept in semantics. I believe "small" government would mean that the government simply acknowledges all marriages as 'civil unions' and allows the Church to deem "marriage". Some Conservative policy here has been misconstrued. Defining Conservatism is critical to an understanding of what it is you're disillusioned with.

Till about now I always supported George Bush (although not with votes, as I am Australian) and his counter-terorrism policies.

This is an interesting statement because you could well stop here. Counter-terrorism does not stop. We'll either counter it now or we'll counter it later. We'll either counter it on our time or we'll counter it on their time when they're as strong as they could be.

Though now, after months of consideration, it has just dawned upon me. Since the beginning of the fabled War on Terror, what has he achieved? Iraq has plunged into civil war, Afghanistan the same. It is just so obvious that so much of the case for the war against Iraq had been fabricated or manipulated.

Our action in Iraq was to "change the face of the Middle East". You should not only listen to our sell to the International Community, but the sell to common sense. With Iran and Iraq busily engaging an arms race and with mutual distaste for Israel and the West, something had to be done. When major allies and valuable resources abroad are threatened by rogue states with sympathetic ears in an International body with interests of their own, the globe will come to a head of ideals. These ideals were brought to us. Most are in favor with our actions in Afghanistan, but that would be only going after the low hanging fruit while allowing the tree of terror to grow. Where I'd agree with you is how we've handled the actions and how those actions are being communicated. I've not heard that Iraq has "plunged" into civil war. All accounts I've heard are that it is possible it will, but then this has been the claim since Saddam's statue fell several years ago.

I defended George Bush then, but in the wake of what is happening, I just cannot now.

Presidents are not to be defended. Ideals and nations are. Ideals of governance are going to come to a head. Those with similar ideals are moving forward and those who oppose them are opposing them. What you're really saying is that you're not sure you want to be on the offensive. I would respectfully disagree. We could have several more years of "peace" while our heads buried themselves deeper into the sands of deceipt. We could foster this false sense of security with token gestures and wait until we're forced into a defensive posture, but I personally believe this would put us behind the global game.

The fact that the arguments for the war were so tenuous undermines the war's legitimacy as just.

It has not been communicated effectively enough.

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.

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.

To mishandle so many countless human lives, be they Iraqi, American or British (or Polish!) to me constitutes a criminal act. (Although I am not suggesting that George Bush be tried for war crimes).

War is war and it is indeed hell. A hell we do not want for our children's children. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "mishandling American, British, and Polish lives". War is not math. War is only predictable to an extent.

My question is: Why are conservatives in America so belligerent?

Some are. They are the vocal minority. The vocal minority of both sides will get the media. I've not seen more vitriol from the left in all my days. I find your indictments interesting. Actions cause reactions. Some predicted that Bush would polarize the nation, but really only his existence has polarized this country. Until we get over the election losses of history, we'll never 'Move On'.

I cannot see how conservatism necessarily entails war mongering. I've witnessed the same here where so many conservatives, when caught off guard, would come up with some very vile comments, demonstrating a complete lack of concern for human life. When I was reading the thread "Israel is nothing but a Shitty Little Country"...

Per the French Ambassador. In our current state of polarized society, these are your choices today I'm afraid. Take your pick.

I clicked on a link concerning "Islam's Torture of Lebanon".(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles....asp?ID=19016). It was a very moving story. But as I searched the rest of the site, I found some very, very disturbing provocations. On the home page, there were advertisements for 'conservative' t-shirts, one of which said "Iran wants Nukes? Give them to 'em!" What does this really have to do with conservatism? Maybe I'm not a conservative after all.

If you're Christian, you're Christian. That's one thing. If your identity includes one of political ideology, then you have choices to make for you personally. Conservatives do not always act conservatively nor do liberals always act liberally. Humankind will always disappoint.

As to the T-shirts, IMHO you've assigned a boundary to 'humor' that I believe is rigid. I believe there is a reason for humor in tough times. A great many would not understand this.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

War is war and it is indeed hell. A hell we do not want for our children's children. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "mishandling American, British, and Polish lives". War is not math. War is only predictable to an extent.

