Liberal v. Conservative Policies
 

Lets start with Iraq. Since there are like 4 conservatives on this board, why don't we just wait for someone to call President Bush an idiot, and we'll go from there.

1> I'd hardly term Bush a traditional conservative... onr only has to look at his policies to grasp that basic.

What this should be is a debate between the "New Liberals" and the "Neo-Conservatives"... that way we can easily spot the morons or the decieved...

Bush obviously isn't a traditional conservative. However, you don't have to be a neo-con to support the war in Iraq.

Because it sure isn't interventionist or fiscally imprudent, nosir.

Fiscally imprudent. Since when do democrats care about financial responsibility. Whats more, it is prudent. It is in the interest of this country to see a stable middle east. Before you spout nonsense about how we've destabilized the middle east, lets pause and consider how stable it was before we went in. Not at all. Germany was pretty unstable too for a while there. I think the threat of WMD is a pretty convincing argument. Before you make the banal claim that Iraq had none, lets consider the facts that THEY HAVE used them in the past (against our ally, no less), we HAVE FOUND SOME since the war began, and we HAVE their scientists who have, at numerous points, detailed the creation of weapons under the now deposed dictator. Would they have used the weapons against the U.S., I doubt it. Would they have used them against our interests and allies? Absolutely. Weapons argument aside, the humanitarian issue is also compelling. The massacre of Kurds, the torture and killing of Jews/Christians, and general lack of respect for the sanctity of human life were all prevalent under Saddam. If you choose to look at Iraq as a failure, I'd suggest putting down todays copy of the NY Times and talking to some soldiers. We now have a country, right in the middle of an extremely volatile region, that is struggling to find its way towards democracy. What a valuable tool a free Iraq could be in the future. However, if we turn and abandon them now, as we did following the first war, it will all be for nothing.

Let's pick apart this shall we...

I'm sure Rudey would have some fun things to say about the Administrations fiscal policies... all I can say is that traditionally conservatives don't spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave...

Well a stable Middle East is in pretty much every country's interest, not just the US's...

Stable... of course not... but it was compartively much more stable ~ and many people warned that invading Iraq would destablize the region by creating a power vaccuum by removing a secularlist (Saddam), a situation that fundamentalist would be sure to exploit... and lo and behold they did.

Ah yes but post conflict in WWII there were masses of troops to completely occupy the territory and to provide peace and security... not so with Iraq. The principle of overwhelming force and manpower was abandoned in favour of just overwhelming force - and overwhelming force doesn't work in the post-combat or reconstruction phase. Anyways it's too bad that Cheney, Wolfie, and Rummie didn't learn from the examples of occupation Germany and Japan - a) you need lots of manpower to secure, rebuild, and re-order; b) it is a long-term proposition 5-15 years...

1> The arguement wasn't all that convincing to everyone, in fact I believe that many nations found the arguement to be rather thin and motivated more by politics than fact.
2> Which Ally would that be?
3> Yes some Iran-Iraq War era munitions have been found, in ammo dump sites and locales marked by the UN after that conflict.
4> All of the debriefed scientists reported that yes they were working on WMD programs, but they also sate emphatical that those programs were stopped and dismantled some 10 years before the invasion of Iraq.

Your arguement of the torturing of Christians is even more empty that the WMD arguement - Christians were protected under Saddams rule, as long as they didn't challenge his authority... to imply that they were systemically prosecuted (anymore than any other citizen) under Saddam is flat out lying - much like that old propoganda yarn about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in Kuwait.

Yes... I agree on this one - the troops are doing alot of good... but no troop I've talked to recently will characterize Iraq as a success...

Well I gotta say you have a much more rosey picture of the present and future state of Iraq... personally I'll be surprised if there is an Iraq in a decade and not 3 seperate theocratic states.

