I no longer understand the conservative strategy in the War on Terror

[sqweels]

@smiling_bandit

If neccessary. Different strategies are used in concert to acheive the optimum effect which is practically possible.

I don’t remember hearing much to that effect from administration spokesmen of conservative commentators. It’s all, “Support the troops and they’ll defeat the terrorists”.

Hardly. I don’t believe that Iran was in any way, shape, or form willing to become a “responsible nation.” Period. Their leadership is a grossly corrupt theocracy, one short step above the Nazis. However, we had and have no real intention of attacking them.

I all you have to go on is your beliefs then your argument isn’t woth much. Did you read the article I cited? We had a chance to avoid the situation we find ouselves in with Iran, but we blew it due to our own paranoia. If we’re not going to attack them then what’s the plan? There is simply no alternative to improving our relationship with them, and accepting their help could have been used as a starting point. It’s a two-way street if we want them to stop being like Nazis.

Yes, it does on the latter point, although indirectly. It’s an attempt to change the fundamental situation. It doesn’t ultimately matter what happens now so long as 25 or 50 years from now the people have a new ability to grow their economy, acheive more education, and find some success.

Terrorism’s flank is the dysfunctional social system which gives people few options. That is what is being changed.

What happens to liberals when they try to make an argument along these lines? Are we going to be changing any countries beyond the 2 we invaded? What sort of feedback have we gotten from Mideast Muslims in regard to these plans? Isn’t the Palestinians’ dysfunctional situation the #1 cause celebre among Muslims? There’s not a lot of support for the troops to liberate them, is there?

[marshmallow]

You don’t understand the “conservative strategy in the War on Terror” because you think the Terror War (also backed to the hilt by the “liberal” Democrats, I must note) is to reduce international terrorism.

[sqweels]

@marshmallow

You don’t understand the “conservative strategy in the War on Terror” because you think the Terror War (also backed to the hilt by the “liberal” Democrats, I must note) is to reduce international terrorism.

But…but…but, they promised us victory.

[Merijeek]

@magellan01

His spending was way out of control. And any supposed conservative who does not do what is necessary to secure the country’s borders is no conservative.

Neither was Reagan, then. Interesting.

-Joe

[Sitnam]

I think the conservative strategy is: Changing your course is a sign of weakness.

[sqweels]

What are we to make of the fact that so few of our resident conservatives have weighed in on this thread thus far? It’s kind of a big deal I should think.

Let we reiterate the topic of the debate:
[ul]
[li]What exactly is the Bush aministration’s strategy for brining about victory in the War on Terror?[/li][li]Have there been any misrepresentations or contradictions as they’ve presented it to the public?[/li][li]What is the preferred strategy as esposed by right-wing rhetoric in general–if only by implication as they criticize their opponents?[/li][li]Again, any misrepresentations or contradictions, inlcuding vis-a-vis the administration’s position?[/li][/ul]