I can guarantee that if we go in not knowing what we're doing, people will die unnecessarily.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I can guarantee that if we go in not knowing what we're doing, people will die unnecessarily.

Sadly, people will die unnecessarily either way. They've been dying for centuries regardless of whether or not democracy is on the march. You can make the decision; "we're not going in" and still not know what you're doing causing unnecessary death. No one knows exactly what they're doing in times of peace nor times of turmoil because the only thing that is predictable about people (regardless of culture) is imperialism.

Failed peace agreements leading to false sense of security, idle conversation, and oppressive economic sanctions are not more humanitarian. They're simply a more palatable means of death to a disengaged public not affected by the policy.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by undotwa

My question is: Why are conservatives in America so belligerent?

I was thinking about this question a bit … 
My guess is because they are afraid, afraid to look weak (in the War On Terror, for instance). But underneath their posture, they are as afraid as everybody else.
So they conjure old images, when there was a clearly defined foe (e. g. Communists or Nazis), because nowadays there isn't such a thing. Terrorists don't have a nation of their own where they live and thrive, some of them even live among `us.' So this war on terror label is passed onto more traditional threats -- Iraq, Iran, the Middle East. In essence, these conflicts are old, people pretend the connection to `terror' is a new post-9/11 phenomenon when it's not.

The other piece of the puzzle is that for the first time in a long time, conservatives have the chance to shape America (as they now control all three branches of government), and it's not working as weel as they hoped it would. You've mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq: that should have been big victories for Bush's foreign policies. Who cares if there were no WMD in Iraq if you get rid of a ruthless dictator and replace it with a shining democracy? So in this sense, I think the failure of this new breed of conservatives (as opposed to old-school conservatives) is to recognize (i) we all cook only with water (= no miracles) and (ii) some things take a very long time. To make it very clear, I don't think that traditional conservatives have significantly worse (or better) foreign policies than (traditional) liberals, they all have limited options and can only do so much.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by analogika

Oddly, the "Liberals" have been aware of that since long before the invasion. In fact, that's one of the primary reasons why we opposed it.

He's agreeing with you, that's why he's questioning smackintush's statement.

Bush said it'd be swift. We'd strike the them down with shock and awe by the might of the U.S. military. Then he proudly stood on the deck of a carrier and announced the mission a success.

After that, when it was apparent that things weren't going so well and the WMD evidence had been falsified, he acknowledged it'd take a long time.

Originally Posted by analogika

Also, Bush's long-term strategery for new-age colonialism has been available for years:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

No, the "neo-conservative" movement is not just some paranoid left-wing fantasy.

I love how the entire southern hemisphere is labeled "Global issues."

[spacefreak]

dubpost

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I was thinking about this question a bit … 
My guess is because they are afraid, afraid to look weak (in the War On Terror, for instance). But underneath their posture, they are as afraid as everybody else.

What a joke that is. Yeah.. we're afraid of getting attacked again and again and again. So we fight. We defend ourselves, unlike a bunch of cowards.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by analogika

No, the "neo-conservative" movement is not just some paranoid left-wing fantasy.

It's a philosophy, which is a whole hell of a lot more than liberals are offering.

Liberal have had years to come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with these issues. Instead of proposing and marketing solutions, most of their time is spent whining and complaining. This thread, for instance.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by undotwa

It really appears that America has no long term strategy.

Wrong.

They were expecting a quick victory, from which they could quickly establish a democratic government and a feasible, oil-based economy.

Wrong.

It seems that they complete ignored the threat that Islamic fundamentalism posed.

Wrong (that's why we're fighting in the first place).

America has hardly ever been successful at nation building, we should have never expected them to have been able to do this time.[/b]

Wrong - see Japan, Germany, South Korea.

"They ignored the threat"... Yeah, right. Quite hard to do when planes are flying into our buildings.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

What a joke that is. Yeah.. we're afraid of getting attacked again and again and again. So we fight. We defend ourselves, unlike a bunch of cowards.

