Yeah. Can we get a vote count on that whole war idea a few years back? King Bush sent the boys in against such a clamoring of dissent in Congress.
Look, I have plenty of issues with Bush. I haven’t sent a contribution to the GOP in almost 2 years. I figure they want to waste the money they’re taking from me, why send them extra?
However powerful you think your ideas and opinions are in your insular world of select message boards, you do not speak for any more Americans than I do. Deal with it.
I’ve thought of starting a thread much like this. Mine would probably be more vitriolic, more specific on poilicies and much more long-winded. (Hey, it seems to be my style at times.)
But whenever I see a thread like this it usually turns into a “Oh, so now you see I was right!” circle jerk. Any Doper posting an OP like this is just begging for ridicule and abuse by meat whistles like you.
Jesus Christ. A guy comes in and states a few issues with the current president (whom you have a disturbing obsession with), and it’s just open season. But God forbid someone gores your ox.
Would it be inappropriate for me to ask at this juncture what exactly being a conservative in Australia entails? I’ve heard that conservatives in other countries are generally considered liberals by U.S. standards, but I was hoping for a more concrete explanation.
TheLoadedDog, you seem like a nice fellow – would you mind briefly elucidating some of the key points of your political philosophy?
I believe in small government, and most of the fiscal policy that an American would understand to be conservative. I just don’t believe in the bible-thumping, rednecked bigotry side of some conservatism. I’m an agnostic, I’m pro-choice, etc etc. I used to think those things were a nod to the Left. Now I am more comfortable with having those views within my conservatism - to me they fit perfectly with the ideal that as long as you’re not hurting a third party, the government should stay the hell out of your life.
Ice Wolf and co, yes I believed in the war in Iraq, and I were to travel back to 2003, I would probably believe in it again. I don’t know what not toppling that regime would have done. There are all manner of statistics about deaths in Iraq under the old regime compared to afterwards, and depending on your side of politics, it’s not hard to Google up figure to suit you. I do think Saddam was a butcher and it was necessary to topple him. But it’s done, so now it’s well past time to leave the joint, or the continued deaths of US soldiers will more than cancel out the benefits of the original invasion.
I’m enough of a conservative to believe the West does have some sort of policing role globally. Dubya just isn’t a very good cop, is all.
Hentor, I still can’t pinpoint the “stupid” comment I’m supposed to have made, but it looks like you think I’m trying to buy my way into the SDMB Kool Kids’ Klub by saying negative stuff about Bush.
I don’t get this.
If I’d felt that way, I’d have started some sort of “OMGZ0RZ!!11 I’M DISILLUSIONED WITH THE RIGHT!! LIBERALS CAN I COME OVER? IS ALL FORGIVEN??” sort of thread, dontcha think?
But I freakin’ DIDN’T! I started a thread specifically about Bush and the war in Iraq. I explicitly stated I’m still a conservative (I think I mentioned it at least three times in my OP alone). I do not bloody well want or expect brownie points from the left for starting this thread. That said though, I’m now kinda unsure what would make some of you guys happy. Support Bush and get flamed. Admit I was wrong in supporting Bush and get flamed anyway.
This thread was inspired partially by the “Driving Away Conservatives” thread, and partially by a few others over recent times. I was curious myself where all the conservatives had gone, but my gut feel was that they were still here - many of them anyway. So this thread was a role call of sorts.
I’m guessing here that would be considered socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I’m actually considered quite liberal even by U.S. standards, both fiscally and socially, but it’s really the “bible-thumping, rednecked, bigotry” side of conservativeness that I find most problematic. I think the fact that your perspective on the situation in Iraq has changed speaks to your ability to think critically, take in new information and change your opinion based on said information in a rational and reasonable way–unfortunately, that’s more than I can say for my President.
"I honestly think the WMD component was a gamble on both sides. There was reason to think they could be there. The conservatives outright declared they were there and the liberals outright declared they weren’t. Frankly, I think both sides were utterly thoughtless beyond their own dogmas, and the liberals got lucky. But that’s for another debate, because I’m pitting what is taking place AFTER the facts started to become clear, not the guesses all sides had to take before they did. In other words, I’m NOT pitting Bush for sending troops in 2003, but I am pitting him for sending them in 2007.
… that you’re pissed off about.
Sorry, I must have only skimmed your posts (can’t think why). Yes, my above comment is a generalisation, and the truth is probably much more grey, but I’d have assumed you could grasp that. My comment is only “stupid” in that you choose to disagree with it. If that wasn’t evidence enough of your smugness, I’d say your horror that I even dared to compare liberals and conservatives as if they were the same species pretty much cements it. Pick up a newspaper, turn on the TV… I’m sure you’ll find nobody has ever compared the two sides of politics before.
If I could bring myself to use that revolting rolleyes smiley, I’d whack about thirty of the little fuckers in right about here.
Like most SDMB “conservatives” you appear more libertarian leaning (albeit with a slightly hawkish side) than what passes as conservatism in the US today.
