Define conservatism [Archive] - House of Politics

flaja

02-24-2007, 12:56 PM

All business.

Minimal gov't interference means minimal regulations. Who's to say the gov't owns the land and its natural sources?

Wrong answers. Big business equates to oppression- trade is restricted because a few companies dominate the market and consumer choice suffers accordingly. It also leads to a wider gulf between rich and poor- meaning societal cohesion threatened. Above all a conservative, in the tradition of Edmund Burke, is opposed to social upheaval. They do not support pure laissez faire capitalism; they want enough government regulation of the economy to maintain fair market competition. Above all conservatives oppose the concentration of power. They want to regulate the rich so the rich cannot oppress the poor due to their money and they want to regulate the poor so they cannot rob the rich due to their number.

If it feels right -- except in regards to the Constitution.

Abortion?
Sodomy?
Prostitution?
Adultery?
Drug use?
Insider trading?

It sounds like you are a libertarian, not a conservative.

Depends. In places like Iraq, where our national defense is invested in promoting democracy then yes, we believe in that kind of pro-active foreign policy. Likewise, we put America's interests above the worlds so if that means some isolationist policies -- so be it.

What reason do we have to promote democracy in Iraq as opposed to promoting democracy in places like Rwanda or South Africa or Haiti or North Korea?

Definitely individualism. Personal responsibility is a central quality of conservatism -- i.e. why most don't support Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.

Individual responsibility for society as a whole is also a hallmark of conservatism- as a bulwark against social upheaval. By and large America was founded on the basis of joint community action- barn raisings and husking bees were the norm rather than the exception.

A classical liberal is a conservative by today's standards. I see little difference between them. I do, however, see a large difference between a conservative and a libertarian. Libertarians believe we can still live in a state of nature, i.e., no government. But the last time humans lived in a state of nature, Cain killed his brother. Conservatives, on the other hand, understand human nature and they know that human nature makes government necessary.

Conservatism has no place for the absolute liberty that libertarians call for. No conservative is totally free to do as he pleases. Conservatives have an individual and corporate obligation to their God, their family and their country. As Edmund Burke commented: "...Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer who has broke prison upon the recovery of his natural rights?"

Libertarians are Burke's escaped madmen, highwaymen and murderers.

Furthermore, Conservatives see an essential role for government in regulating liberty that has to be fettered for the sake of the commonweal. Again Burke: "I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints."

And note what Alexander Hamilton, the quintessential American Conservative said, “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

palerider

02-25-2007, 05:07 PM

1. Big business or small business.
2. Profits now or conservation of natural resources for later use.
3. If it feels right do it or absolute moral standards.
4. Isolationism or pro-active foreign policy to promote democracy.
5. Small government or letting the government do whatever needs to be done when private enterprise cannot or will not do it.
6. Individualism or society.

How any particular person answers these questions, whether they are conservative or not, would hardly "define" conservativism. Conservativism is a philosophy and can't be defined by an answer to any or all of these questions.

There are 6 tenets that all true conservatives hold in common. They are as follows:

* Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.

* Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.

* Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'.

* Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all.

* Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs.

* Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.

You can apply these 6 tenets to any of the above questions and get the answer. That answer, however, can vary even among conservatives depending on which aspect of the question you are addressing. Question number one for example. Big business or small business. What do you believe you could glean from such a question? There are aspects of big business that conservatives may not like and aspects of small business conservatives may not like.

A simple set of questions is hardly an effective way of learning the nature of any philosophy. That comes by long study, and genuine conversation, and a willingness to accept what you learn and apply that knowledge to the real world.

flaja

02-25-2007, 06:56 PM

How any particular person answers these questions, whether they are conservative or not, would hardly "define" conservativism. Conservativism is a philosophy and can't be defined by an answer to any or all of these questions.

But doesn’t adherence to this philosophy lead you to favoring certain things while rejecting certain others? Which of the options would a conservative support and which would he reject?

* Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.

Be more specific. Libertarians believe it is possible for humans to live in a state of nature. But, the last time humans did live in a state of nature, Cain killed his brother. Conservatives believe that government is necessary because human nature will turn any state of nature into dog-eat-dog chaos.

* Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'.

A conservative also fears class warfare and will gladly see steps taken (even by the government) to even-out class differences in order to reduce class tension that could lead to social upheaval. Remember that the European arch-conservative, Otto von Bismark, implemented the first social security system in the world. The German left had been clamoring for social security and Bismark feared that the left would launch a communist revolution to get it. By giving the left a little of what it wanted, Bismark staved off even greater social revolution.

* Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all.

As long as the rich are regulated so they cannot use their economic power to oppress the poor- again the fear of class warfare and social upheaval.

Question number one for example. Big business or small business. What do you believe you could glean from such a question? There are aspects of big business that conservatives may not like and aspects of small business conservatives may not like.

Give some examples. By and large a conservative should favor small business because that implies a multitude of individual businesses, meaning no business can likely dominate the market and thus engage in monopolistic trade practices.

BTW: Did you gather your tenets from any published source, or are they of your own design? I base by view of conservatism mainly on the work of Edmund Burke, whom historians and scholars generally credit as the founder of modern Anglo-American conservatism.

palerider

02-26-2007, 03:44 AM

But doesn’t adherence to this philosophy lead you to favoring certain things while rejecting certain others? Which of the options would a conservative support and which would he reject?

Again, a conservative might support or reject certain aspects of all of the choices you listed.

Big business or small business.

I would reject the fact that small business (mom & pop) tend to have higher prices as a result of the way they do business. That is not good for the consumer. On the other hand, I support small business in that employers, in some ways, almost bring employees into the family so to speak and one has the opportunity to enjoy a close relationship with the owners. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that in small business, one can see a limit to one's chain of advancement almost from the first day one goes to work.

I like the fact that a small player can own stock in a large corporation and enjoy the profits of big business without having to be a real part of a large somewhat impersonal business. I don't like that large corporations are somewhat impersonal, but that is just me. Other people may not want to be friends with the people they work with which is their right. There are aspects of big business that I like and aspects that I don't like.

On the whole, I favor business, large or small, over government.

Profits now or conservation of natural resources for later use.

Both. One should take profit now from resources with an eye on concervation for later use. The millions upon millions of acres that have burned in the past 8 or 10 years are a fine example of what happens if one takes conservation too far. Had that land been thinned properly (profit now) it would not have burned to the point that all was lost until entire forests can regrow. I don't know how old you are, but I can remember environmentalists warning us that by the early 1980's, resources were going to become so scarce that only the most wealthy people were going to be able to afford anything if we didn't stop consuming. Well, here we are almost 30 years beyond the beginning of the 80's and resources are less scarse than at any time in human history. Recycling has become one of our largest industries.

So I favor taking profit from our resources while managing those resources for the future.

If it feels right do it or absolute moral standards.

There are no absolute moral standards. I have no right to impose my morals on you. What you do in the privacy of your own space is not my business so long as you are not breaking any law. For example, it is my business if you are killing the mailman in the privacy of your basement.

By the same token, "if it feels right, do it" is a sure prescription for the failure of society. What if it feels right to you to kill the mailman in the privacy of your basement. Each of us is a single entity in a larger society and we each have a responsibility to the rest of society. We are not the center of the universe and our actions do not take place in a vaccum. Everything we do creates a ripple through the entire society and if we can't restrain ourselves from actions that are harmful to the society in general, then society has a responsibility to restrain us.

Isolationism or pro-active foreign policy to promote democracy.

Again, both. There are times when we should take care of our own before we adventure into the world to promote what is obviously the best way of life on earth and there are times when taking care of our own requires that we venture into the world to eliminate malignant governments from the face of the earth. If you posess the strenght to stop needless torture and misery being heaped upon a people and you don't, then you are hardly better than the one who is heaping the torture and misery. There are times when you simply have to get involved for the good of all.