For quite some time you were in panic and beating indiscriminately on anybody who you think might have had something to do with it. That behavior has nothing to do with strength or is suitable to reach your goals.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

For quite some time you were in panic and beating indiscriminately on anybody who you think might have had something to do with it. That behavior has nothing to do with strength or is suitable to reach your goals.

Whatever you say there, tiger.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Wrong - see Japan, Germany, South Korea.

South Korea had a dictatorship until 1988 … it's kinda strange that you pride yourself with that

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

South Korea had a dictatorship until 1988 … it's kinda strange that you pride yourself with that

They dabbled in democracy prior... it just wasn't working. The decision was made to continue the promotion and defense of capitalism until permanent democratic reforms took hold. Capitalism is the underpinning of democracy. It's about the end game.

Regardless, the left is usually enamored with dictatorships. I would think they'd be proud of the US allowing some dictatorial rule in their nation-building policy. Liberals constantly defend Saddam and Fidel, so why wouldn't a US propping-up of another dictator be worshipped by the same ilk?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by undotwa

They were expecting a quick victory, from which they could quickly establish a democratic government and a feasible, oil-based economy.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Wrong.

Proof?

Originally Posted by Donald Rumsfeld

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Wrong - see Japan, Germany, South Korea.

Afghanistan, Haiti, and Cuba would disagree.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

"They ignored the threat"... Yeah, right. Quite hard to do when planes are flying into our buildings.

Then maybe we should be concentrating efforts on locating and removing Osama, instead of attacking Iraq.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Then maybe we should be concentrating efforts on locating and removing Osama, instead of attacking Iraq.

Seeing that the massive document release by the government earlier in the year proves undoubtedly that there was an ongoing collaboration between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, I'd say Iraq was a good call.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Bush said it'd be swift.

Are you from around here? Are you talking about George W. Bush, the current US President?

portions of 'Mission Accomplished' speech;

- "And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

- "Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free."

- "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes."

- "We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

Sounds like the 'Mission Accomplished" was referring strictly to the awesome military advancement of the coalition which accomplished unprecedented success in its task. Saddam has been rendered a sniveling con-man appealing to lawyers and planning his next strategy from behind the confines of a prison cell. Hell yeah, mission accomplished. 12 years of talks didn't do it, 13 UN Resolutions didn't do it. Military advancement did it. This isn't a Banquet TV dinner we're talking about here. How long did you think it'd take? How difficult did you think it would be?

Again, I'd love to hear what your solution is for Middle East peace. More talks? More UN resolutions? More economic sanctions? Which of these three humanitarian nightmares shall we sign your name to?

We'd strike the them down with shock and awe by the might of the U.S. military.

He said this??? Hmm, I think you're dramatizing a bit here. Do you have anything other than opinionated partisanship to back this claim?

Then he proudly stood on the deck of a carrier and announced the mission a success.

There was a Mission Accomplished banner behind his head. We had just completed the removal of Saddam from power and the feared "republican guard" was rendered a friggin' joke.

After that, when it was apparent that things weren't going so well and the WMD evidence had been falsified, he acknowledged it'd take a long time.

He had already acknowledged this on several occasions prior to the completion of inspections. Besides, you're not really claiming there were no WMDs are you? After all, he threatened to use them. Did you find the indictments of WMD equally as offensive when those with a (D) after their name insisted they existed?

What exactly would you suggest we do? Who, in your eyes has the best policy for World peace and why?

I love how the entire southern hemisphere is labeled "Global issues."

I suppose it would've made more sense to label it "southern hemisphere issues".

I'm certain if you thought about it real hard, you could come up with more pressing items to concern yourself with like... the guy down the street with the little yard statue of the jockey holding a lantern clearly breaking the rules of your gated subdivision.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Afghanistan, Haiti, and Cuba would disagree.

Would they? Cite where please. Thanx.

Then maybe we should be concentrating efforts on locating and removing Osama, instead of attacking Iraq.

How do you know he's not already dead? Why worry about one man so much? If you find a cockroach on your sandwich, do you only go after that one cockroach or do you find ways of eradicating the roach problem in general? It's so typical of the kind of small-thinking going on here that have lost the left countless elections.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

How do you know he's not already dead?

