What is the Conservative view of the Iraqi Adventurism

[Psychoblues]

What are the true military expenses? What are the expenditures of the "contractors?" How does all this reflect in American taxation? What Americans stand to gain or lose the most in this financial fiasco? How are the families of our troops fairing under these enormous burdens being placed upon them? How do we protect and care for our veterans while we cut their benefits and deny their claims? Are the profiteering corporations going to pay for all this or are the common Americans going to bend over once again to absorb the full thrust of these projections of corporate and military brass greed?


Psychoblues

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What are the true military expenses? What are the expenditures of the "contractors?" How does all this reflect in American taxation? What Americans stand to gain or lose the most in this financial fiasco? How are the families of our troops fairing under these enormous burdens being placed upon them? How do we protect and care for our veterans while we cut their benefits and deny their claims? Are the profiteering corporations going to pay for all this or are the common Americans going to bend over once again to absorb the full thrust of these projections of corporate and military brass greed?


Psychoblues

All costs mentioned are reasonable, considered against the cost of allowing the mideast to fester as a terrorist incubation system.

What do you want to do about jihad? Nothing. Tolerate it, because of the crusades?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What are the true military expenses? What are the expenditures of the "contractors?" How does all this reflect in American taxation? What Americans stand to gain or lose the most in this financial fiasco? How are the families of our troops fairing under these enormous burdens being placed upon them? How do we protect and care for our veterans while we cut their benefits and deny their claims? Are the profiteering corporations going to pay for all this or are the common Americans going to bend over once again to absorb the full thrust of these projections of corporate and military brass greed?


Psychoblues

Questions that are framed with descriptions such as "fiasco", "enormous burdens", "cut benefits and deny claims", are not questions at all, but is a guise or rouse of a LIAR who wishes to impose his beliefs upon others using terrorism and lies and deceit.

Your post is deceitful. It is not surprising, as someone with the mindset as you have demonstrated over and over, must have a long history of self delusion, resulting in arrogance, hatred and a vile disregard for real truth.

Self loathing is not attractive.

 

[Hobbit]

So you're basically claiming that the war is too expensive and you're asking who's going to pay for it. Well, first off, it's the taxpayers, large and small. As to your question about the greedy corporations, go look at my post about how corporations don't pay taxes. Each individual citizen of the United States pays for this war. However, it is idiotic to say it's too expensive. Is your safety something you can put a price tag on? I, personally, would be willing to pay whatever cost was there to ensure that my family is safe from terrorists.

 

[William Joyce]

Not all conservatives think the "Iraqi adventurism," as you call it, is a good thing. In fact, some find it calamitous.

A good argument could be made that NO TRUE conservative thought invading Iraq was a good idea --- but all "neocons" did. True conservatives stand for a foreign policy that puts America, not Israel, first. Neoconservatives put Israel over America, and let their decisions be guided thusly. Many would say this makes them traitors to our country, but heavens me, that is a serious charge, isn't it? They always respond that anyone who opposes them is secretly an "anti-Semite" or an "isolationist." Hmmm. Yes, when we were "isolated," we had no problems with Muslims. Only when we decided to become Israel's bitch did that happen.

If you want the REAL conservative view on Iraq, you need to read "Whose War?" by Pat Buchananan.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not all conservatives think the "Iraqi adventurism," as you call it, is a good thing. In fact, some find it calamitous.

A good argument could be made that NO TRUE conservative thought invading Iraq was a good idea --- but all "neocons" did. True conservatives stand for a foreign policy that puts America, not Israel, first. Neoconservatives put Israel over America, and let their decisions be guided thusly. Many would say this makes them traitors to our country, but heavens me, that is a serious charge, isn't it? They always respond that anyone who opposes them is secretly an "anti-Semite" or an "isolationist." Hmmm. Yes, when we were "isolated," we had no problems with Muslims. Only when we decided to become Israel's bitch did that happen.

If you want the REAL conservative view on Iraq, you need to read "Whose War?" by Pat Buchananan.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Ahhh, so you guys are the only TRUE conservatives. Problem is, this is a democracy, as formulated by your white heros. Now, since you TRUE conservatives are a distinct minority, your views are not going to be dictating policy.