Small government or letting the government do whatever needs to be done when private enterprise cannot or will not do it.

I favor small government, but realise that there are things that government does that the private sector can not, and should not be tasked with. The more important issue you bring up here, is a question that should be directed to those who favor large governement. I would ask you for a few examples of government taking on a task that it has succeeded in that the private sector could not do.

If you are speaking to welfare and social programs, they are, as a group, abject failures that have cost trillions of dollars, created generational dependence, and destroyed an entire culture. I don't believe that you can be forgiven for destroying families just because it was an unintended consequence of a project that was taken on with good intentions. Welfare programs harken back directly to one of the tenets of conservativism, that being: Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.

When one undertakes grand projects, one should take the time to genuinely look for the ways that said projects could go wrong with more dilligance than one looks for the possible benefits.

Individualism or society

Individualism is the basis for a strong society. See tenet of conservativism #2:

Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.

Being an individual, however, is not license to take actions that harm the entire society. One has the responsibility to recognize that as one individual, among many, we are not the center of the universe and existence does not revolve around us.

It is the modern liberal philosophy that is destroying individualism. Consider the irony of a philosophy (modern liberalism) that calls for live and let live and enforces that demand by supervising everything. For the sake of our freedom it empowers bureaucrats to reconstruct our very human nature. It appeals to " we the people," while reserving the right to make us into whatever it thinks fit.

Individualism is the very essence of freedom but if you ask any modern liberal whether he favors freedom or equality, equality is the answer you will get and equality is not compatible with freedom. If you are a student of math, you know quite well that equality only exists at the lowest common denominator.

(continued)

palerider

02-26-2007, 03:45 AM

(continuation)

Be more specific. Libertarians believe it is possible for humans to live in a state of nature. But, the last time humans did live in a state of nature, Cain killed his brother. Conservatives believe that government is necessary because human nature will turn any state of nature into dog-eat-dog chaos.

I believe you are misinformed. Conservatives favor societal pressure through tradition over government mandate. Tradition is an amalgam of commonly accepted attitudes and practices that has evolved over time through the societal strengthening of things that work and rejection of things that lead to conflict and failure. Tradition is a collection of habits that have proved useful in a huge variety of practical affairs. Through tradition, we can know subtle and fundamental features of the world, and how it relates us to others that would otherwise escape us, and allows our understanding of those things to assume a concrete and usable form.

Modern liberals call on government to organize society. The obvious alternative to a reliance on tradition is reliance on theory and theory can only be enforced upon us by the government. Taking theory literally, however, can be costly because it achieves clarity by ignoring things that are difficult to articulate. Tradition has shown us over and over, however, that such things can be important, The reason that traditional politics and morals are learned mostly by experience and imitation of those that have come before, is that most of what we need toknow about them is expressed in habits, attitudes and implicit beliefs that we couldn't begin to put into words, even if we wanted to. There is no means other than tradition to accumulate, conserve and hand on such knowledge.

A conservative also fears class warfare and will gladly see steps taken (even by the government) to even-out class differences in order to reduce class tension that could lead to social upheaval. Remember that the European arch-conservative, Otto von Bismark, implemented the first social security system in the world. The German left had been clamoring for social security and Bismark feared that the left would launch a communist revolution to get it. By giving the left a little of what it wanted, Bismark staved off even greater social revolution.

Here you are clearly misguided or at the very least, misinformed. See conservative tenet #3:

Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society

The most obvious step taken by government to "even out" class differences is the redistibution of wealth. Clearly an idea of the modern liberal. Consider the progressive tax system for example. The idea literally punishes success. In reading your statements, it seems that you don't separate in your mind, the modern liberal from the classical liberal. The classical liberal of a couple of hundred years ago is today's conservative. The men that founded America were classical liberals. The Constitution of the US is classical liberalism at it's best and yet, the modern liberal finds it of little use today and seeks every way at his disposal to get around it.

As long as the rich are regulated so they cannot use their economic power to oppress the poor- again the fear of class warfare and social upheaval.

This is a socialist concept and perfectly describes the attitudes of modern liberals. Not conservatives.

Give some examples. By and large a conservative should favor small business because that implies a multitude of individual businesses, meaning no business can likely dominate the market and thus engage in monopolistic trade practices.

It is clear that you have a misconception of what conservativism is. Conservativism is the spirit of live and let live. Conservatives don't really care so long as the business is not breaking the laws of the land. If the business is built on a bad model, the market will either correct it, or put it out of business. It is modern liberalism that feels the need to tether business though not for any reason that they would be willing to honestly articulate.

BTW: Did you gather your tenets from any published source, or are they of your own design? I base by view of conservatism mainly on the work of Edmund Burke, whom historians and scholars generally credit as the founder of modern Anglo-American conservatism.

I don't know if they are worded exactly the same, but they originate from a book called "the conservative mind". I would warn against trying to form a rational opinion about a philosophy as it exists in 2007 from the writings of a man in the 1700's. Classical liberalism lives today in modern conservativism.

flaja

02-26-2007, 09:03 AM

I would reject the fact that small business (mom & pop) tend to have higher prices as a result of the way they do business.

They don’t. If the only business is a single mom & pop, then they are a monopoly as much as a big business is. But, if you had a half-dozen, or so, mom & pops, then you’d have price competition. Furthermore, these mom & pops also have to compete in the area of product selection and customer service- things that are sorely lacking in a big business like Wal-Mart.

That is not good for the consumer. On the other hand, I support small business in that employers, in some ways, almost bring employees into the family so to speak and one has the opportunity to enjoy a close relationship with the owners. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that in small business, one can see a limit to one's chain of advancement almost from the first day one goes to work.

There are not many people who would give up being a lowly employee of a mom & pop in order to become a store manager and work 60 hours a week for a company like Wal-Mart.

I like the fact that a small player can own stock in a large corporation and enjoy the profits of big business without having to be a real part of a large somewhat impersonal business.

Wouldn’t it be better to own 1/10 of a mom & pop rather than 1/1000000000 of Wal-Mart? You’d have more say in how the mom & pop is run and there’d be less chance that a corporate decision will cost you in the long run. Just consider how bad things are for Wal-Mart right now. That company has spent so much money building supercenters that it can no longer keep its shelves stocked. Wal-Mart will likely be the next Kmart and how many investors will go down with it?

Profits now or conservation of natural resources for later use.

Both.

How do you achieve both? Human nature being what it is few people will sacrifice profits now for the sake of profits for their grandchildren.

One should take profit now from resources with an eye on concervation for later use. The millions upon millions of acres that have burned in the past 8 or 10 years are a fine example of what happens if one takes conservation too far. Had that land been thinned properly (profit now) it would not have burned to the point that all was lost until entire forests can regrow.

How much profit would have been available from such thinning? Do you mean to cut trees that are 100+ years old or would you just remove the underbrush- that you may not be able to sell?

I don't know how old you are, but I can remember environmentalists warning us that by the early 1980's, resources were going to become so scarce that only the most wealthy people were going to be able to afford anything if we didn't stop consuming.

I’m almost 40 so I have vague memories of the environmentalist scare mongering from the 1970s. But, I also remember how conservation efforts were encouraged. Our economy was larger in the late 1980s than it had been in the late 1970s, but we used less energy because of conservation efforts and we were less polluting (in terms of economic output) because of government regulation.

If it feels right do it or absolute moral standards.

There are no absolute moral standards.

God. No moral absolutes are part and parcel of liberalism.

Isolationism or pro-active foreign policy to promote democracy.

Again, both. There are times when we should take care of our own before we adventure into the world to promote what is obviously the best way of life on earth and there are times when taking care of our own requires that we venture into the world to eliminate malignant governments from the face of the earth.