If he were dead, the Republicans wouldn't miss the opportunity to tell the people … right before the elections.

[spacefreak]

I think that if he is alive, we'd prefer he remain so if we had a massive surveillance operation in place. We had his satellite phone bugged before a certain Democratic Senator leaked it to the press. There's no reason to think we couldn't have other surveillance in place.

[jckalen]

We had his satellite phone bugged before a certain Democratic Senator leaked it to the press.

Who's? Osamas? What Democratic Senator leaked this to the press and how would it have stopped us from bugging his phone? Was he in America, calling other Americans? Did we stop monitoring calls? If we DID have it bugged, why didn't we triangulate his position via GPS and bomb the snot out of him?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

We had his satellite phone bugged before a certain Democratic Senator leaked it to the press.

What?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I think that if he is alive, we'd prefer he remain so if we had a massive surveillance operation in place. We had his satellite phone bugged before a certain Democratic Senator leaked it to the press. There's no reason to think we couldn't have other surveillance in place.

Riiiiight

[spacefreak]

My bad... it was Republican (former Democratic) Senator Richard Shelby. I got it mixed up with Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden babbling about a secret satellite tracking program.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7519

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Again, I'd love to hear what your solution is for Middle East peace. More talks? More UN resolutions? More economic sanctions? Which of these three humanitarian nightmares shall we sign your name to?

The mission, overall, was claimed a success. As in, all major military action was finally over and we had entered the "clean up" phase. He was outlining the steps required to bring the war to a conclusion.

Obviously it didn't work as well as he wanted. A major, iconic objective was accomplished, but the overall mission had not succeeded.


My solution for Iraq specifically would not have been different. I agree that military action was inevitable. The problem I had (as I've stated constantly) is how the Bush Administration initiated the war and garnered support for it.

The war in Iraq was not about terrorists. It became the agenda after Bush & Co. used the September 11th attacks as a scapegoat to garner support for the war in Iraq. I despise the man and the administration. What they did was wrong and unforgivable.

After 9/11, Iraq gave Americans a common enemy they could hate and blame for the attacks. Hardcore Bush supporters will claim that Bush never blamed Iraq on 9/11, which is bunch of bullsh*t. The administration did everything they could to make sure that it looked like Iraq was responsible either in part or in whole. Misleading speaches and emphasis (as they liked to call it) on the wrong countries.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

He said this??? Hmm, I think you're dramatizing a bit here. Do you have anything other than opinionated partisanship to back this claim?

He absolutely said that. You don't remember the whole "shock and awe" crap he went on about just before the invasion?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There was a Mission Accomplished banner behind his head. We had just completed the removal of Saddam from power and the feared "republican guard" was rendered a friggin' joke.

That's what people claim after things didn't go so well. The whole god damn thing was about major operations were complete in Iraq and were now in the cleanup phase. You're just trying to spin it becuase the Administration tried to play tough guy and got kicked in the nuts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

He had already acknowledged this on several occasions prior to the completion of inspections. Besides, you're not really claiming there were no WMDs are you? After all, he threatened to use them. Did you find the indictments of WMD equally as offensive when those with a (D) after their name insisted they existed?

Show me. The best I found was the crap about it not taking longer than 6 months.

People were retarded on both sides. Kerry was a spineless asshat who didn't speak up when he should've. He was too worried about his votes than what was right. That goes for a lot of the Democrats who supported Bush's position. They knew what was going on, but they're politicians. They're going to worry about getting into office next year, not that thousands of Americans and Iraqis are going to die.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What exactly would you suggest we do? Who, in your eyes has the best policy for World peace and why?

Not just America. The reason is because a single country will have a single objective view that doesn't work for varying cultures.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I suppose it would've made more sense to label it "southern hemisphere issues".

No, it just outlines the stupidity of it all. America and UK police the world. Everyone else just has to deal with it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

My bad... it was Republican (former Democratic) Senator Richard Shelby. I got it mixed up with Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden babbling about a secret satellite tracking program.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7519

In his heart, he was obviously a Democrat. All the worst traitors are.