Because one may support Israel doesnt mean one puts them AHEAD of the US. But your white colored shades dont allow you to see anything but, "you either hate Israel like I do" or "You love Israel more than the US".

Pat Buchanan has a few good ideas, is a zealot on some which gives him enough of a following, but most of his ideas are idiotic.

You have never answered my question, "Do you think it shoud be banned that I could marry my wife, who is a Filipina"?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Ahhh, so you guys are the only TRUE conservatives. Problem is, this is a democracy, as formulated by your white heros. Now, since you TRUE conservatives are a distinct minority, your views are not going to be dictating policy.

Ahh, the tried-and-true "The voters have spoken! We have a mandate!" routine. I can remember a time when it was the Clintonites using that line, and Conservatives (rightly) bashing it. How times have changed.

Democracy is not a cure-all for making responsible government policy, and it is not necessarily a protection against tyranny. That's why the founding fathers had such utter disdain for it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

WHile a pure democracy IS just glorified mob rule, that is not what we are, nor is iraq one. We're both constitutional republics with democratically elected legislators and executives.

But yet, and still, pure mob rule would be preferable to the totalitarianism you lefties espouse. The mob CAN be reasoned with. Im sure the communists are upset about how many americans have been able to see the evils of the absurd levels of collectivism the left favors.

 

[Gunny]

Not all conservatives think the "Iraqi adventurism," as you call it, is a good thing. In fact, some find it calamitous.

A good argument could be made that NO TRUE conservative thought invading Iraq was a good idea --- but all "neocons" did. True conservatives stand for a foreign policy that puts America, not Israel, first. Neoconservatives put Israel over America, and let their decisions be guided thusly. Many would say this makes them traitors to our country, but heavens me, that is a serious charge, isn't it? They always respond that anyone who opposes them is secretly an "anti-Semite" or an "isolationist." Hmmm. Yes, when we were "isolated," we had no problems with Muslims. Only when we decided to become Israel's bitch did that happen.

If you want the REAL conservative view on Iraq, you need to read "Whose War?" by Pat Buchananan.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Tsk tsk .... and you started off so well. I agree that traditional conservatives and "neo-cons" do not hold identical beliefs. Your statement goes downhill after that LuvRPgirl put it perfectly ....

Because one may support Israel doesnt mean one puts them AHEAD of the US.

The US is protecting its source of oil and trying to keep it out of the hands of militant extremist Islamists. That IS putting the US and our hungry, fossil fuel driven world FIRST.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

WHile a pure democracy IS just glorified mob rule, that is not what we are, nor is iraq one. We're both constitutional republics with democratically elected legislators and executives.

But yet, and still, pure mob rule would be preferable to the totalitarianism you lefties espouse. The mob CAN be reasoned with. Im sure the communists are upset about how many americans have been able to see the evils of the absurd levels of collectivism the left favors.

We aren't a democracy, but we're sure moving in that direction. Want free health care? Voila, both parties support it! Polls show that the average american wants to kick someone's ass after 9/11? Hey, look at that country over there, it's full of people who vaguely resemble the 9/11 hijackers!

There is a huge difference between defending totalitarianism (which quite a few on the left do support, if it's the right kind of totalitarianism), and being opposed to interventionism, as "lefties" (lolz) like me and Joyce are. We cannot set the entire world free at the point of a gun. There are many, many societies in which the average man on the street emphatically does not want freedom. If given the vote, they will vote for hard-line religion, or a dictator, or a militant socialist. The tradition of freedom took several centuries to develop in the western world before it peaked in the 1800's.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We aren't a democracy, but we're sure moving in that direction. Want free health care? Voila, both parties support it! Polls show that the average american wants to kick someone's ass after 9/11? Hey, look at that country over there, it's full of people who vaguely resemble the 9/11 hijackers!

There is a huge difference between defending totalitarianism (which quite a few on the left do support, if it's the right kind of totalitarianism), and being opposed to interventionism, as "lefties" (lolz) like me and Joyce are. We cannot set the entire world free at the point of a gun. There are many, many societies in which the average man on the street emphatically does not want freedom. If given the vote, they will vote for hard-line religion, or a dictator, or a militant socialist. The tradition of freedom took several centuries to develop in the western world before it peaked in the 1800's.

