Define conservatism

[USMC the Almighty]

The success of a functional democracy can not be measured in just 6 years. It was not until the election of 1800, when political parties changed hands without violence, that our country realized that it could survive as a democracy. That was 24 years after the Declaration of Independance, and 17 years after the battle of Yorktown. Are we going to occupy Iraq that long? I hope not.

The American occupation in Iraq is going to have to convince the Iraqi people that, regardless of the tenets of Islam and its assertions about judgment in the afterlife, there is more pleasure in being a democracy than pain. The last few years have not shown that to the Iraqi people. Having electricity and schools is not worth having your family blown to bits on a daily basis.

Even I can agree with that assessment.

Arch.

Good point, Arch, but remember how long we remained in Germany after WW2? We wouldn't need a huge presence, merely a few thousand advisors after a certain point.

 

[Archangelwolf]

Germany's decline in moral government was not inspired by religion. It was inspired by an unrealistic expectation of political world dominance.

Iraq is inspired by an expectation, real or imagined, of religious world dominance. These terrorists believe that their goal is for the world to become converted to Islam; by force if necessary. Americans do not realize the terrible tragedy that this is. An aggressive political foreign policy is one thing; but an aggressive religious foreign policy?

One thing people can all agree on about religion-most of the most immoral acts imaginable in this world's history have been inspired by religion. It can create the most fanatic and unreasonable extremists in the world; and what happens if a government aggressively seeks to kill them? They become MARTYRS.

So, now we have a civil war among insurgents fighting over their interpretations of the Quran. They are willing to die for their beliefs, for martyrdom. The American people can not fight such madness. This is not some decieved Germans having bought into some crazy Aryan scheme about world domination. These are religious fanatics, inspired by the very blood of their brothers the day before, to be reunited with Al-lah God. The Iraqi people are willing to face ANNIHILATION, rather than subject themselves to the western views of democracy and equality.

Islam teaches, in the Quran, of two kinds of jihad. The first is "al-Jihadu I-Akbar," which is the war within one's self. This war is for an individual, to make his earthly desires submit to the desires of Al-lah God. This is the war that the media tries to throw at the American people, as showing Muslims to be peaceful.

However, there is another. "Al-Jihad I-asghar"-is the war against the infidels. Who are infidels? Well, let me put it this way. Anyone who rejects Islam, and the teachings of Muhammed, is insulting Al-lah God himself. Insulting God is the equivalent of an act of war; and is subject to retaliation by those who serve Al-lah God. So what does the Quran teach about retaliation against those who refuse to submit to Islam?

"Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors of each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them,..."

"Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war."

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Al-lah."

....and so on and so forth.

This is a war that we can not win. Every Iraqi that dies inspires 10 more to take up their cause.

War against political aggression is noble; but war against religious aggression is suicide.

Arch.

 

[palerider]

So your suggestion is to cut and run and let a million or so die as happened when we bailed on vietnam?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Hardly the case. It is certainly the picture that the press paints for you to see, but conservatives support this action. The republicans who the press highlights as deserting the war effort are RINO's and are republicans only because they couldn't get elected in thier districts as democrats.

Patently incorrect.
Check out "Conservative Exodus" to learn HOW incorrect.


http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

You talk as if you believe bush is a true conservative. Is that the impression that you are under?

Of course I'm not under that impression; please read my posts and it will be abundantly clear that I have - from the very first - distinguished neocons like Bush from those of a historically conservative ethos.

Aside from that, war tactics shouldn't be confused with societal change. How many would saddam have killed following the slow and deliberate standard?

Not even vaguely relevant: if those who support preemptive war do so because of distress about people getting killed, then why did they not shepherd troops into Rawanda and why not now into Darfur ?

There is always some motive for treaties. My point was that in the case of Kuwait, it wasn't oil because at the time the treaties were enacted, Kuwait was not a wealthy nation

Well, what was it then ? I asked that question of you several days ago.
I think we all know that oil is a very real form of wealth.