[tie]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

After 9/11, Iraq gave Americans a common enemy they could hate and blame for the attacks. Hardcore Bush supporters will claim that Bush never blamed Iraq on 9/11, which is bunch of bullsh*t. The administration did everything they could to make sure that it looked like Iraq was responsible either in part or in whole. Misleading speaches and emphasis (as they liked to call it) on the wrong countries.

In fact, Bush is still trying to link Iraq to 9/11. Rice just a few days ago said, approximately, we do not know for sure that Saddam didn't order the 9/11 attack. Which may be strictly true, anything's possible. And maybe pigs can fly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If he were dead, the Republicans wouldn't miss the opportunity to tell the people … right before the elections.

I agree. In fact I've been advising that Democrats not find themselves caught in the "end-around" at election time. All this crying about WMDs and Osama. Wouldn't it be crazy if they were both to turn up right around election time? Then what, Global Warming?

[OreoCookie]

We all know that this would merely be a coincidence
As a matter of fact, the CIA has already shrink-wrapped Bin Laden so that he's still fresh when they take him out right before the elections.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm with you for the most part accept in semantics. I believe "small" government would mean that the government simply acknowledges all marriages as 'civil unions' and allows the Church to deem "marriage". Some Conservative policy here has been misconstrued. Defining Conservatism is critical to an understanding of what it is you're disillusioned with.

Whilst I don't really want to divert the topic onto this, this is not a matter of semantics. Whether the government calls them 'marriage' or 'civil unions' is not the issue, it's whether granting these rights to 'alternative' forms of civil unions are in conflict with the general interests of society. You cannot avoid the fact that if we grant gays civil unions with the same rights as straights, it will mean that adoption agencies will have to cater for gay couples. Let's leave this issue for another time though.

This is an interesting statement because you could well stop here. Counter-terrorism does not stop. We'll either counter it now or we'll counter it later. We'll either counter it on our time or we'll counter it on their time when they're as strong as they could be.

Of course it doesn't. I'm not disputing that the American government has a responsibility to protect her citizens against Islamic terrorism, but the means are just as important as the end. Generally speaking, I am very pro-Israeli and I actually think Israel, at least initially in this conflict was in the right. But both the American and Israeli governments must consider whether the actions they are taking are showing due respect towards human life. Yes, the terrorists are doing much worse things, but this does not really justify anything.

Our action in Iraq was to "change the face of the Middle East". You should not only listen to our sell to the International Community, but the sell to common sense. With Iran and Iraq busily engaging an arms race and with mutual distaste for Israel and the West, something had to be done. When major allies and valuable resources abroad are threatened by rogue states with sympathetic ears in an International body with interests of their own, the globe will come to a head of ideals. These ideals were brought to us. Most are in favor with our actions in Afghanistan, but that would be only going after the low hanging fruit while allowing the tree of terror to grow. Where I'd agree with you is how we've handled the actions and how those actions are being communicated. I've not heard that Iraq has "plunged" into civil war. All accounts I've heard are that it is possible it will, but then this has been the claim since Saddam's statue fell several years ago.

I don't think I ever said Iraq has plunged into civil war, but rather there is a looming threat of civil war. Put it this way, when the war with Iraq began, I attentively took notice of all the figures concerning American casualties, Iraqi casualties and all the various terrorist activities that were happening. It has got to such a stage, where we are so daily bombarded with bombs after bombs and deaths after deaths, that I just don't take anymore notice of what is happening. Indeed, so has the general public and news programmes. It's just taken for granted that at least a few times every week there will be a major terrorist attack.

It is true 'something had to be done', but whether war or toppling Saddam Hussein's regime was that which 'had to be done' is highly questionable. Perhaps more diplomacy would have been better. You might say that diplomacy would not do anything but neither has this occupation. At least diplomacy would have avoided all these countless deaths!

Presidents are not to be defended. Ideals and nations are. Ideals of governance are going to come to a head. Those with similar ideals are moving forward and those who oppose them are opposing them. What you're really saying is that you're not sure you want to be on the offensive. I would respectfully disagree. We could have several more years of "peace" while our heads buried themselves deeper into the sands of deceipt. We could foster this false sense of security with token gestures and wait until we're forced into a defensive posture, but I personally believe this would put us behind the global game.