I had a very specific objection, expressed very clearly, that it was bullshit to suggest that liberals automatically assumed there were no WMD. Yet TLD and apparently duffer had a hard time understanding the specific problem.
duffer, slow down and try to think. Do you also assert that liberals assumed there were no WMD before the invasion or not? Do you understand this specific statement? Do you recognize that it has nothing to do with conservativism generally?
If not, you really are as stupid as your posts make you seem.
The problem as I can see it is that “conservatives” are now considered “libertarian”, or at least closer to that philosophy. When in fact, conservatism in it’s true sense is libertarian. They’re one and the same for most of us. What has been going on over the last 10 years, while beneficial to the GOP overall, is not what conservatives are about.
Smaller government. Less taxation, less spending on things other than national defense and infrastructure, fewer regulations that aren’t working anyway if you read the papers. (Air and water quality are still atrocious despite decades of regulation? Bang up job government.) Not telling private business owners whether or not their patrons can use a legal product that’s overtaxed. At the same time taxing one plant but declaring illegal another.
Man, conservatism needs an overhaul. Maybe I’ll vote Libertarian.
Yeah, that’s pretty much totally wrong. It wasn’t a coin toss, it was a process, a regiment of boneheaded and stubborn choices marching. Hell, they started out being wrong! They started out wringing thier hands in anguish over “mushroom clouds” radiating your Momma. Remember? All that “proof”?
As that became increasingly preposterous, they segued into “nuclear weapons and WMD” and then just “WMD”. And the doubt persisted as the Bushiviks increasingly pretended that a gooey glop of innuendo and supposition was hard certainty. Of course it wasn’t, the certainty was a lie, a war based on that “certainty” of imminent threat was a crime.
It wasn’t a good thing poorly done, it was an evil thing done stupidly. Odd, isn’t it, how often those two go together.
I have neither the patience nor time to dredge up a plethora of cites quoting Pols calling for Bush’s head on a platter for the lack of WMD they screamed about years ago. Those congressional tools that now say they knew it was a lie and looked on with suspicion at Saddam breaking deal after deal to continue the cease-fire. Including routinely kicking out the inspectors sent by that shining model of efficiency, the UN. (Hmm, nothing to see here kind Blue-helmet. Please leave now.)
As far as being stupid? It’s possible I guess. I never claimed to know everything nor did I attest to being the brightest bulb. But I can say I’m capable of changing my mind when good arguments are made. (See previous posts where I changed position on SSM and even abortion.)
If that’s stupid, let me wipe the drool from my chin and continue reading. Maybe I’ll see enough posts from people other than you to continue my journey through life.
TLD. Mate. This thread got snarky because you posted this and for no other reason. If you want this thread to be something of a truce, that’s fine. I respect that. But don’t go lobbing grenades under cover of a truce and then whine when we shoot back.
Howard is governed by two imperatives. In order of importance they are, one, what the opinion polls say and two, conservativism.
Howard is sniffing the wind of popular opinion and he knows that he needs to start shifting his position away from the war. Thus his comment that Australia won’t be in it in the long term.
That’s not so much a “conservative” attitude as it is a “First World Knows Best” paternalistic one. The West’s “policing role” seems to happen mainly when there’s something to be gained by those doing the policing. No matter which side’s in power at the time.
So, can I be the first to say, “Neener, neener neeeeeeener”?
Nah, seriously, I think the time for slagging-off about culpability re: the invasion/occupation have now long passed. It doesn’t fucking matter anymore that BushCo were wrong, it only matters how the hell we are going to organise the withdrawal of the occupying troops so that Iraq is left in some state so as to rebuild itself from the ashes.
I’m hoping that enough sensible people (from both sides of the political divide) are able to have their input to help Bush and his cronies get out without too much humiliation: it’s the endeavour to avoid eating too much humble pie that makes leaders into desperate maniacs who are prepared to do ANYTHING, no matter how fucking insane it might appear in the eyes of the average Joe.
We all need to work together now to bring some sort of peaceful existence to Iraqis. The past is history, albeit a filthy one. Let’s start the healing.
I can almost agree with you, kambuckta. You mean well by your words. And heaven only knows we wouldn’t want Bush to end up being a insane despot, desperate to do anything to stay in power, only to be finally ousted by an army from another country. (I refer here, in case anyone thinks otherwise, to Uganda rather than the obvious Iraq analogy, tempting as it may be).
But this man has very little face left to save. And now, he’s talking about extending his adventure to include Syria and Iran.
As TLD said: Bush isn’t a very good cop. I doubt he’s a very good anything, actually, except a good lapdog to those who’ve profited from the blood of thousands. I believe the US Congress and Senate should be encouraged in any way possible to try to bring this mess to a conclusion, yes. But, no matter what or how that happens, the damage will have already been done.
I doubt “Kumbaya” will be the theme in Iraq for decades to come.