Give some examples. Where should we be intervening in the world now and where should we not be?

Small government or letting the government do whatever needs to be done when private enterprise cannot or will not do it.

I favor small government, but realise that there are things that government does that the private sector can not, and should not be tasked with. The more important issue you bring up here, is a question that should be directed to those who favor large governement. I would ask you for a few examples of government taking on a task that it has succeeded in that the private sector could not do.

To some extent Social Security. Due to the tendency of business and industry to consolidate (in the absence of antitrust regulations) investment companies could easily get to be too large to want to deal with people that don’t have thousands upon thousands of dollars to invest.

Education is another area. Granted public schools are not a good deal considering the results to cost ratio, but they are far better than your average private school is here in Florida.

Individualism or society

Individualism is the basis for a strong society. See tenet of conservativism #2:

Only to the extent that individuals agree to not be greedy and are willing to be civic minded.

I believe you are misinformed. Conservatives favor societal pressure through tradition over government mandate.

Most historian and scholars trace modern Anglo-American conservative thought to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, in which he declared, “I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long.”

Conservatives don’t expect tradition to be able to accomplish everything, and tradition without force has no effect.

Here you are clearly misguided or at the very least, misinformed. See conservative tenet #3:

If conservatives do not fear class warfare, why did the Founding Fathers create the U.S. as a republic rather than a democracy? Why do you think they put checks on political power- especially checking the power of the (poor) majority?

Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society

The most obvious step taken by government to "even out" class differences is the redistibution of wealth.

Maybe now, but not historically, at least in the U.S. Both the Homestead Act and anti-trust laws were bulwarks against the concentration of wealth and the power that comes from wealth.

This is a socialist concept and perfectly describes the attitudes of modern liberals. Not conservatives.

Then you need to do some research into what conservatism is and how it originated.

It is clear that you have a misconception of what conservativism is. Conservativism is the spirit of live and let live.

Live and let live is what you just said is the aim of “modern liberal philosophy that is destroying individualism.” Are you sure you know what a conservative is?

palerider

02-26-2007, 03:41 PM

They don’t. If the only business is a single mom & pop, then they are a monopoly as much as a big business is. But, if you had a half-dozen, or so, mom & pops, then you’d have price competition. Furthermore, these mom & pops also have to compete in the area of product selection and customer service- things that are sorely lacking in a big business like Wal-Mart.

Of course they do. It doesn’t matter whether you have one, or half a dozen mom and pop stores, you still have small entities that simply don’t have the buying power of a large store and therefore they don’t have the ability to offer the same sorts of price breaks as a result of buying in very large quantity as you see in the big box stores. The possibility exists, I suppose that a group of mom and pops could pool their resources and buy in sufficient quantity to get the price breaks you find in big box stores, but then, the mom and pops would have effectively become big boxes themselves.

My experience has been that customer service is far superior in big box stores. It has been my experience that mom and pop are loathe to give you your money back if you find that your purchase doesn’t meet your expectations or you simply decide that you don’t want it. Big box stores will very often simply exchange a product that is defective as well rather than asking you to jump through the warranty hoops as is the case with mom and pop who will try every means to get you to deal with the manufacturer on warranty issues.

There are not many people who would give up being a lowly employee of a mom & pop in order to become a store manager and work 60 hours a week for a company like Wal-Mart.
Of course there are. One only need look at walmart to see that their management is fully staffed. Maybe you wouldn’t want to do it, but you shouldn’t suggest that there are not many when in fact, there are more than plenty.

Wouldn’t it be better to own 1/10 of a mom & pop rather than 1/1000000000 of Wal-Mart? You’d have more say in how the mom & pop is run and there’d be less chance that a corporate decision will cost you in the long run. Just consider how bad things are for Wal-Mart right now. That company has spent so much money building supercenters that it can no longer keep its shelves stocked. Wal-Mart will likely be the next Kmart and how many investors will go down with it?

First off, mom and pop aren’t for sale on the exchange and second of all, few could afford to actually buy 10% of a small business even if it were for sale. Since small business is far more likely to fail than large established companies, the risk of owning 10% of a mom and pop is considerably greater than owning a similar amount of stock in larger corporations. And if mom and pop’s children decide not to follow in the family tradition, your investment would be lost all together.

Things are not bad for walmart. Three years ago the stock was trading at slightly over $50. Today the stock is trading at slightly over $60. Bad press should not be confused with bad business. The chance of walmart slipping down the drain is pretty remote and anyone that lost money on Kmart did so because they were sleeping. The writing was on the wall far in advance of their actual losses. Another advantage to investing in large companies over mom and pop. When mom and pop go under, it generally is without warning and even if you do have warning, who is going to buy you out?

How do you achieve both? Human nature being what it is few people will sacrifice profits now for the sake of profits for their grandchildren.

One only need look at companies that have been in existence for over 100 years to see the how. Generally, there is an upper limit to the amount of profit that can be had in any market and a good business man works within that margin. Using resources that can not be turned into profit is a recipe for failure.

How much profit would have been available from such thinning? Do you mean to cut trees that are 100+ years old or would you just remove the underbrush- that you may not be able to sell?

Lumber is a renewable resource. We didn’t go in and manage much of the public land and as a result, those 100 year old trees burned to the ground. Of what use are they now? Is it better that they were burned as a result of mismanagement of the resource than if they had been harvested and put to good use? Conservation of resources doesn’t mean hoarding or refusing to allow anyone to use them.

I’m almost 40 so I have vague memories of the environmentalist scare mongering from the 1970s. But, I also remember how conservation efforts were encouraged. Our economy was larger in the late 1980s than it had been in the late 1970s, but we used less energy because of conservation efforts and we were less polluting (in terms of economic output) because of government regulation.

And we are more efficient in the use of our resources today than we were in the 80’s. Not because of government regulation. I would argue that we are more efficient in spite of it.

God. No moral absolutes are part and parcel of liberalism.

But modern liberalism also tries to remove the concept of community and one’s responsibility to community and make the individual the end all and be all and as such make what the individual wants, more important than what the society needs.

Give some examples. Where should we be intervening in the world now and where should we not be?

Personally, I believe we should be in Iraq doing what we are doing. Iraq represented a long term threat to us. I also believe we should be in Darfur. Not because it represents a threat to us, but because it is the right thing to do. Being strong places a responsibility upon us to protect those who can’t defend themselves.

To some extent Social Security. Due to the tendency of business and industry to consolidate (in the absence of antitrust regulations) investment companies could easily get to be too large to want to deal with people that don’t have thousands upon thousands of dollars to invest.

Social security is a failure. It doesn’t provide security to those who depend upon it. It creates old age poverty and dependence. Considering the amount of money that one is required to pay in over the course of a working career, the pay back is near criminal. If you wonder about the effectiveness of social security consider the fact that federal employees are not part of the system. They retire quite comfortable since their money does not go into social security. Most state government employees are outside of the social security program as well.

Education is another area. Granted public schools are not a good deal considering the results to cost ratio, but they are far better than your average private school is here in Florida.

I find that very hard to believe. Pubic schools fare poorly when compared to even mediocre private schools and for the money most public schools spend per student, a child could go to private schools that are far above the mediocre.

Only to the extent that individuals agree to not be greedy and are willing to be civic minded.

What do you mean greedy? And define civic minded. My bet is that your definitions will fall short of anything that could be called freedom.
Most historian and scholars trace modern Anglo-American conservative thought to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, in which he declared, “I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long.”