Has our offensive position done anything? It seems to me that we are now putting our heads in the sand believing that our actions are actually helping to reduce terrorism. All that has happened is that countless souls have lost their lives and in the midst terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah have dramatically rose in popularity.

I'm not a pacifist. If an offensive measure is necessary to curb terrorism, then by all means do so. But one must consider what effects one's actions have upon civilians. If terrorist organisations base themselves in civilian areas does that legitimise the bombing of civilian areas? It is a very murky area morally because in the process one is most certainly to harm innocent civilians. But regardless, it is clear that this offensive strategy is simply not working, so why pursue it if it is only costing human lives?

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.

War is war and it is indeed hell. A hell we do not want for our children's children. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "mishandling American, British, and Polish lives". War is not math. War is only predictable to an extent.

I mentioned Poland partly in jest ("What about Poland?"). Of course war isn't maths, but it seems the current American government is simply perpetuating the cycle of history. Just about every single time the America comes in to do 'nation building' it ends up to be a big giant mess.

Do you think entering a war on a lie is not mishandling American lives? The American government should have taken into account the resistance they would have encountered from the Iraqis themselves. How could they have believed that once Saddam's government was toppled that the road ahead was downhill? Somehow they thought that they would be received by the whole Iraqi people as liberators. They were naive and ignorant of reality. They have to be accountable for that.

Some are. They are the vocal minority. The vocal minority of both sides will get the media. I've not seen more vitriol from the left in all my days. I find your indictments interesting. Actions cause reactions. Some predicted that Bush would polarize the nation, but really only his existence has polarized this country. Until we get over the election losses of history, we'll never 'Move On'.

I'm not really sure it is simply a vocal minority. I get Fox News here in Australia and I just cannot bear it. And I'm not 'centrist' or anything like that. I am as a right-wing as it gets.

Per the French Ambassador. In our current state of polarized society, these are your choices today I'm afraid. Take your pick.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

If you're Christian, you're Christian. That's one thing. If your identity includes one of political ideology, then you have choices to make for you personally. Conservatives do not always act conservatively nor do liberals always act liberally. Humankind will always disappoint.

Of course. But this is not merely indicative of a few conservatives in power, but conservative policy (probably even of the democrats in America too). Is the reason why conservatives so afraid to develop a more muted foreign policy due to the fact that they would be adopting policies so cherished by left wing radicals? It is so often the case here in Australia that many conservatives oppose policy simply because they are afraid of being associated with left-wingers. In reality, adopting less belligerent policies has nothing to do with socialists or greenies.

As to the T-shirts, IMHO you've assigned a boundary to 'humor' that I believe is rigid. I believe there is a reason for humor in tough times. A great many would not understand this.

You consider that humour? You laugh at other people's misfortune? That is very sadistic, in very bad taste and most of all, unchristian.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong (that's why we're fighting in the first place).
Wrong - see Japan, Germany, South Korea.

"They ignored the threat"... Yeah, right. Quite hard to do when planes are flying into our buildings.

Ah, I love the profound, anti-intellectual spirit of so many right wingers today. Argument, logic - that is the stuff of left-wing postmodern University professors!

You are misunderstanding what I meant by 'ignoring the threat'. I did not mean in America I meant in Iraq. They ignored the threat of terrorism posed by Islamic fundamentalists within Iraq itself. They did not envisage the current situation in Iraq.

Japan, Germany, South Korea - what about the other American projects? How did they fare? And you are speaking about a different era. Has there ever really been a successful attempt at nation building on the part of America since South Korea?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

He had already acknowledged this on several occasions prior to the completion of inspections. Besides, you're not really claiming there were no WMDs are you? After all, he threatened to use them. Did you find the indictments of WMD equally as offensive when those with a (D) after their name insisted they existed?

There were no WMDs. Saddam was only using them as a threat because he realised that with an American attack, his days were numbered. Either the American and the British intelligence agencies were fooled by the false signals given out by Saddam or they deliberately seized upon this evidence, recognised it was flimsy, played it up, exaggerated it etc. and used it as a pretext for the war.

