Nope, it makes you neither. Classic liberalism wouldn't support Iraq. You might could get there with an incredibly twisted interpretation of Wilsonian democracy, but I doubt it. It's certainly not conservative. That leaves... Republican.
DING! we have winner! but i support the war both for the reason above, but also because i believe it's crucial for our own security, AND, because we have made a commitment to the iraqi people that we have a moral responsibility to fulfill.
I would go even farther to say that if you believe this war is spreading democracy you probably also believe that if you clap hard enough Tinkerbell won't die. As to punching above their collective weight, wowie kazowie. I remember a time, not so long ago, when conservatives and other hawks actually argued their points rather than just calling those that disagreed with them p*****s and terror lovers. Even bamaslammer would be an upgrade over any of the pro-war posters on the board these days. If these guys are "punching above their weight" (LOL - that seriously kills me) and if they are so committed to "winning," why can't any of them even venture a guess as to what that even means?
Hey basso, speaking of winning how bout you tell us what would constitute victory in Iraq? Go poof now, lil basso.
Regardless of our differing definitions of liberalism, we know that the current administration is not conservative.
You're right. I take it back. I was thinking more in terms of classic definitions relating to the last several decades of American politics.
Hardly. Classic conservatism at its core is preservation of status quo. Libertarianism is basically synonymous with anarchism. These two ideologies share quite a bit of commonality, but only in appearance.
Well, if I were to answer this, I'd say: 1) Killing as my terrorists as possible 2) Restoring order to the country 3) Creating a functioning democracy in Iraq 4) Giving the liberals less cause to celebrate
See my reply above. In our contemporary politics (and I would define those as post WWII), conservatives have traditionally argued for little to no regulation, little to no taxation and for small government in all areas but military defense. That's almost textbook libertarianism. Conversely, in the same period, liberals argued for improving American lives through government programs. I reversed my position above with regard to "classic" definitions of the three philosophies, as they are ever shifting. And I misread your "classic" as a fairly modern thing. It's an easy mistake to make as modern "conservatives" have abandoned core principles regarding personal freedom in favor of big and powerful government but it was a mistake nonetheless. My apologies.
William F. Buckley wrote ~25 years ago that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives would call you dense if you didn't see things their way while liberals would attack your character, motives and sanity. At the time he wrote this I agreed with him. With the advent of the right-wing radio demagogues, the "conservative" venom and name-calling that has existed and worsened in national politics over the last 10+ years, the right-wingers are now less intellectual than the lefties. The name-calling and fear tactics are all they have left when they are so clearly on the wrong side of a debate. Take this thread for example. We have one Bush supporter who has run out of things to say in a vain attempt to sound sensible. Even though he's conveniently ignored points brought up in discussion and has twisted consistency into a pretzel, he gave it a shot. Meanwhile, the other Bush-ites have been hiding in the bushes until the "shooting" stops because they have no ammo to fire back other than, "You liberals, blah, blah, blah...". Debating them is like debating children.
Do you think the Bush administration still has goal #3, which is a complete pipedream? Not unless you equate "functioning democracy" to mean an Islamic Republic aligned with Iran. Goal #4 is more important to Bush-ites than the others put together. It should be listed as #1. If the invasion and war hadn't been run as one continuous campaign event, the other three might have been possible.
Wow. I am really surprised. Kudos for being the first poster here to even try to answer the question. I sincerely appreciate it. My replies below, by number. 1. If we create more terrorists in the process, is that really "winning?" We now know that Al Qaeda exists in Iraq today solely because American forces are there. We further know that Iraqi nationals have turned to terrorist tactics in their opposition to our presence there. If we kill a million terrorists and create two million, is that a victory? 2 and 3. I would really like you to address the civil war in Iraq -- a war between factions that have never gotten along and have always wanted to kill each other. How can we restore order or create a functioning democracy among groups that are hellbent on killing each other? I see three possible solutions, none of which are being advanced by anyone (with the exception of Biden on the third). Either we kill all Sunnis and Shi'ites, ending the conflict and leaving the country to the Kurds; we choose a side to support such that the killing of one set of people would actually create progress toward victory for another people; or (as Biden has suggested) we divide the country among the three groups. Which would you support? Because if you support none of the above we are again doing nothing but aggravating a civil war that will continue indefinitely upon our eventual withdrawal, whether that is in one year or one hundred years. 4. You should have made this your number one. You are now on record as the only poster on the board to consider political motive in assessing the relative success of the war.
Sure, no problem, bats. Agreed with what you are saying. My initial post to SC was intended to "correct" a misinterpretation of a political term.
Just thinking out loud here, but I do seem to recall a poster who once didn't think the administration was going far enough... that the only way to win was to get tougher and our troops shouldn't be restrained from brutalizing the populace in pursuit of our goals. Sort of like this... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=83498&page=2&pp=20&highlight=najaf+fallujah Seems that I've also read a lot lately about how concerned someone is that harm might befall Iraqis should a responsible redeployment take place and that we have a moral responsibility to Iraqis. It's all so curious.
I heard they were working on some newfangled "smart" bombs that kill the bad guys and give everyone else a new car.