One can trace the ancestry of elephants back through mammoths and mastodons as well, but modern elephants are not mammoths. And while you may trace conservatism back to a point in history, conservatism has evolved as well. As we can see, it was good that Burke withheld his congratulations to France since in the end, they forfeited freedom in exchange for the false security of socialism.

palerider

02-26-2007, 03:42 PM

Conservatives don’t expect tradition to be able to accomplish everything, and tradition without force has no effect.
Society can exert tremendous force as evidence by the number of laws that have been passed in an effort to weaken that force.

If conservatives do not fear class warfare, why did the Founding Fathers create the U.S. as a republic rather than a democracy? Why do you think they put checks on political power- especially checking the power of the (poor) majority?

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Democracy is not a viable form of government as it very soon falls victim to the tyranny of the majority. The checks they put on the political power wielded by different branches of the government had nothing to do with class warfare. I would suggest you read the Federalist papers if you are interested in what they had in mind when they put checks on governmental power.

Suffice it to say that they would be heartily disappointed with the way the government they instituted has turned out. Today, there is little regard for the checks they put on government as it relates to government interaction with the people.

Maybe now, but not historically, at least in the U.S. Both the Homestead Act and anti-trust laws were bulwarks against the concentration of wealth and the power that comes from wealth.

The homestead act was the single best way to begin populating the vast frontiers west of the Mississippi.

And it would be pretty hard to deny that antitrust laws have failed miserably to achieve the stated purposes of their authors.

Then you need to do some research into what conservatism is and how it originated.

I am perfectly aware of what conservatism is and how it originated, but I don’t look to the roots of conservatism to try and glean the essence of modern conservatism.

Live and let live is what you just said is the aim of “modern liberal philosophy that is destroying individualism.” Are you sure you know what a conservative is?

Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote. Live and let live may be the “aim” of modern liberalism but it isn’t what modern liberalism practices. The flaw in modern liberalism is that it is doomed to become the very thing that it claims to hate most. As I said, modern liberalism touts a live and let live message, but it supervises everything which is hardly compatible with the live and let live message.

Modern liberalism claims to honor diversity and tolerance above all, but its diversity excludes ordinary people, and its tolerance requires speech codes, quotas, and compulsory training in politically correct opinions and attitudes.
Modern liberal totems and tabus have no clear connection with letting people live as they wish either. Restrictions, large and small constantly multiply. To conservatives, the rules of modern PC liberalism often seem simply arbitrary: prayer is forbidden while instruction in the use of condoms is required; smoking and furs are outrages, abortion and sodomy fundamental rights. This hardly amounts to live and let live.

Tolerance is traditionally understood to mean letting people do what they want. (live and let live) Modern liberals, however, have redefined tolerance in a way that allows them to enforce a requirement for equal respect as a fact of social life. These two different understandings are radically inconsistent. As a political matter, tolerance calls for laissez-faire, while the redefined tolerance requires pervasive administrative control of social life. As a result, modern liberals who claim tolerance as the ultimate goal goal must be intolerant because their redefined tolerance requires the control the attitudes people have toward each other, and any serious attempt to enforce this liberal tolerance will require means that are unforgiving and despotic.

Compare the state of a conservative society to a modern liberal state with regard to tolerance. A conservative state is in one sense the most tolerant possible, but in another does not care about the matter. You can do whatever you want as long as you do not violate certain clearly defined rights. As a result, the conservative state is indifferent between tolerant and intolerant ways of life as long as the intolerance does not take the form of physical attack or violation of property rights.

In contrast, the modern liberal state is intended to promote social tolerance in the sense of equal respect. To do so, it must be intolerant of many ways of life that do not directly injure or interfere with others. For example, laws against discrimination are intolerant of the ways of life called "racist," "sexist," "homophobic," and so on. They force people to associate with others against their will, denying them the right to choose those with whom they will live and work. Since the human experience is saturated with sexual distinctions and religious and ethnic loyalties that permeate and organize our very lives, the modern liberal state is in fact intolerant of all actual ways of life, and committed in the name of tolerance to transform its citizens radically through the use of force. The new tolerance thus means that no one except a few ideologues can live as he wants. As I said, modern liberalis is destined to become the thing it hates the most.

I enjoy the conversation, but if we are to continue, we really need to trim it down to a more manageable size. These exceedingly long responses just take more time than I have to give.

Lilly Marlene

03-02-2007, 02:39 AM

palerider

03-02-2007, 08:33 AM

Gentlemen, I'm brand new here ...I enjoyed your conversation.
It's a topic screaming for examination because there is truly a split now in "Conservatism".
I skimmed over some of this discussion but I would submit that only defensive war would be typical of conservatism in the sense I understand it.
Hope to be back soon, good night.

Welcome. I am new myself. I am hoping that things pick up soon. It is a bit slow here for my taste.

I don't believe that there is really a split within conservativism. Conservatives believe what they have always believed. The rush of liberals seeking to distance themselves from the term liberal has increased the moderate ranks and those less moderate among them have been, by default, called conservatives.

With regard to the war. I would argue that the war in Iraq is a defensive war. We entered that war when Iraq attacked Kuwait, an ally which we were obligated to defend. That war never ended. A saddam agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Over the next 14 years, he blatantly disregarded the terms of that cease fire and offered grudging cooperation with inspectors only under threat of force. He undermined the terms of the food for oil program by the willing corruption of our european "allies".

The iraqi regime showed a willingness to not only attack its own people with both conventional arms and WMD, but its neighbors as well. And those who would suggest that Iraq was not a direct threat to us should take a closer look at what history should have taught them. Prior to 9/11, very few indeed would have thought that Afghanistan, a poor backwater with no air force, no navy, and an army that amounted to little more than ragged militias, could have been considered even a vague threat to us, much less a threat that could strike at the very heart of our financial center.

There was a time when a nation could afford to wait for the uniformed enemy to fire the proverbial first shot before entering into a war and making the claim that it was a defensive war. Even if intelligence showed the enemy was on the move and mounting an offensive and forces were moved and deployed in answer to that enemy movement and all was poised simply waiting for that "first shot". It could still be called "defensive" even though the war had begun in answer to the enemy's first movements. The war had been engaged by both sides long before the first shot was ever fired and that first shot became nothing more than a formality.

Today, however, that first shot could realistically take the form of a suitcase nuclear weapon, or a vial of one of a dozen or so biological agents, or easily transportable cylinders of nerve gas. Can one reasonably be expected to wait for that "first shot" if that first shot could end a million lives?

Radical islam has fired the "fist shot" over and over. There have been dozens and dozens of serious attacks on Americans and America's interests going back to the late 1950's. Do we really need to wait until they manage an attack that would make 9/11 pale by comparison before we get the message that they are charged by their interpretation of their religion to either subdue us totally or kill us?

The president of Iran believes it is his destiny to bring about armageddon. Do you really want to wait to wait for someone like that to fire the first shot just so you can claim formally that your war was defensive in nature?

If someone tells you that they are going to punch you in the nose and advances on you fist drawn, do you really wait until your nose is bleeding before you take "defensive" action?

Lilly Marlene

03-02-2007, 05:12 PM

Thank you, palerider, glad to meet you.
:)
I have some friends who like to discuss politics who might also join us soon.
Let me come back and attend to the content of your post late tonight when the house is quiet.

nakimera

03-02-2007, 05:43 PM

Welcome. I am new myself. I am hoping that things pick up soon. It is a bit slow here for my taste.

I don't believe that there is really a split within conservativism. Conservatives believe what they have always believed. The rush of liberals seeking to distance themselves from the term liberal has increased the moderate ranks and those less moderate among them have been, by default, called conservatives.

With regard to the war. I would argue that the war in Iraq is a defensive war. We entered that war when Iraq attacked Kuwait, an ally which we were obligated to defend. That war never ended. A saddam agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Over the next 14 years, he blatantly disregarded the terms of that cease fire and offered grudging cooperation with inspectors only under threat of force. He undermined the terms of the food for oil program by the willing corruption of our european "allies".