Well let me try and respond in kind. Of course the stability of the Middle East is in everyone's interest, hence the support we have recieved in both wars by Gulf states. To say that the instability before was better than it is now is completely opinion based. It is natural that instability would climb before it settled, which leads me to the comments regarding WWII. You are correct, in that we had a much larger stabilizing force, and we were in a much more comfortable situation(meaning we had a more obvious enemy, a better landscape to work with, etc). However, another thing we used was extensive offensives. Now I know people against modern conservative policy hate her, but Ann Coulter had a valid point on this issue. We bombed the ever-living s*** out of Germany. If we were willing to risk the civilian casualties as we were then, we probably would be faring much better against the insurgency in Iraq. Unfortunately, we live in a time and with a generation of citizens who simply will not tolerate casualties, they simply don't have the stomach for war. Thus, we are unfortunately fighting the insurgents on their term, and although we are in some sense winning, it is extremely slow going. Regarding WMD and others banned by the UN, Iraq admitted to firing SCUDs at Israel during the first Gulf conflict. We are also all aware of his gassing of Kurds. Regarding the systematic killing of Christians, I don't know of anything that indicates he made regular practice of it. However, I do recall numerous examples of Christians being persecuted for breaking the law, although there were also several Christians killed by the insurgency, so some blurring may exist on the matter. I personally have two fraternity brothers serving in Iraq at the moment, and recently got to spend time with both of them while on leave. While they do acknowledge the chaos and the frustrations of dealing with the insurgency, they are also outraged at the media's coverage of the war. As often spoke of in alternative media, they say they are constantly being thanked by citizens, who are generally cooperative with and supportive of the United States. Thankfully, I think the media is finally extinguishing their own bias, as even CNN has recently been open about Iraqi's support for the U.S. mission. My friends who are serving generally have had a politically incorrect solution (usually entailing carpet bombing or the creation of an Iraqi sized parking lot), but they do feel their work is important. I'm sure there are those who feel otherwise, but I think the general talking point involving the low morale of the military is probably far from true.

Wait, which presidential administration had both balanced the budget and had the greatest surplus of any administration? When was the economy booming and the gap between the lower and the upper class shrinking?

Oh, right, Clinton was a republican according to you.

For one, Clinton was a pretty conservative Democrat. Also, you might want to reference Article I of the Constitution, you know, where it describes the financial powers of Congress.

When it come to International Relations, nothing is as simple as liberal vs. conservatives policies. Believe it or not, Iran, behind the scene, supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq exercise. Afghanistan because they hated the Taliban and Iraq, well, because they hated Saddam Hussein and Challabi was paid and bought by them. Challabi was also the same person that gave intel to the Pentagon and was distrusted by the CIA.

yeah. what he said. plus....

calling yourself a "liberal" or a "conservitive" is pretty ignorant if you ask me, at least in 2006. It would make more sence in 1700's Austria. Conservitives backed the German and Russian Empires (the Holy Alliance) and liberals wanted a republic.

Left wing and right wing? They were the seating arrangements after the French revolution. That's just stupid that was like, over two hundred years ago. You need to get over it. Seriously, make a list of things you support/oppose. Otherwise, I'll just think you're a tool. Of a party.


And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats opperate as a party. They opperate as coalitions of special interest groups. Because that is what they are.

Yes, but you can't vote on each seperate issue, you have to vote for a candidate. That candidate can't just call himself a cadidate and get very far (when's the last time we had an independant as a president???), so he has to choose something: liberal/conservative, right/left, or Rep/Dem. Making a list of what you support or oppose, and then choosing the party that falls more in line makes sense, but you still have to have the parties.

I agree that it isn't fully describing to term yourself a "liberal or "republican," at least generally. However, unless you're in academia, you generally don't have that luxury. While I understand people who vote for non-major parties, I don't buy into their theories that George W Bush=John Kerry. Also, just because you pay attention to special interests (as you should, to a degree) doesn't mean you are ignoring your constiuency. I agree that groups hold too much power in politics, but that is the public's fault as well. We live in a completely apathetic nation, and while it frustrates me, I frankly don't trust the general public's decision making ability, so I'm not really praying for a shift. Furthermore, if you desire to make some change in politics, you generally must join a party. It is so incredibly difficult to get elected as a third party or independent, and I think there comes a time when you might need to simply bite the bullet if you truly wish to make change from the inside. I personally do not agree with everything the Republican party does, but I do agree with much of it. I therefore consider myself Republican, but would be open to vote differently should I see a viable candidiate. I don't really think being a member of a political party makes you a tool or a lemming, because the people who generally will call you that, are also the people who generally will never have any significant impact on American society or it's politics.

I just think its truely unfortunate that we have gotten ourselves so bogged down in Iraq b/c there are so many other issues that deserve our military attention. Quite frankly I would have felt better if we went after North Korea. That man is a fruitcake and if he gets his hands on a weapon, he WILL use it...

Unfortunately, the risks in N. Korea are much higher as well.

To me however its risk vs. reward. Will there be higher risk going into N. Korea? Sure, there could be. But in my humble opinion I don't think Saddam would have used a nuke. He had more issues to worry about besides the US. But N. Korea is a different story. Should we go after the guy who we think would use a nuke if he had it or the wackjob who has his hands on nuclear materials and would use a nuke if he put it all together? I think its N. Korea, hands down.