Actually they weren't kicking and screaming. Two nuclear weapons had knocked the kick and the scream out of them. They became what we told them to become because they didn't want a third dropped on them. That qualifies as kicking and screaming.

Whether they are dragged kicking and screaming, or bombed into submission ...it is not our place to be imposing a form of government on other nations by strong arming them or threatening them with bombs.
More significantly for the thread topic, it is not consistent with conservative values to do that.

For that 100 years, it was relatively easy to avoid foriegn entanglements. That is not the case today. We have foriegn interests and if we don't see to them, we can find ourselves in very serious trouble. Isolationism is simply no longer a viable policy.

You present what is known as a *false dichotomy*: it is not "EITHER preemption OR isolation".

To date, there are over 30 thousand new businesses in iraq...

They had water and schools before this administration falsified reasons to go in there.
Perhaps you think the US should go clear the way for entrepeneurial opportunities in several OTHER countries in the Middle East now by similar means ?

Japan, the Philipines, Most of eastern Europe.

To the extent that those are an answer to my question, those were secondary consequences of our efforts towards something else.

The people of Iraq are far better off now than they ever were under saddam's rule. And we can thank the democrat party for not funding the attempts at freedom in South America in exactly the same way we can thank the democrats for withdrawing support and subsequently letting millions die in vietnam, cambodia, and laos when we cut and run on them.

I have seen videos which show how much "better off" the Iraqis are.
Also,
Anyone who thinks US actions in South America had something to do with "freedom", is looking only from the viewpoint of corporations.

Of course you do...

Easy to say....

Nice rhetoric, but not accurate.

The burden would be upon you to explain HOW my statement is "not accurate" since you are the one making that charge.
Actually,
the resorting to personal attack at this point (i.e., asserting that I enjoy pointing out when the US is at fault, and so forth) tells more about the one who wrote it, than anyone else.
There are no reasonable grounds on which to assess me as being hostile to my own country. "Loving one's country" is a different thing than blindly casting about for a rationale, for each and every action of one's government.
Please try not to conflate the two.

I suggest to you some serious reading especially about US activities in South America, before continuing this.

Nationalizing the means of production is always wrong and always leads to the repression of the people.

Nationalization is not "wrong" because it is not a moral issue. It is an economic expedient.
and sometimes a passably useful corrective measure for problems caused by the opposite extreme.

 

[Archangelwolf]

People are dying in Iraq exponentially. It is becoming catastrophic. Terrorism has risen over 600% since the invasion of Iraq.

We are aiding and abetting the cause of the terrorists with our occupation in Iraq. Any other argument is supplementing that fact.

http://forums.lubbockonline.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=000013

Arch.

 

[palerider]

Patently incorrect.
Check out "Conservative Exodus" to learn HOW incorrect.

The exodus project is a web site. For all the press it gets, it could well be one person. I do agree with most on the site, but not their positonon the war and my support for the war has nothing to do with transforming the government, it has to do with removing a brutal tyrant. One doesn't, however, refuse to support what one wants to happen just because the people who initiated it did so for different reasons than your own.

Not even vaguely relevant: if those who support preemptive war do so because of distress about people getting killed, then why did they not shepherd troops into Rawanda and why not now into Darfur ?

I thought, that we should have ended the killing in Rawanda and believe that we should be in Darfur today. In fact, I favor building a great big evil tyrant wheel with the names of all who could be considered as such on it and every 6 months or so, give it a spin and whoever's name it lands on. Kill them. My bet is that after a year or so, they would either seriously reconsider how they treat their people and their neighbors or dissappear under the largest rock they could find. It is time to put an end to needless suffering at the hands of psychopaths and few nations in the world have the strength to do it.

Well, what was it then ? I asked that question of you several days ago. I think we all know that oil is a very real form of wealth.

I don't know, but I do know that back when the treaties were being signed, oil was a non issue. Are you under the impression that we only sign treaties with wealthy nations that can give us something? We don't get any oil directly from Kuwait anyway. Crude oil is sold, by auction, on the open market. The only people who were getting oil directly from the source were our "allies" who had helped corrupt the oil for food program.