The iraqi regime showed a willingness to not only attack its own people with both conventional arms and WMD, but its neighbors as well. And those who would suggest that Iraq was not a direct threat to us should take a closer look at what history should have taught them. Prior to 9/11, very few indeed would have thought that Afghanistan, a poor backwater with no air force, no navy, and an army that amounted to little more than ragged militias, could have been considered even a vague threat to us, much less a threat that could strike at the very heart of our financial center.

There was a time when a nation could afford to wait for the uniformed enemy to fire the proverbial first shot before entering into a war and making the claim that it was a defensive war. Even if intelligence showed the enemy was on the move and mounting an offensive and forces were moved and deployed in answer to that enemy movement and all was poised simply waiting for that "first shot". It could still be called "defensive" even though the war had begun in answer to the enemy's first movements. The war had been engaged by both sides long before the first shot was ever fired and that first shot became nothing more than a formality.

Today, however, that first shot could realistically take the form of a suitcase nuclear weapon, or a vial of one of a dozen or so biological agents, or easily transportable cylinders of nerve gas. Can one reasonably be expected to wait for that "first shot" if that first shot could end a million lives?

Radical islam has fired the "fist shot" over and over. There have been dozens and dozens of serious attacks on Americans and America's interests going back to the late 1950's. Do we really need to wait until they manage an attack that would make 9/11 pale by comparison before we get the message that they are charged by their interpretation of their religion to either subdue us totally or kill us?

The president of Iran believes it is his destiny to bring about armageddon. Do you really want to wait to wait for someone like that to fire the first shot just so you can claim formally that your war was defensive in nature?

If someone tells you that they are going to punch you in the nose and advances on you fist drawn, do you really wait until your nose is bleeding before you take "defensive" action?

I'm new too...and I was going to quote a line or two, but I couldn't.

Just wanted to say I agree with EVERYTHING.

Lilly Marlene

03-02-2007, 05:49 PM

Oh goody, I am finally going to get to argue with naki (who is known to me from another site) !

See you two later,
Lilly

Lilly Marlene

03-02-2007, 06:05 PM

palerider

03-02-2007, 06:19 PM

Palerider -

Just a couple of the points because everything is rushed now ...

There is indeed a genuine split in the ranks of conservatives at this time; the split is between globalist neocons and the more traditional (think Russel Kirk, Pat Buchanan, Agrarians] type of conservatives.

Neocons aren't really conservatives. They are people who have recently abandoned liberalism but aren't, by definition conservatives. Neocon is a word coined by the left to identify the "traitors".

You are correct about the fact that Saddam did not honor the treaty which ended the Gulf War. But that Gulf War was likewise not a defensive war and we shouldn't have been there then either.

The treaty was not to end the war. The treaty was to maintain a cease fire.

When our allies are attacked, we are attacked. We had a treaty with Kuwait and were required by law to come to their aid.

A truly conservative stance is to "avoid foreign entanglements" as the founders of this country warned us.

The founders of this nation accepted help from several nations, france being the principal to support their efforts to become free from the king. When we sign treatys, we become entangled in foriegn affairs, and the founders certainly signed treaties with foriegn powers. I am a conservative's conservative and I find nothing within the philosophy that would prohibit me from supporting a war against a hostile government.

If the first shot will likely be from a suitcase weapon or some biological agent, then it is really not of much utility for us to be there fighting as we are now ...unless the plan is to slaughter every single one of the more Wahabbist-influenced Muslims.

The plan is to introduce them to freedom. Free people generally don't threaten their neighbors and free people generally don't tolerate violent factions operating within their sphere of influence. A free iraq will no more tolerate radical islamists operating openly than we would. And there is every reson to expect a domino effect through the reigon if iraq becomes a free nation. The populations of islamic countries are ripe to get out from under the repressive thumbs of their keepers and it is to our advantage to help them whenever possible.

We are dealing with a group of people who have a 15th century mindset and unless we bring them (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the 20th century, they will continue to be agressors in exactly the same manner they were when they started the war that became the crusades.

Lilly Marlene

03-03-2007, 12:17 AM

Neocons aren't really conservatives. They are people who have recently abandoned liberalism but aren't, by definition conservatives. Neocon is a word coined by the left to identify the "traitors".

It may have been coined by the Left but it now enjoys currency among both the Left and the various offspring of the aptly-termed "Old Right"; neocons are as much traitors to them - for hijacking their name - as they are to liberals.

The treaty was not to end the war. The treaty was to maintain a cease fire.

I was referring to the treaty requiring Iraq to subject itself to routine weapons inspections.

When our allies are attacked, we are attacked. We had a treaty with Kuwait and were required by law to come to their aid.

WHY did we have that particular treaty with Kuwait ? When you answer that question, you will be face to face with the root of most US 'interventions' for the past fifty or so years.

The founders of this nation accepted help from several nations, france being the principal to support their efforts to become free from the king. When we sign treatys, we become entangled in foriegn affairs, and the founders certainly signed treaties with foriegn powers.

And they did so under protest with grave reservations from the Continental Congress - and only on the grounds that not to do so would render them unable to become independent of the British.
Please,
let's acknowledge that the founders of this nation were quite ill-disposed towards foreign entanglements.

Recall:

George Washington [in the Farewell Address]:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
***********************

Thomas Jefferson in his March 4, 1801 Inaugural Address:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
************************

James Monroe in the Monroe Doctrine:

"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
*************************

The plan is to introduce them to freedom. .. The populations of islamic countries are ripe to get out from under the repressive thumbs of their keepers and it is to our advantage to help them whenever possible.

We are dealing with a group of people who have a 15th century mindset and unless we bring them (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the 20th century, they will continue to be agressors in exactly the same manner they were when they started the war that became the crusades.

Well it is an abysmal strategy.
In the first place, freedom cannot be imposed upon [kicking and screaming] people.

If they are 'ripe for it' as you believe, then they will have to bring it in themselves, just as America did.
But they are NOT 'ripe for it'.
As a matter of fact, the ordinary folk in many of those countries are even more obstinately poised against modern principles of freedom than their rulers are ...

For instance, when the government of Saudi Arabia planned to begin allowing women to drive, the people put up such a massive protest that their rulers finally abandoned the notion.

Democracy cannot be imposed upon people, and even if it could - it's none of our business to be doing that.
Unfortunately what we have been trying to 'bring them into' is far from a good situation for most of the people in these countries.
We have installed rulers like the Shah of Iran, and Pinochet in Chile, men who would let US corporations have their way with the resources in these countries.
And we have "stablized" the areas, which translates into violently muffling protest from most of the people who would have preferred the resources to be nationalized.
In other words,
The only reason the US government wants to 'bring freedom' is to benefit corporate interests in these regions, and that has been the case all along since our first "intervention" in Iran in 1953.

Archangelwolf

03-03-2007, 12:29 AM

Democracy cannot be imposed upon people, and even if it could - it's none of our business to be doing that.
The only reason the US government wants to do it is as a favor to corporate interests in these regions, and that has been the case all along since our first "intervention" in Iran in 1953.

It has been going on longer than that. Think Hawaii, the Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras......and you are right, it was for Corporate interests. Shoot, the quest to build the Panama Canal could stand alone as an example. (You should read "Overthrow," by Stephen Kinzer.) But I digress.....

I agree that it is none of our business. As illustrated in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html), our presence in Iraq has only strengthened al-Qaeda and the insurgency.

Add to that the fact that almost two thousand troops were discharged as Chapter 11's in 2006, comparing with only a little more than 1500 between 2002 and 2005, our own military is starting to desert this war. These numbers do not even reflect the number of actual deserters.