Well my point is that I don't believe we can take the same type of action against N. Korea as we did against Iraq. It was clear to all parties that the United States could take down Saddam with minimal casualties, even unilaterally. I believe North Korea would be an entirely different story. We have very little reliable intelligence on North Korea, and regardless of intelligence lapses in Iraq, this is a completely different situation. Most analysts I've heard agree that strikes by the U.S. against North Korea would immediately result in strikes against Seoul. Thus, as our ally, before taking action we need ensure South Korea's safety. I think many people have gotten the impression that the American military may not be as strong as originally thought, but I am positive that is not the case. The situations we propose to address are simply different types of battle, and I don't mean the "war on terror." We simply are not fighting wars in the same manner which allowed us success in WWI and WWII. With the increase in technology, people have an expectation that wars are now to be fought in a precision style manner, which has advantages, but also lengthens war and lessens victory. We dropped thousands of bombs on Berlin and other German cities at the end of the European front during WWII. Similarly, we were forced to use the atomic bombs to bring Japan to its knees. Our society now, however, simply will not tolerate such high loss in civilian life. We could probably break North Korea by firing a thousand Tomahawks into cities, but we as a society are not willing to do that. However, with a situation like North Korea, if a nuclear strike on the U.S. is possible and threatened, I would hope the U.S. would devastate the country without regard for casualties. Protecting the United States is obviously the country's top priority, and it will probably become more important in coming years. I only hope we have a leader strong enough to face down the EU and UN, and do what America must to protect herself.

Actually, I never understood the terms Republican or Democrate.

Liberal or Conservative.

Moderate is thrown in there to differienceate some types? Who are they?

So, will some of You Poly Scies. please feeel free to give Your defenition for all of Us?

Many big terms are thrown around and actually, they don't mean Crap!

My Idea, My Feelings, I feel, or what ever!:(

In my OPINION:
Liberal-Someone liberal on both social and economic issues
Conservative- Someone conservative on both social and economic issues

Democrat- liberal on social issues, but now attempts to tout themselves as conservative on economic issues. They are economically liberal in regards to social spending, but beginning with Clinton and now due to the spending of the Bush administration, they actively criticize the more liberal fiscal policy of the Republicans. Historically democrats favor spending more on education and other social programs, while spending less on the military. They also historically favor taxes which would support the broad range of the country, with the highest earners paying more, and supporting the middle and lower classes.

Republican- Socially conservative and generally economically conservative, with the exception of military spending. The definition has changed somewhat under Bush, with the administration spending extensively. However, much of that spending was due to the situation in Iraq, the war on terror, and the 9/11 attacks. Republicans generally favor lower taxes, and ones that are less progressive. Meaning that they feel that the wealthy should not be required to pay the share of the lower economic classes. Republicans are often reluctant to spend money for the social issues they may have contentions with. For example, they generally spend less on social programs, the environment, and public education.

Hey ShinerBock, had to give Big Letters somewhere!

Thanks, while I have read it several times, I still dont know where I stand on Polotics.

I think all Poloticions are Wolfes in Sheep Clothing.

While G W as President has some good ideas, He has lost His way.:(

The way He as our Leader is facillitating, so is His Advisors and Congress.

As most of The Congress We know cannot hit therir ass with a Tennis Racket.

I am not reqally sure where to start, but I think His ideas are pure. I Hope!

Now it just might be the jaded cynic in me... but North Korea could fight back, whereas Iraq could only put up token resistance.... and I happen to think that this little fact may have entered the political process of whom to attack in the "Axis of Evil" - but then again that just might be the cynic in me talking :rolleyes:

You could be right... N. Korea may put up some type of fight but..... this could also be the cynic in me as well but I just think that if we had left Iraq alone it would have crumbled on its own anyway. Saddam's sons would have eventually tried to kill him off and take control. The country still would have descended into chaos.

But like i said.... that's the cynic in me :cool:

I think the scenario you mentioned was highly unlikely.

I don't think that would have happened.

Like I said... my opinion.... clearly one can tell I'm not a supporter of the war in Iraq to begin with.

I just hope that you don't actually tell people that you think your situation would have happened.

There's a possibility that one of Saddam's sons would have tried to wrest power away from him, but weren't they pretty much given the run of things anyway? Palaces, women, money, etc?

why try to run the country when you can be lazy and not give a crap!

Well, and even in the unlikely situation they took power, whos to say the situation would improve. It would probably more likely stay the same or get worse.

It's kind of like asking "what will happen when Castro dies"

Who knows, depends on if there's a controlled change of power or not. and on 100 other variables.

Lets not forget that the liberals of that time also started the Communist movement in europe.

That's right! So if you're either liberal or conservative, you're basically saying that only you and the people who think like yourself are worthy of having power.


Tom,

I'm a moderate. I want some social programs, and I want them when it is most feasible and conveinent to have them.

So good to know that because I consider myself a liberal that I think I'm the only person "worthy of having power". Excuse me while I roll my eyes at this generalization for liberals and conservatives. :rolleyes:

You're excused this time. Next time you should take it outside.

The Anne Coulter thread was always one of my favorites back in the frathard 3rd reich days.