Free societies prosper, because the power of more individuals is unleashed. True, many will not understand freedom at first, but they must be freed so they don't become human bombers against us. It's for us as much for them. Isolationism is suicide in this era of ICBM's. That's the fact, jack.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The US is protecting its source of oil and trying to keep it out of the hands of militant extremist Islamists. That IS putting the US and our hungry, fossil fuel driven world FIRST.

Ahh, the truth comes out. Unfortunately the only terrorists that Saddam ever funded were the ones agitating against Israel, which is none of our concern one way or another. They've been a strong, independent country for over half a century now, and have had no trouble handing the arabs their asses on several occasions. They don't need our help, and there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes any foreign aid.

Saddam was perfectly willing to sell oil, as are all the other mideast dictators (some of which we support). That's all they really have to make money. And if they don't sell, the free market will come up with alternatives--war socialism isn't the answer.

 

[Gunny]

Ahh, the truth comes out. Unfortunately the only terrorists that Saddam ever funded were the ones agitating against Israel, which is none of our concern one way or another. They've been a strong, independent country for over half a century now, and have had no trouble handing the arabs their asses on several occasions. They don't need our help, and there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes any foreign aid.

Saddam was perfectly willing to sell oil, as are all the other mideast dictators (some of which we support). That's all they really have to make money. And if they don't sell, the free market will come up with alternatives--war socialism isn't the answer.

The truth comes out? How was it ever a secret? If the US did not have vital interest in the region, what would be the point of putting over half our military force there?

I have not attempted to tie Saddam to anything more than his own megalomaniacal mechanizations, for which he has paid dearly I might add. I have no real problem with taking out Saddam as he was something that the US was going to have to deal with sooner or later.

However, I consider invading Iraq to be ill-timed, and it has sidetracked using out armed forces to hunt down terrorists that on a list of priorities, are and were far more dangerous to the US itself than some two-bit dictator with an overblown ego.

Be that as it may, Monday Morning QB-ing accomplishes nothing. We are there and we need to finish what we started.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Free societies prosper, because the power of more individuals is unleashed. True, many will not understand freedom at first, but they must be freed so they don't become human bombers against us. It's for us as much for them. Isolationism is suicide in this era of ICBM's. That's the fact, jack.

"Isolationism" has worked nicely for those countries that stick to it. It's worked for 800-something years for the Swiss, even though they're in the middle of blood-soaked Europe. Seen any angry Muslims attacking the Swiss lately? Hmm. What about say, Sweden? Any countries in South America? What about the USA, circa....oh, 1925? Or 1937? No attacks? When did the anti-american sentiment begin then? How about Syria, 1949? Funny how that follows so closely after the creation of Israel.

Also, in case you're thinking that Pearl Harbor disproves isolationism. Remember that a power-hungry socialist named FDR was itching to get us into war for at least two years before that. We eagerly encouraged Japanese consumption of american gasoline in the late 30's while they were conquering Asia, then when they were hooked, we placed a gasoline embargo. Then, even though we had cracked the Jap radio codes, we placed the lion's share of our fleet at Pearl Harbor, and ignored warnings from Navy men who knew something was coming. As you can see, this isn't exactly a great example of the failure of noninterventionism--as FDR's opponents, the old right, used to understand.

Our entry into WWI was even less innocent, btw. The Lusitania was loaded to the gills with ammunition, and her British escort was ordered away just as they approached waters where a German submarine was known to be patrolling. The Kaiser's government even ran ads warning americans not to get on board. Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan warned president Wilson beforehand, but was ignored, and resigned once he realized his administration was trying to manuver the Krauts into firing the first shot.

Then there's the Spanish american war and the Gulf of Tonkin incidents, which are well-known frauds. So let's not talk about how noninterventionism has failed, when it hasn't.

 

[manu1959]

"Isolationism" has worked nicely for those countries that stick to it. It's worked for 800-something years for the Swiss, even though they're in the middle of blood-soaked Europe. Seen any angry Muslims attacking the Swiss lately? Hmm. What about say, Sweden? Any countries in South America? What about the USA, circa....oh, 1925? Or 1937? No attacks? When did the anti-american sentiment begin then? How about Syria, 1949? Funny how that follows so closely after the creation of Israel.