We need a President who is a leader. We really have not had one since Reagan. As a Democrat, I am starting to watch Rudy Guiliani, yes a Republican candidate, with great interest. Right now, I want to vote for him so bad; it hurts. Yet I have to wait another year and a half?

Here is to hoping that our troops can keep the terrorists at bay until then. God help us if they do not.

Arch.

Lilly Marlene

03-03-2007, 01:55 AM

[B]It has been going on longer than that. Think Hawaii, the Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras......and you are right, it was for Corporate interests. Shoot, the quest to build the Panama Canal could stand alone as an example. (You should read "Overthrow," by Stephen Kinzer.) But I digress.....

Yes indeed, there are multiple examples ...still that was a "bright line" in the Middle East, when the US govt. overthrew the duly elected man and positioned Pahlavi in '53.
Our actions vis a vis the Phillipines could be called the first example of US colonialism.

I agree that it is none of our business. As illustrated in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html), our presence in Iraq has only strengthened al-Qaeda and the insurgency...

Thanks for the link.

We need a President who is a leader. We really have not had one since Reagan. As a Democrat, I am starting to watch Rudy Guiliani, yes a Republican candidate, with great interest. Right now, I want to vote for him so bad; it hurts. Yet I have to wait another year and a half?

Soon I hope to point out a candidate whom I feel to be the optimal one. I shouldn't tonight though, too sleepy.
Good night - Arch and everyone,
Lilly

palerider

03-03-2007, 05:25 AM

It may have been coined by the Left but it now enjoys currency among both the Left and the various offspring of the aptly-termed "Old Right"; neocons are as much traitors to them - for hijacking their name - as they are to liberals.

Global warming enjoys currency today as well even though the global mean temperature has been decreasing since 1998. The fact that people use words, or terms, does not guarantee that they are using it properly. Since this thread is really about what conservativism is and isn't, I am going to spend more time on this than quibbling about Iraq. If you understand what conservativism is and what it isn't, then you will (maybe) understand why conservatives tend to support the war in Iraq.

There are a couple of sorts of conservative. Only one sort, however is actually conservative for the reason conservativism came into existence as classical liberalism so long ago.

A substantive conservative is what might be called a true conservative. The substantive conservative believes there are truths that a society needs, that can't scientifically be demonstrated to be true or even articulated in a way that can be fully understood. The substantive conservative is attached to his conservative tradition primarily because he sees those truths embodied in it.

The other sort of "conservative" is the proceedural conservative. A procedural conservative is conservative primarily because he likes his change to be slow and deliberate. This is a characteristic of substantive conservatives as well, but not the primary reason they are conservatives. If change is slow it is likely to be more intelligent and less disruptive, and relative stability makes it easier for people to organize their lives productively. On ultimate standards, however, a procedural conservative is a relativist. Procedural conservatism fits modern ways of thinking better because it can find within its way of thinking, room for an abstract, mandated equality -- in fact, in that vein, it is entirely consistent with liberalism--so respectable well-connected institutional conservatism tends in that direction. Neocons are normally procedural conservatives. That is, they are really modern liberals in conservative clothing.

As long asthe US could be understood as a basically religious and traditionally moral society the distinction between procedural conservatives and substantive conservatives could be overlooked between themselves. The Clinton years made it difficult to understand America that way, and so put the two groups decisively at odds with each other. As a result, substantive conservatives see proceedural conservatives as turncoats, while procedural conservatives see substantive conservatives as provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic or fanatical. Not unsurprisingly, provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic, and fanatical are the very terms modern liberals use to describe conservatives.

I was referring to the treaty requiring Iraq to subject itself to routine weapons inspections.

That was a subsection of the cease fire treaty and a subject of one of the UN resolutions as well. It was disregarded in all cases.

WHY did we have that particular treaty with Kuwait ? When you answer that question, you will be face to face with the root of most US 'interventions' for the past fifty or so years.

Why? I couldn't say. We have had a treaty with them for quite some time. Long before oil was a source of wealth for them. I am not exactly sure of the date we signed a treaty with them, but most of europe allied with them in the very late 1800's and very early 1900's.

Well it is an abysmal strategy.
In the first place, freedom cannot be imposed upon [kicking and screaming] people.

Is it? It worked quite well in the case of the Japanese. Other examples can be cited as well.

If they are 'ripe for it' as you believe, then they will have to bring it in themselves, just as America did.
But they are NOT 'ripe for it'.

A large percentage of the colonists here were opposed to independence from the king and we would not have been able to gaine it for ourselves without outside help. The growth of commerse in iraq in spite of the conditions there is ample evidence that the people were ready to be out from under saddam's thumb.

As a matter of fact, the ordinary folk in many of those countries are even more obstinately poised against modern principles of freedom than their rulers are ...

The ordinary folk of iraq are growing businesses at a rate that we haven't seen for a hundred years. The entrepeneural spirit is alive and thriving there.

For instance, when the government of Saudi Arabia planned to begin allowing women to drive, the people put up such a massive protest that their rulers finally abandoned the notion.

The people? Or a few clerics and their followers enhanced by friendly press coverage?

Democracy cannot be imposed upon people, and even if it could - it's none of our business to be doing that.

Hopefully we are not in the business of imposing democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. And one need only look about the world to see that freedom can be brought to people who were unable to achieve it for themselves.

Unfortunately what we have been trying to 'bring them into' is far from a good situation for most of the people in these countries.

You prefer that they be left to languish and die in their millions at the whim of brutal dictators?

In other words,
The only reason the US government wants to 'bring freedom' is to benefit corporate interests in these regions, and that has been the case all along since our first "intervention" in Iran in 1953.

So. The people who are no longer living (or dying) at the whim of a tyrant are no better off than they were?

USMC the Almighty

03-03-2007, 02:51 PM

...our own military is starting to desert this war.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Look at re-enlistment numbers. Virtually all of the troops that I have talked to believe in this war; we believe we are fighting for a noble cause in the name of a noble nation. You'll always have the "yellow cowards" as Patton called them in every war, but they do not reflect how the majority of us on the ground feel.

Lilly Marlene

03-03-2007, 05:44 PM

Global warming enjoys currency today as well even though the global mean temperature has been decreasing since 1998. The fact that people use words, or terms, does not guarantee that they are using it properly. Since this thread is really about what conservativism is and isn't, I am going to spend more time on this than quibbling about Iraq. If you understand what conservativism is and what it isn't, then you will (maybe) understand why conservatives tend to support the war in Iraq.

Only neoconservatives (or whatever term you may prefer for those people) support the war in Iraq.

There are a couple of sorts of conservative. Only one sort, however is actually conservative for the reason conservativism came into existence as classical liberalism so long ago.

A substantive conservative is what might be called a true conservative. The substantive conservative believes there are truths that a society needs, that can't scientifically be demonstrated to be true or even articulated in a way that can be fully understood. The substantive conservative is attached to his conservative tradition primarily because he sees those truths embodied in it.

That is the sort I consider myself to be - to the extent that I am conservative.

The other sort of "conservative" is the proceedural conservative. A procedural conservative is conservative primarily because he likes his change to be slow and deliberate. This is a characteristic of substantive conservatives as well, but not the primary reason they are conservatives. If change is slow it is likely to be more intelligent and less disruptive, and relative stability makes it easier for people to organize their lives productively. On ultimate standards, however, a procedural conservative is a relativist. Procedural conservatism fits modern ways of thinking better because it can find within its way of thinking, room for an abstract, mandated equality -- in fact, in that vein, it is entirely consistent with liberalism--so respectable well-connected institutional conservatism tends in that direction. Neocons are normally procedural conservatives. That is, they are really modern liberals in conservative clothing.

