Liberal v. Conservative Policies

[shinerbock]

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.

[RACooper]

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...

[shinerbock]

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

[greekalum]

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

[shinerbock]

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.

[RACooper]

Let's pick apart this shall we...

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Fiscally imprudent. Since when do democrats care about financial responsibility. Whats more, it is prudent.

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...

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.

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.

Germany was pretty unstable too for a while there.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Fiscally imprudent. Since when do democrats care about financial responsibility.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[moe.ron]

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

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.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[Jimmy Choo]

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...

[shinerbock]

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