Also, in case you're thinking that Pearl Harbor disproves isolationism. Remember that a power-hungry socialist named FDR was itching to get us into war for at least two years before that. We eagerly encouraged Japanese consumption of american gasoline in the late 30's while they were conquering Asia, then when they were hooked, we placed a gasoline embargo. Then, even though we had cracked the Jap radio codes, we placed the lion's share of our fleet at Pearl Harbor, and ignored warnings from Navy men who knew something was coming. As you can see, this isn't exactly a great example of the failure of noninterventionism--as FDR's opponents, the old right, used to understand.

Our entry into WWI was even less innocent, btw. The Lusitania was loaded to the gills with ammunition, and her British escort was ordered away just as they approached waters where a German submarine was known to be patrolling. The Kaiser's government even ran ads warning americans not to get on board. Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan warned president Wilson beforehand, but was ignored, and resigned once he realized his administration was trying to manuver the Krauts into firing the first shot.

Then there's the Spanish american war and the Gulf of Tonkin incidents, which are well-known frauds. So let's not talk about how noninterventionism has failed, when it hasn't.

so it is all our fault that, insert incedent here) got it.....you should fly over there and appologize......one thing, didn't we warn osama to stop? didn't we warn saddam to stop....so if the lisitania thing is our fault then isn't the invasion of afganistan, iraq, somolia, vietnam etc...all the other sides fault.....i mean we did warn them.....before we killed them.....more than i can say for the terrorists.....they just fly planes into office buildings....

 

[manu1959]

"Isolationism" has worked nicely for those countries that stick to it. It's worked for 800-something years for the Swiss, even though they're in the middle of blood-soaked Europe. Seen any angry Muslims attacking the Swiss lately? Hmm. What about say, Sweden?

http://www.utb.boras.se/uk/se/projekt/history/articles/ww2/ww24.htm

http://www.utb.boras.se/uk/se/projekt/history/articles/ww2/ww23.htm

move there.....what a great group of people.

neutral my ass...accessory to murder more like it

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ahh, the tried-and-true "The voters have spoken! We have a mandate!" routine. I can remember a time when it was the Clintonites using that line, and Conservatives (rightly) bashing it. How times have changed.

Democracy is not a cure-all for making responsible government policy, and it is not necessarily a protection against tyranny. That's why the founding fathers had such utter disdain for it.

But its still the law of the land, and has been working quite well, in fact, so well, that nothing better has ever been formulated.

Now, if you have a better alternative?

Rule by ONE?
Rule by a parliament?
rule by the minority?

WJ's beliefs are racist at heart. Thats why if you follow his line of thinking via questions, he either becomes exposed as the racist he is, or he has to ignore the question. Such is the case with the question I posed him about my wife.

And there is no cure all for anything, so stating so doesnt take away the legitimacy of the democracy, nor take away its posistion as the best form of govt we have.

WJ wants tight controls on anyone entering his "all white" world". I say BULLSHIT. I should be able to travel anywhere I want, as long as I can support myself, and follow the laws of the land that pertain to not hurting anyone, or creating a problem for their system of living. That DOES NOT include racist laws.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

We aren't a democracy, but we're sure moving in that direction..

Yes we are. Last time I looked, it was majority vote wins.

Want free health care? Voila, both parties support it!.

Thats socialism, which is much more supported by the left.

Polls show that the average american wants to kick someone's ass after 9/11? Hey, look at that country over there, it's full of people who vaguely resemble the 9/11 hijackers!.

Nice editorializing, even though its not true.

There is a huge difference between defending totalitarianism (which quite a few on the left do support, if it's the right kind of totalitarianism),.

Only problem is, if you establish a GOOD totalitarian govt, it then has the poweer to devolve into a bad one. And you cant do anything about it. At least if a democracy becomes a bad democracy, the people have the power to change it.

and being opposed to interventionism, as "lefties" (lolz) like me and Joyce are..

I dont know about you, but WJ is not opposed to interventionism. He uses that as a guise to attempt to further his racist ideals. I doubt he would be willing to civilly debate me one on one on his viewpoint regarding race, and mine.
He is more of a hit and run coward.

We cannot set the entire world free at the point of a gun..

Which is just ONE reason we ARENT trying to.

There are many, many societies in which the average man on the street emphatically does not want freedom. If given the vote, they will vote for hard-line religion, or a dictator, or a militant socialist..