Except that now they have departed from the "slow and deliberate" standard for change. Planning to remake the Middle East through shock and awe tactics is scarcely a slow and deliberate change.

As long as the US could be understood as a basically religious and traditionally moral society the distinction between procedural conservatives and substantive conservatives could be overlooked between themselves. The Clinton years made it difficult to understand America that way, and so put the two groups decisively at odds with each other. As a result, substantive conservatives see proceedural conservatives as turncoats, while procedural conservatives see substantive conservatives as provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic or fanatical. Not unsurprisingly, provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic, and fanatical are the very terms modern liberals use to describe conservatives.

I have no argument with any of that, except to disagree about its being a consequence of the Clinton years.

...We have had a treaty with them [Kuwaite] for quite some time. Long before oil was a source of wealth for them. I am not exactly sure of the date we signed a treaty with them, but most of europe allied with them in the very late 1800's and very early 1900's.

Would you like to make this a matter of research for the two of us, subject to time limitations ? Because I am willing to bet that if oil was not the issue, then some other resource - or possibly geopolitical strategy based on location - was.

Is it? It worked quite well in the case of the Japanese. Other examples can be cited as well.

Can you show me that the Japanese were dragged kicking and screaming to it ? Because that was the attitude you stipulated in your earlier post.

A large percentage of the colonists here were opposed to independence from the king and we would not have been able to gaine it for ourselves without outside help.

Indeed, and as I remarked last night, that is the sole reason why we accepted the foreign help ...as you see from the quotes I furnished, such entanglements are entirely contrary to the philosphy of those who founded this nation. And in the subsequent one hundred or so years, one sees the United States keeping clear of any foreign entanglements whatsoever.

The growth of commerse in iraq in spite of the conditions there is ample evidence that the people were ready to be out from under saddam's thumb.

The ordinary folk of iraq are growing businesses at a rate that we haven't seen for a hundred years. The entrepeneural spirit is alive and thriving there.

What kinds of enterprise are we discussing here ? Perhaps people willing to carry human waste to the river for money, now that their infrastructure is almost entirely dismantled ?
Please tell me that you don't consider Iraq to be better off today than before we "intervened".

The people? Or a few clerics and their followers enhanced by friendly press coverage?

The people. Please see the account of that exact incident, in a book by Sam Harris titled The End of Faith.
The people of the Middle East are even more loathe to adopt certain modern ideas of freedom than their reactionary rulers are.

Hopefully we are not in the business of imposing democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. And one need only look about the world to see that freedom can be brought to people who were unable to achieve it for themselves.

Where about the world should I be looking for that ? Please show me an example of any people who now enjoys authentic freedom and obtained it primarily through the agency of another country.

You prefer that they be left to languish and die in their millions at the whim of brutal dictators?
...So. The people who are no longer living (or dying) at the whim of a tyrant are no better off than they were?

They are seriously quite worse off than they were. Saddam at the very least kept life functioning somewhat predictably for them and sectarian violence was not running amock on every street corner.
We have not helped the Iraqis...
just as we did not help the people of Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, or any of the other people on whose behalf we told ourselves we were intervening.

Please understand that since WWII, the US has played the part of a bully.
Maybe you think I enjoy saying that -
I don't.
I love my country.
But since WWII, the strategy of our government has been to go in to many countries in which a person has been elected by the people, and tell that person how it has to be ...this happens predominantly in the so-called "developing nations" which have desirable natural resources
If he cooperates, he becomes very wealthy and has lots of bodyguards (which he will require).
If he does not go along, he becomes a target.

I believe that sometimes people's focus is narrowed, in these discussions, to whether or not a country has nationalized its resources (?)
If so, they may view such nationalization as being inherently wrong or evil.
But it is not always wrong. Sometimes it is the optimal thing for a particular country at a given time.

palerider

03-06-2007, 02:50 PM

Only neoconservatives (or whatever term you may prefer for those people) support the war in Iraq.

Hardly the case. It is certainly the picture that the press paints for you to see, but conservatives support this action. The republicans who the press highlights as deserting the war effort are RINO's and are republicans only because they couldn't get elected in thier districts as democrats.

That is the sort I consider myself to be - to the extent that I am conservative.

The other sort are more accurately called moderates than neo cons.

Except that now they have departed from the "slow and deliberate" standard for change. Planning to remake the Middle East through shock and awe tactics is scarcely a slow and deliberate change.

You talk as if you believe bush is a true conservative. Is that the impression that you are under? Aside from that, war tactics shouldn't be confused with societal change. How many would saddam have killed following the slow and deliberate standard?

I have no argument with any of that, except to disagree about its being a consequence of the Clinton years.

I didn't say it was a consequence, I simply said that the differences became obvious for the first time during the clinton years.

Would you like to make this a matter of research for the two of us, subject to time limitations ? Because I am willing to bet that if oil was not the issue, then some other resource - or possibly geopolitical strategy based on location - was.

There is always some motive for treaties. My point was that in the case of Kuwait, it wasn't oil because at the time the treaties were enacted, Kuwait was not a wealthy nation.

Can you show me that the Japanese were dragged kicking and screaming to it ? Because that was the attitude you stipulated in your earlier post.

Actually they weren't kicking and screaming. Two nuclear weapons had knocked the kick and the scream out of them. They became what we told them to become because they didn't want a third dropped on them. That qualifies as kicking and screaming.

Indeed, and as I remarked last night, that is the sole reason why we accepted the foreign help ...as you see from the quotes I furnished, such entanglements are entirely contrary to the philosphy of those who founded this nation. And in the subsequent one hundred or so years, one sees the United States keeping clear of any foreign entanglements whatsoever.

For that 100 years, it was relatively easy to avoid foriegn entanglements. That is not the case today. We have foriegn interests and if we don't see to them, we can find ourselves in very serious trouble. Isolationism is simply no longer a viable policy.

[QUOTE=Lilly Marlene;1821]What kinds of enterprise are we discussing here ? Perhaps people willing to carry human waste to the river for money, now that their infrastructure is almost entirely dismantled ?
Please tell me that you don't consider Iraq to be better off today than before we "intervened".

To date, there are over 30 thousand new businesses in iraq and sadly, the picture of doom and gloom that you paint hardly matches the reality. 98% of Iraqi children have been vacinated for polio. That is a result of new clinics and staff hired on to run them. 4500 schools have been rebuilt. That required an army of construction workers and having been finished, they required teachers and have been restocked with over 8 million textbooks that required printers, academics, warehousing, delivery, etc. etc, etc. Over 150 newspapers have been started with associated staff, TV shows, theater, radio. The per capita income for the average joe in iraq has increased 30% over the very best economy that saddam ever reported. The people there are doing the same sorts of work that we do here and the poor infrastructure that you mention is almost entirely within a 50 mile radius of Baghdad because that is where 90+% of the violence is happening. Most of the country is rebuilding and moving on.

The people. Please see the account of that exact incident, in a book by Sam Harris titled The End of Faith.
The people of the Middle East are even more loathe to adopt certain modern ideas of freedom than their reactionary rulers are.

The people of the middle east is painting with a very broad brush. Are you aware that 25% of the elected in their parlement are women? Women in iraq are driving and teaching, and working.

Where about the world should I be looking for that ? Please show me an example of any people who now enjoys authentic freedom and obtained it primarily through the agency of another country.

Japan, the Philipines, Most of eastern Europe.

They are seriously quite worse off than they were. Saddam at the very least kept life functioning somewhat predictably for them and sectarian violence was not running amock on every street corner.

Over 90% of the violence in iraq is within 50 miles of baghdad. Examine the press reports of the bombings and kilings etc. Very few reports are in areas far from baghdad.