Whether they are dragged kicking and screaming, or bombed into submission ...it is not our place to be imposing a form of government on other nations by strong arming them or threatening them with bombs. More significantly for the thread topic, it is not consistent with conservative values to do that.

It is perfectly consistent with conservative values. Or is it ok with you for dictators to kill people in their millions so long as it is just "those people over there" who are being killed?

present what is known as a *false dichotomy*: it is not "EITHER preemption OR isolation".

Then present a viable middle alternative in the case of someone like saddam who had flaunted for over a decade every restriction placed on him by the world community and those he had not flaunted, he had, with the help of our "allies" thoroughly corrupted.

There are occasions when one has little choice but to engage an enemy and if one doesn't recognize that, one finds himself blindsided.

They had water and schools before this administration falsified reasons to go in there. Perhaps you think the US should go clear the way for entrepeneurial opportunities in several OTHER countries in the Middle East now by similar means ?

Unfortunately, little girls didn't get to go to the schools. Is that ok with you. You are fine with little brown girls being treated like animals in a brutal society? It is ok with you for little brown girls in a far off society to be hauled into rape rooms and raped in front of thier fathers in order to make a political point and bring their fathers back into line?

Economic opportunities are no more than a side benefit to removing a psychopathic murdering dictator. Saddam and his ouster, and preventing someone like him from assuming his power was my reason for supporting the war.

To the extent that those are an answer to my question, those were secondary consequences of our efforts towards something else.

You asked where in the world you should be looking to see people who enjoy freedom as the result of military action by another country. Those are places you should be looking (and to history) so you might recognize that military action, and the threat of military action is just about the only way that people actually become free.

I have seen videos which show how much "better off" the Iraqis are. Also, Anyone who thinks US actions in South America had something to do with "freedom", is looking only from the viewpoint of corporations.

McDonalds in South America? I wasn't aware that they had much of a presence there outside of the tourist areas on the coast. The efforts in South America were about communism supported by the soviet union via castro. Maybe you don't mind having half of this hemisphere being communist, but Mr. Reagan did. It was not tolerable. And to let it happen would have been strategic suicide.

I suggest to you some serious reading especially about US activities in South America, before continuing this.

I have. Maybe you aren't aware of how profoundly involved in south america the soviet union was.

Nationalization is not "wrong" because it is not a moral issue. It is an economic expedient. And metimes a passably useful corrective measure for problems caused by the opposite extreme.

Nationalization of the means of production is always wrong and always leads leads to the repression of the people. Observe Chavez in South America right now. He nationalized oil production (the only real wealth the nation has) and now less than 5 years after he is ruling then nation by fiat.

 

[palerider]

People are dying in Iraq exponentially. It is becoming catastrophic. Terrorism has risen over 600% since the invasion of Iraq.

We are aiding and abetting the cause of the terrorists with our occupation in Iraq. Any other argument is supplementing that fact.

http://forums.lubbockonline.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=000013

Arch.

If you look at history and the amount of killing that saddam did, as reported by organizations as liberal as human rights watch, fewer people have died as a result of this war than saddam would have killed just carrying out business as usual.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

palerider -
just stopping in and don't have time to address all your replies right now ...but did want to deal with this one:

Unfortunately, little girls didn't get to go to the schools. Is that ok with you. You are fine with little brown girls being treated like animals in a brutal society?

I really have to wonder what you're hoping to accomplish by insinuating that anyone's stance on the Iraq War is based on the color of the Iraqis' skin.
IF that were the issue, then I would certainly expect you to be agitating for a deployment into Africa, where many of "the little brown girls" routinely suffer clitoridectomy AS WELL AS not getting to go to school.

I hope you're seeing the point; if you choose to "play the race card" vis a vis Iraq, it will come back to whack you in the head.

As we all know, this administration did not take us to war for the sake of those little girls.