HA!, But thats contradictory. A dictator that is voted in is different than a dictator who came into power by force. The iraqis voted, if they wanted a dictator, someone would have run on that platform and won. SO the facts dissuade your concept that that is what they truly want.

The tradition of freedom took several centuries to develop in the western world before it peaked in the 1800's.

ANd very well it may take that long to get ahold in the ME. At least President Bush is trying, and with a long term view and plan. Yet its the Demafeatists that claim he has no vision,

And our democracy HAS NOT peaked.

 

[archangel]

Not all conservatives think the "Iraqi adventurism," as you call it, is a good thing. In fact, some find it calamitous.

A good argument could be made that NO TRUE conservative thought invading Iraq was a good idea --- but all "neocons" did. True conservatives stand for a foreign policy that puts America, not Israel, first. Neoconservatives put Israel over America, and let their decisions be guided thusly. Many would say this makes them traitors to our country, but heavens me, that is a serious charge, isn't it? They always respond that anyone who opposes them is secretly an "anti-Semite" or an "isolationist." Hmmm. Yes, when we were "isolated," we had no problems with Muslims. Only when we decided to become Israel's bitch did that happen.

If you want the REAL conservative view on Iraq, you need to read "Whose War?" by Pat Buchananan.


Okay WJ...suppose tomorrow the US administration declares...'No more support to Israel' 'They are on their own'...Do you really believe the continued Jihad by Islam will go away and be directed to just Israel? If you do you are living in a dream world...sorry Dude but the Ottoman Empire is alive and well and did not give up when their supporters non other than Hitlers regeim...era WWII lost the war of ' perfect race' even though I am sure Hitler would have eliminated the Islamic race after the war! :scratch:

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Yes we are. Last time I looked, it was majority vote wins.(A)

Thats socialism, which is much more supported by the left.(B)

Only problem is, if you establish a GOOD totalitarian govt, it then has the poweer to devolve into a bad one. And you cant do anything about it. At least if a democracy becomes a bad democracy, the people have the power to change it.(C)

I dont know about you, but WJ is not opposed to interventionism. He uses that as a guise to attempt to further his racist ideals. I doubt he would be willing to civilly debate me one on one on his viewpoint regarding race, and mine.
He is more of a hit and run coward.(D)

Which is just ONE reason we ARENT trying to.(E)

HA!, But thats contradictory. A dictator that is voted in is different than a dictator who came into power by force. The iraqis voted, if they wanted a dictator, someone would have run on that platform and won. SO the facts dissuade your concept that that is what they truly want.(F)

ANd very well it may take that long to get ahold in the ME. At least President Bush is trying, and with a long term view and plan. Yet its the Demafeatists that claim he has no vision,

And our democracy HAS NOT peaked.(G)

A) We are (in theory) supposed to be a republic. That means that the majority cannot run all over the rights of the minority.

B) That is socialism AND democracy. "The people" have long supported good-sounding rubbish such as "free" health care, progressive income taxes, socialized retirement plans, "free" schooling, etc. The fact that the people support it doesn't make it any less tyrannnical. The right wing used to make the exact same argument I'm making right now, only 10 years ago. (And the left was making the exact opposite arguments too, heh.)

C) I'm not arguing for totalitarian government, all I'm saying is: democracy isn't some wonderful magical miracle pill that will automatically bring peace and prosperity everywhere it's tried.

D) I'm not familiar with all of WJ's views, but he appears to be a noninterventionist as far as Iraq goes, and that's what this thread is about--not racism. Changing the topic to his support of whatever race laws you're talking about is a red herring. He didn't bring it up.

E) That's odd, I sure do hear a lot of people talking about the USA's god-given mission to topple every 2-bit dictator who couldn't possibly threaten the US, throughout the world. We are not the world's policeman. The right wing used to make the exact same argument I'm making right now, only 10 years ago.

F) The Iraqi government has already snuggled up to Iran. Their constitution places practically no limits on government power.

G) I didn't say democracy had peaked. I said freedom had peaked. It was during the early 20th century (starting around 1913, for the US) that we see the emergence of the Total State--the income tax, the federal reserve, the New Deal, all forms of socialism, the UN, and centralization of power away from the states.