"I am 'John Galt'"
Posted on 12/16/2003 6:58:31 AM PST by SJackson
Is it my commitment to principal"...etc
So you're committed to professor Kantorek's school principal? Why, pray tell, do we need to know that?
Heck, the leftist spin on his capture is: "It will hurt the US! It only enrages other Arabs!"Right. So the only sure way of dealing with our enemies is to surrender. Which is what the French have been saying all along.
"I am 'John Galt'"
You are free to leave anytime you want. There are many nations in this world you can move to.
The left has no successes to which to refer, and is increasingly the realm of fools and the mad, and of those who know how to make use of them.What motivates these people? Why do they strive so hard to breath life into such failed ideas? What is it about those ideas that make such suckers out of so many people?
they think our enemies are just in their causeThe American Left never saw an enemy of America they didn't want to aid and comfort.
Perhaps you could add a more substantial critique of the article, for example:
With sources such as al-Dabbagh now going public, these new claims — even if they turn out to be without merit — give lie to the theory that the war in Iraq was based on nonexistent intelligence.
How would you feel about being fooled into a war based on foreign false intelligence rather than no intelligence? Even if it was a "good" war?
Other than that, I find your Jefferson Davis politics and your Robert E. Lee military strategy quaintly misguided.
We do not expect at any time that those whose patriotism was manipulated into supporting a pointless war to issue a mea culpa, and nor do I wish to rub my fellow conservatives nose in it. The mission is complete, an evil man was removed from power, and the Clinton Era sanction regime has been concluded for the betterment of the Iraqi people, if not the American people. However, there are many who wrap themselves in the flag on this site in order to secure advance an agenda that has nothing to do with either Bush's re-election or advancing the conservative cause as outlined on the homepage of this forum.
The hawks do need to answer for the loss of liberty at home, both in increased socialism, debt financing, limits on Free Speech. It would be intellectually dishonest for the Mainstream Right to attempt to simply ignore their role in recent losses on the homefront. Conservatives have long believed in the axiom that a free nation cannot have 'empire abroad and freedom at home', case in point, these past few months. (And notice I have left the case of the Patriot Act all alone.)
Talented folks like yourself who come from the Mainstream and can understand where 'I am coming from' will need to hammer out a consensus, however, until the Mainstream deals with its 'neocon/psuedoconservative' problem, not only will nothing change but things will get worse; I can only assume you find the sophistry of this article beneath you but don't care for my 'take'-- though I note with optimism that the American Conservative Union has decided to do something about it.
Here you combine two truths with a demonstrable fallacy. How will the war in Iraq have been pointless? Would that not require a continuance of what existed before?
There were four points articulated for going to war. Do you mean to say that none of those points are achievable, or in one case, have been achieved? Or do you mean that none of the four points were valid conservative causes, given your view of what constitutes valid conservative concerns. Or perhaps more important conservative concerns were surrendered for less meaningful ones?
Conservatives have long believed in the axiom that a free nation cannot have 'empire abroad and freedom at home', case in point, these past few months.
I think that is a very valid point and the Mainstream Right does need to address increased socialism, debt financing, and limits on Free Speech that have occurred during their watch. But I also think it would be intellectually dishonest for conservatives not to have an honest discussion of empire versus hegemony. What it means to pursue hegemony and avoid empire, what it means to turn an ideological blind eye to the reality of being a hegemon, and what it would mean to relinquish hegemony in today's world - not as it existed in the 18th or early 19th centuries.
I sincerely thank you for the point to the ACU's new Conservative Battleline Online. I have linked it.
Very true.
in order to depose a fourth rate dictator in a dessert oil republic
How sweet it is, can I get whipped cream with my oil? Seriously, would you have stayed out of the 1991 Iraq invasion of Kuwait? If not, would you have walked away from the no-fly zones and/or sanctions? If not, would you have deployed troops to return inspectors? If so, would you have waited longer, or not gone in at all?
with an army of teenage girls, first generation immigrants, and weekend warriors,
You are showing your ignorance again. I'm curious, what would make up the individual or state minuteman militias that you favor?
all without reinstating that forgotten tradition of having Congress issue Declarations of War, rather that these gutless UN inspired resolutions.
I think you've twisted your logic in this case. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be:
all without reinstating that forgotten tradition of having Congress issue Declarations of War, rather than these gutless "Use of Force" statutes and referring to uninspired UN resolutions.Again, a debate of form over substance.
The Iraq War is not litmus test either way on whether someone is a conservative or not; it is not a conservative war, even if the policy (arguably) advances an end (greater national security.) It is the element of militarist who have come to this forum or taken over, amongst others National Review, who brought with them the lice of the Trotskite style of debate.
It is a very hawkish style that includes elements of TR's Americanism. I seriously doubt it would have found any footing without the 9/11 attack. In light of the 9/11 attack, there was little doubt that America would embrace a hawkish stance. I respect questions of whether we've gone too far or far enough. I certainly respect questions concerning the cost of healing the wound of 9/11, plus defend against another, plus expand domestic investigative and law enforcement programs, plus execute an intelligence and military offense that attempts to move the battlefield or debilitate our enemies, plus put in place new or expanded social programs. That all adds up and conservatives are right to ask who is applying the brakes.
If, tactically, you find my style a 'turn off' that is my fault, and naturally I will try to do better when dealing with you however, it has been my lesson that those who simply parrot the Fox News inspired lines that those who are against either a) the war, or b) are against wars in Syria or Iran or wherever, are simply 'Lefists' are really uncreative, humorless phonies that care nothing about protecting the unborn, smaller government, true federalism, an end to the Welfare State.
I'm not asking for that. I will not respond with bombast if no bombast is offered. Sometimes I enjoy a bombastic edge to an exchange. I certainly don't fault you for it and am well aware of your ability to articulate your deeply held beliefs with some wisdom and historical perspective. I do think that is when you are the most persuasive.
I thought GHWBush was wrong not to finish this in 91, although I understood his reasoning. I thought it was unforgiveable for him to tie the hands of our military and watch the the Kurds and Shi'ia massacred. If that was the conservative thing to do, I would have made it the exception. I often wonder how history would be different had we turned those columns of Republican Guards into sequels of the "highway of death" more than 10 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.