It is ok with you for little brown girls in a far off society to be hauled into rape rooms and raped in front of thier fathers in order to make a political point and bring their fathers back into line?

It would not be okay with me, whether they were brown, white, black, or yellow. But that is not the reason we went in there and as apologetics go, that one is not going to work.

More late tonight hopefully.
Lilly

 

[palerider]

palerider -
I really have to wonder what you're hoping to accomplish by insinuating that anyone's stance on the Iraq War is based on the color of the Iraqis' skin.
IF that were the issue, then I would certainly expect you to be agitating for a deployment into Africa, where many of "the little brown girls" routinely suffer clitoridectomy AS WELL AS not getting to go to school.

As I have said. I favor bringing the might of the US to bear on any ruler, or group that feels it has the right to opress its people and kill and torture them at will.

Those who most loudly protest the war seem to protest based on the reason we are there and not the fact that people who were oppressed now have the opportunity to be free. To say that you prefer that we weren't there is to say that you really weren't that concerned about what was going on there and would just as soon see them continue to be oppressed.

I hope you're seeing the point; if you choose to "play the race card" vis a vis Iraq, it will come back to whack you in the head.

Not me as I have made it abundantly clear that I favor going after any dictator or group that oppresses either its people or its neighbors.

As we all know, this administration did not take us to war for the sake of those little girls.

The reasons this administration gave are irrelavent. What is important is that the rape rooms are closed down and the people there have an opportunity to live like free people rather than the subjects of a brutal psychopath. Are you one of those who would reject a good thing being done just because you don't agree with the reasons that the one who is doing gave?

It would not be okay with me, whether they were brown, white, black, or yellow. But that is not the reason we went in there and as apologetics go, that one is not going to work.

Never mind. I see that you are one who would rather see people continue to suffer than to see their suffering lessened because you don't like the reasons that the one who is lessening the suffering gave for doing so.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Hello -
I probably will not get in late tonight after all because of some new plans so let me try to answer the rest of your post now, just touching on some of the points because I only have a half hour.

The exodus project is a web site. For all the press it gets, it could well be one person.

I rather doubt it ...unless you believe that one person instituted all those several alternative political parties as well !
In addition, you may find this instructive:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

I do agree with most on the site, but not their positonon the war and my support for the war has nothing to do with transforming the government, it has to do with removing a brutal tyrant.

The brutal tyrant to whom you refer has been removed for some time now, yet we are still there. And whether or not it is your reason for supporting the war, note that this administration certainly DOES refer to transforming the Middle East (to have US-styled elections, and in other respects to reflect our sort of government).

I thought, that we should have ended the killing in Rawanda and believe that we should be in Darfur today. In fact, I favor building a great big evil tyrant wheel with the names of all who could be considered as such on it and every 6 months or so, give it a spin and whoever's name it lands on. Kill them. My bet is that after a year or so, they would either seriously reconsider how they treat their people and their neighbors or dissappear under the largest rock they could find. It is time to put an end to needless suffering at the hands of psychopaths and few nations in the world have the strength to do it.

Maybe you can recall another great nation who assumed they had the strength to right all the world's wrongs or do anything else they wished on the globe ...colonizing many other nations in the process.
That's right:
Great Britain.
Why did the sun set on Great Britain, palerider ?
Because she extended herself beyond her capacity, spread herself too thin - forging on to build an empire that she could not defend.
Why don't we take a lesson from those - our cousins - and start recalling what Washington and Jefferson said about foreign entanglements ?

It is perfectly consistent with conservative values. Or is it ok with you for dictators to kill people in their millions so long as it is just "those people over there" who are being killed?

There will never be a time when someone is not enduring oppression or murder somewhere on the globe. The American people have not consented to be the world's policeman, with their blood and tax dollars.
Second,
those may be YOUR reasons and they are noble ones, but they are clearly not the motives that drive Bush, Cheney, et al.

Then present a viable middle alternative in the case of someone like saddam who had flaunted for over a decade every restriction placed on him by the world community and those he had not flaunted, he had, with the help of our "allies" thoroughly corrupted.