Why is it that everyone else knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs? Does the socialist party of America have better intelligence services than the American Government?

I don't think my original question has been adequately answered. Why do conservatives tend to be belligerent? There seems to be some sort of Machiavellian streak to them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Could you point me to the thread or restate your argument? Remember, this is just my personal view and if what you say is convincing enough, I'm willing to budge.

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

Check Mussolin: leftie before fascist.
Check Mosley: leftie before fascist.
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).

The true right simply doesn't believe in the existence of the state mechanisms which allow fascism to flourish.

[Chuckit]

Did Hitler also not like gays and gypsies because they were capitalist? I thought he was just a believer in eugenics.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Did Hitler also not like gays and gypsies because they were capitalist? I thought he was just a believer in eugenics.

I've no idea what got into his head at the time he started doing that. However, it's true to say that what started him off was his hatred of the "Jewish capitalists".

http://www.hitler.org/writings/first_writing/

Originally Posted by Adolf Hitler

September 16, 1919
...And since even the Jew's feelings are limited to the purely material realm, his thoughts and ambitions are bound to be so even more strongly. Their dance around the golden calf becomes a ruthless struggle for all the possessions that we feel deep down are not the highest and not the only ones worth striving for on this earth.

The value of an individual is no longer determined by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the community, but solely by the size of his fortune, his wealth.

The greatness of a nation is no longer measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual resources, but only by the wealth of its material possessions.

All this results in that mental attitude and that quest for money and the power to protect it which allow the Jew to become so unscrupulous in his choice of means, so merciless in their use of his own ends. In autocratic states he cringes before the 'majesty' of the princes and misuses their favors to become a leech on their people.

In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before 'the majesty of the people', but only recognizes the majesty of money.

He saps the prince's character with Byzantine flattery; national pride and the strength of the nation with ridicule and shameless seduction to vice. His method of battle is that public opinion which is never expressed in the press but which is nonetheless manages and falsified by it. His power is the power of the money, which multiplies in his hands effortlessly and endlessly through interest, and with which he imposes a yoke upon the nation that is the more pernicious in that its glitter disguises its ultimately tragic consequences. Everything that makes the people strive for higher goals, be it religion, socialism, or democracy, is to the Jew merely a means to an end, the way to satisfy his greed and thirst for power.

Sound familiar? To modernise, simply replace "Jew" with "Neo-Con".

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Doofy

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

Check Mussolin: leftie before fascist.
Check Mosley: leftie before fascist.
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).

The true right simply doesn't believe in the existence of the state mechanisms which allow fascism to flourish.

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'.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I've no idea what got into his head at the time he started doing that. However, it's true to say that what started him off was his hatred of the "Jewish capitalists".

http://www.hitler.org/writings/first_writing/



Sound familiar? To modernise, simply replace "Jew" with "Neo-Con".

Hitler writes surprisingly well.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Check Mussolin: leftie before fascist.
Check Mosley: leftie before fascist.
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).

Hitler saw socialism as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Many of the socialist leaders in Germany, including Kurt Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Toller and Eugen Levine were Jews. So also were many of the leaders of the October Revolution in Russia. This included Leon Trotsky, Gregory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Dimitri Bogrov, Karl Radek, Yakov Sverdlov, Maxim Litvinov, Adolf Joffe, and Moisei Uritsky. It had not escaped Hitler's notice that Karl Marx, the prophet of socialism, had also been a Jew.

Interestingly though, many neoconservatives used to be 'left wing' as well.

Anyway, this isn't about terminology, but about core ideological philosophies. A lot has changed since the 19th and 20th century, and the terms 'left' and 'right' in relation to politics seem to have become rather meaningless.

Fact is though, that institutionalized power has shifted from political to the ecomonic sector. The paradigms are completely different.

Originally Posted by Doofy

The true right simply doesn't believe in the existence of the state mechanisms which allow fascism to flourish.

"Democracy is the rule of money" Roman Abramovic, 21st century plutocrat and owner of Chelsea F.C.