Apparently not O_o
Ooh, I get to play your game. Where did I say anything about being against the sanctions?
As a matter of fact, no.
Ah, I think I know what Iskander is getting at.
He’s part of the, “our poor noble President is trying to lead a country at war! We have no right to question him or his motives until the war is over” sect. He didn’t want the war going in, but now that we’re at war, he feels it is his patriotic duty to support it - on the basis that we’re doing it, so we might as well follow through with Bush’s plan.
Is that right?
I like Baby Bunnies.
No particular reason for it.
I just like them.
Yes, in another thread.
I really didn’t understand what you were trying to say. That’s why I asked a question.
Wrong. I am one of those who advocated to whack Saddam in 1991 and whack Slobodan in 1999, who wanted Saddam out before 9-11 and after 9-11, who gave up on Bush when he hemmed and hawed for months, who despaired of Bush when he was trying to work it out with UN…
Well, you know, one of those…
You like Bunnies and I want to screw all the dictators.
(Although I’d give preference to hot dictatresses).
Go play with your Bunnies.
Now you’ve got my curiosity, Isk. How do you decide which dictators we off, and which dictators we ally with?
Zagadka: …which dictators we off, and which dictators we ally with?
Razgadka: Kill them all.
I’m not at all alone in the wilderness.
There’re a number of voices similar to mine raising the same sorts of concerns.
He’re a couple:
Former Congressmen Assess U.S. Foreign Policy
A Republican’s Case Against George W. Bush
By Paul Findley
DURING MY LONG life, America has surmounted many severe challenges. As a teenager, I experienced the Great Depression. In World War II, I saw war close-up as a Navy Seabee. As a country newspaper editor, I watched the Korean War from afar. As a Member of Congress, I agonized through the Vietnam War from start to finish. During these challenges I never for a moment worried about America’s ultimate survival with its great principles and ideals still intact.
Today, for the first time, I worry deeply about America’s future. We are in a deep hole. I believe President George W. Bush’s decision to initiate war on Iraq will be the greatest and most costly blunder in American history. He has set America on the wrong course.
and
The Need to Refocus Our Policy Priorities in The War on Terror
By Paul N. “Pete” McCloskey
I WOULD LIKE to discuss several topics that relate to the administration’s current policies regarding the War on Terror. I believe that, in each case, these topics provide cogent arguments that the administration’s policies should change.
Since taking office in January 2001, the administration’s actions seem to have followed fairly closely the views of a group of American scholars, writers and government advisors who operate under the title, The Project for a New American Century.
As a Republican somewhat familiar with the political processes in this city and elsewhere, it seems reasonable to me that the president now re-examine his previous adherence to the principles espoused by Mr. Perle and the Project for a New American Century.
…I suggest that the administration swallow its pride, bring the U.N. back into Iraq, and surrender control of the occupying forces to the United Nations, removing American troops from Iraq at the earliest possible opportunity.
I don’t think it’s that hard to admit mistakes and change course for the son of one of our great presidents, George H. W. Bush. It might also help him get re-elected.
The Split on the Right. Conservatives are fighting each other… …David Frum [a NeoCon] made…a banner denunciation of any conservative with reservations about the invasion of Iraq. …conservative intellectuals and activists opposed or even those critical of it before the fighting or even those who mentioned that protecting Israel’s interests could complicate matters were all labeled paleo-conservatives and pushed off to the nutty fringe. …some of who differed on principle, but most simply saw the facts differently.
…today, Reagan mainstream conservatism lacks a public intellectual voice.
…neo-conservatism soon replaced limited government as the ideal and filled the pages of the journals on the right…[National Review] even called for a revival of colonialism under U.S. auspices and the building of an American empire. Bill Buckley…[condemned] empire-building as incompatible with American conservatism.
…NR and the [Weekly] Standard…[expressed] mild encomiums that it would be pleasant if [GWB] moved right domestically… By 2000, there was no opinion journal heralding the limited-government position…
…conservatives had agreed that all foreign policy had to be justified on the criterion–was it in “the just interests of the United States”? …Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Paul Johnson…[said] that a new American colonialism was required to bring peace and democracy to the world.
…If the U.S. government has the ability to bring peace and democracy to the world, big government can obviously also run America’s economy and plan its social life–and limited government becomes irrelevant.
…there is a need to…move back to [conservatisms’] first principles…to start returning power to states, communities and the people rather than support the lesser-evil big government solution.
- COPYRIGHT ©2003 AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION*
I’m not the only conservative who doesn’t sugar his oatmeal.
Examine if you’d like, the The Sharon (Connecticut) Statement.