The middle alternative would be to maintain a ready defense strategy against him in case the need should have arisen (which would have been a very remote possibility in my opinion).

Now I already talked to your point about the little girls and I saw your answer. Swell, you wish to steer troops to anywhere on the globe where people are experiencing what you consider oppression (I say 'what you consider' because apparently these people think no school and clitoridectomy for women is right in the sight of God).

In my view, the problem with your recommendation is that

* We simply do not have the resources - human or otherwise - to do what you would like, without coming to ruin.

* We also do not have the will (consult the latest polls to see what percentage of Americans who now think the Iraq War was an expensive kiss-off).

*We very plainly do not have the right ...to go butting in to everybody else's business.

That last point was illustrated well by the anecdote I related, about the people of ONE Middle Eastern country staunchly resisting attempts by their leader to permit driving by women...

Whence do we get the right to go in there and say, "Your religious traditions are wrong - women should get to drive and be educated because that is the western way and we have the muscle to insist on it".

Economic opportunities are no more than a side benefit to removing a psychopathic murdering dictator. Saddam and his ouster, and preventing someone like him from assuming his power was my reason for supporting the war.

Well, which is it ?
Is it the supposed "economic benefits", or is it the removal of Sadaam, or is it the WMDs ?
See what I mean when I mention "casting about for a rationale" ?
There is no reasoning adequate to justify our occupation of Iraq and that is why there are so many rationalizations.

You asked where in the world you should be looking to see people who enjoy freedom as the result of military action by another country. Those are places you should be looking (and to history) so you might recognize that military action, and the threat of military action is just about the only way that people actually become free.

People only become free if they passionately will it and do it for themselves. Otherwise, they might get a semblance of freedom, but they are not truly ready for it - so they will fall under the spell of the next charismatic person who comes to the microphone with an offer of security.

Assuming the countries you named are "free" in the sense you mean, it was a secondary result of the US pursuit of other interests ...yet you are now calling upon this 'freeing of nations' as a primary goal of our so-called interventions.

McDonalds in South America? I wasn't aware that they had much of a presence there outside of the tourist areas on the coast.

Actually I was talking about something more prevalent than just one corporation: I was talking about the long history of exporting so called "cash crops" out of Latin America by corporations.
Cash crops would be things like chocolate, coffee, geraniums, stuff like that.
The rich equatorial soil has been utilized for these luxury items when it could/should have been growing staples to feed the people.
In fact,
for most of its history with Europe, the interior of Latin America has been neglected noticeably in favor of building seaports and roads OUT of the continent, to take those goods to market.
And,
probably needless to say, very few natives of Latin America were the beneficiaries of these transactions.

The efforts in South America were about communism supported by the soviet union via castro. Maybe you don't mind having half of this hemisphere being communist, but Mr. Reagan did. It was not tolerable. And to let it happen would have been strategic suicide.

One question:
Do you agree that the majority of Cuban people were better off after Batista was displaced by Castro ?

Nationalization of the means of production is always wrong and always leads leads to the repression of the people. Observe Chavez in South America right now. He nationalized oil production (the only real wealth the nation has) and now less than 5 years after he is ruling then nation by fiat.

I wonder then why the people love him so much (as they certainly seem to love Castro, even though they probably regard him as kind of a boring old grandpa by now).
Hmmm ?
Why did the people fight so hard on behalf of Chavez at the time of the little "coup" episode ?
And -
exactly why do you continue to insist that it is "wrong" to nationalize a resource ? "Wrong" strongly implies a moral value.
How is this issue a moral one ?
And if it is,
then do you think water should be privatized also ?
After all,
oil can be essential for heating to maintain life, just as water is essential to maintain life.

I hope to be back over the weekend sometime, but if not then have a great weekend everyone,
Lilly

 

[Archangelwolf]

pale rider,

sorry to interject, but your logic is ridiculous. If that is the premise for this war continuing; then we need to free the Cubans, the Venezuelans, and most of the Africans. Surely the conditions of poverty and disease in these nations, and the lack of interest by their governments, is a human rights issue. Children are suffering in our own country from lack of health care, and equal opportunities at education. In Texas, in a yearly cycle, over 500 children died because of a lack of funding and proper training within the Child Protective Service's units here. Yet, there is not anymore money to give to the agency; so the cycle will continue. I don't know where you are from; but apparently Texans want the cheapest government money can buy, and it is literally killing its children.

Child Welfare is the centerpoint and catalyst of all of my political beliefs. My personal politics literally rotate on the effects that legislation have upon the children of this country. That is why I am against this war. Children are robbed of their fathers; not because of the 3 thousand dead, but the 250 thousand that suffer from PTS Syndrome. We have had 60 thousand military divorces since this thing started. It has more of a dire effect on the family than any same-sex union would have.

You want to bring children into this? You can't win! There is no cause for war under the sun to justify the effect it will have on children, period.

You want to know my weakness in political strategy? There it is.

Arch.

 

[palerider]

sorry to interject, but your logic is ridiculous. If that is the premise for this war continuing; then we need to free the Cubans, the Venezuelans, and most of the Africans. Surely the conditions of poverty and disease in these nations, and the lack of interest by their governments, is a human rights issue.

You find the logic of doing the right thing rediculous? If you have the strength to help those who are oppressed and you don't, then you, my friend, are no better than the one('s) who are doing the opressing.

And I agree, there are plenty of other places that we should be as well and we should end support to "allies" who feel that they do not need to participate in the very large job to be done.

Children are suffering in our own country from lack of health care, and equal opportunities at education. In Texas, in a yearly cycle, over 500 children died because of a lack of funding and proper training within the Child Protective Service's units here.

Surely you aren't going to say that we should leave the millions upon millions who are suffering genuine oppression, the real thing, because a bloated, innefficient, bureaucracy is unable to do its job here? Is that an example of your logic?

Yet, there is not anymore money to give to the agency; so the cycle will continue. I don't know where you are from; but apparently Texans want the cheapest government money can buy, and it is literally killing its children.

No money? Are you kidding? The GNP of the US is about 10 trillion. That is one third of the entire production of the entire world. There is so much money that even economists have a very hard time concieving of it. But we waste it. We flush it down the toilet of bureaucracy funding programs that don't work and never have worked. We waste it creating generational dependenency on government handouts in the name of political power over a particular group of people so that a particular policial party can count on their votes.

Child Welfare is the centerpoint and catalyst of all of my political beliefs. My personal politics literally rotate on the effects that legislation have upon the children of this country. That is why I am against this war. Children are robbed of their fathers; not because of the 3 thousand dead, but the 250 thousand that suffer from PTS Syndrome. We have had 60 thousand military divorces since this thing started. It has more of a dire effect on the family than any same-sex union would have.

The children in this country, even poor children, live in the lap of luxury when compared to most of the children in the world. I understand exactly where you are coming from. You have yours so screw the rest. Right?

 

[palerider]

Lilly,

I don't know what point it would serve to continue this particular discussion. It is clear that you don't understand, or simply reject the idea of doing the right thing for no other reason than that you are the only one who is strong enough to do it.

Your arguments make your position clear. Your positon seems to be the same as archanglewolf's. You have yours so to hell with the rest of them.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

palerider,

My position has been - since the topic of the Iraq War was injected into this - that such interventions are not consistent with conservative values.

I have just stopped by with something for you related to our last exchange:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuV...eID=2985103553&MyToken=f1312253-2f8f-4ab3-b34

 

[palerider]

palerider,

My position has been - since the topic of the Iraq War was injected into this - that such interventions are not consistent with conservative values.

I have just stopped by with something for you related to our last exchange:

Perhaps in the days when isolationism was a valid option. Those days ended, however, soon after the end of WWII when the soviet union set about realizing its vision of a communist world.

Conservativism doesn't mean holding on to a strategy when that strategy has been rendered impotent simply for the sake of hanging on to tradition.