We have not helped the Iraqis...
just as we did not help the people of Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, or any of the other people on whose behalf we told ourselves we were intervening.

The people of Iraq are far better off now than they ever were under saddam's rule. And we can thank the democrat party for not funding the attempts at freedom in South America in exactly the same way we can thank the democrats for withdrawing support and subsequently letting millions die in vietnam, cambodia, and laos when we cut and run on them.

Please understand that since WWII, the US has played the part of a bully.
Maybe you think I enjoy saying that -
I don't.

Of course you do. I don't believe you grasp what a bully is. Saddam was a bully. He had the power and used it to terrorize his own people and his neighbors. Kicking the crap out of a bully doesn't make one a bully. If you see people being repressed and you have the power to do something, but you don't. You are no better than the one who is doing the repressing.

I love my country.

Easy to say.

But since WWII, the strategy of our government has been to go in to many countries in which a person has been elected by the people, and tell that person how it has to be ...this happens predominantly in the so-called "developing nations" which have desirable natural resources
If he cooperates, he becomes very wealthy and has lots of bodyguards (which he will require).
If he does not go along, he becomes a target.

Nice rhetoric, but not accurate.

I believe that sometimes people's focus is narrowed, in these discussions, to whether or not a country has nationalized its resources (?)
If so, they may view such nationalization as being inherently wrong or evil.
But it is not always wrong. Sometimes it is the optimal thing for a particular country at a given time.

Nationalizing the means of production is always wrong and always leads to the repression of the people.

USMC the Almighty

03-06-2007, 03:19 PM

What kinds of enterprise are we discussing here ? Perhaps people willing to carry human waste to the river for money, now that their infrastructure is almost entirely dismantled ?
Please tell me that you don't consider Iraq to be better off today than before we "intervened".

http://131.84.1.90/iraq/rebuilding.html

-Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

-Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.

-Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur.

-The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster.

-School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

-The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

-The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

-100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war.

-Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in place.

-Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

-Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

-Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

-Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

-Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

-Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

-An interim constitution has been signed.

-Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq.

-Text books that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Archangelwolf

03-07-2007, 12:32 AM

The success of a functional democracy can not be measured in just 6 years. It was not until the election of 1800, when political parties changed hands without violence, that our country realized that it could survive as a democracy. That was 24 years after the Declaration of Independance, and 17 years after the battle of Yorktown. Are we going to occupy Iraq that long? I hope not.

The American occupation in Iraq is going to have to convince the Iraqi people that, regardless of the tenets of Islam and its assertions about judgment in the afterlife, there is more pleasure in being a democracy than pain. The last few years have not shown that to the Iraqi people. Having electricity and schools is not worth having your family blown to bits on a daily basis.

Even I can agree with that assessment.

Arch.

palerider

03-07-2007, 09:12 AM

USMC the Almighty

03-07-2007, 02:44 PM

Archangelwolf

03-08-2007, 01:13 AM

Germany's decline in moral government was not inspired by religion. It was inspired by an unrealistic expectation of political world dominance.

Iraq is inspired by an expectation, real or imagined, of religious world dominance. These terrorists believe that their goal is for the world to become converted to Islam; by force if necessary. Americans do not realize the terrible tragedy that this is. An aggressive political foreign policy is one thing; but an aggressive religious foreign policy?

One thing people can all agree on about religion-most of the most immoral acts imaginable in this world's history have been inspired by religion. It can create the most fanatic and unreasonable extremists in the world; and what happens if a government aggressively seeks to kill them? They become MARTYRS.

So, now we have a civil war among insurgents fighting over their interpretations of the Quran. They are willing to die for their beliefs, for martyrdom. The American people can not fight such madness. This is not some decieved Germans having bought into some crazy Aryan scheme about world domination. These are religious fanatics, inspired by the very blood of their brothers the day before, to be reunited with Al-lah God. The Iraqi people are willing to face ANNIHILATION, rather than subject themselves to the western views of democracy and equality.

Islam teaches, in the Quran, of two kinds of jihad. The first is "al-Jihadu I-Akbar," which is the war within one's self. This war is for an individual, to make his earthly desires submit to the desires of Al-lah God. This is the war that the media tries to throw at the American people, as showing Muslims to be peaceful.

However, there is another. "Al-Jihad I-asghar"-is the war against the infidels. Who are infidels? Well, let me put it this way. Anyone who rejects Islam, and the teachings of Muhammed, is insulting Al-lah God himself. Insulting God is the equivalent of an act of war; and is subject to retaliation by those who serve Al-lah God. So what does the Quran teach about retaliation against those who refuse to submit to Islam?

"Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors of each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them,..."

"Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war."

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Al-lah."

....and so on and so forth.

This is a war that we can not win. Every Iraqi that dies inspires 10 more to take up their cause.

War against political aggression is noble; but war against religious aggression is suicide.

Arch.

palerider

03-08-2007, 02:37 AM

So your suggestion is to cut and run and let a million or so die as happened when we bailed on vietnam?

Lilly Marlene

03-08-2007, 09:43 PM

Hardly the case. It is certainly the picture that the press paints for you to see, but conservatives support this action. The republicans who the press highlights as deserting the war effort are RINO's and are republicans only because they couldn't get elected in thier districts as democrats.

Patently incorrect.
Check out "Conservative Exodus" to learn HOW incorrect.

http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

You talk as if you believe bush is a true conservative. Is that the impression that you are under?

Of course I'm not under that impression; please read my posts and it will be abundantly clear that I have - from the very first - distinguished neocons like Bush from those of a historically conservative ethos.

Aside from that, war tactics shouldn't be confused with societal change. How many would saddam have killed following the slow and deliberate standard?

Not even vaguely relevant: if those who support preemptive war do so because of distress about people getting killed, then why did they not shepherd troops into Rawanda and why not now into Darfur ?

There is always some motive for treaties. My point was that in the case of Kuwait, it wasn't oil because at the time the treaties were enacted, Kuwait was not a wealthy nation

Well, what was it then ? I asked that question of you several days ago.
I think we all know that oil is a very real form of wealth.

Actually they weren't kicking and screaming. Two nuclear weapons had knocked the kick and the scream out of them. They became what we told them to become because they didn't want a third dropped on them. That qualifies as kicking and screaming.

Whether they are dragged kicking and screaming, or bombed into submission ...it is not our place to be imposing a form of government on other nations by strong arming them or threatening them with bombs.
More significantly for the thread topic, it is not consistent with conservative values to do that.

For that 100 years, it was relatively easy to avoid foriegn entanglements. That is not the case today. We have foriegn interests and if we don't see to them, we can find ourselves in very serious trouble. Isolationism is simply no longer a viable policy.

You present what is known as a *false dichotomy*: it is not "EITHER preemption OR isolation".

To date, there are over 30 thousand new businesses in iraq...

They had water and schools before this administration falsified reasons to go in there.
Perhaps you think the US should go clear the way for entrepeneurial opportunities in several OTHER countries in the Middle East now by similar means ?

Japan, the Philipines, Most of eastern Europe.

To the extent that those are an answer to my question, those were secondary consequences of our efforts towards something else.

The people of Iraq are far better off now than they ever were under saddam's rule. And we can thank the democrat party for not funding the attempts at freedom in South America in exactly the same way we can thank the democrats for withdrawing support and subsequently letting millions die in vietnam, cambodia, and laos when we cut and run on them.

I have seen videos which show how much "better off" the Iraqis are.
Also,
Anyone who thinks US actions in South America had something to do with "freedom", is looking only from the viewpoint of corporations.

Of course you do...

Easy to say....

Nice rhetoric, but not accurate.

The burden would be upon you to explain HOW my statement is "not accurate" since you are the one making that charge.
Actually,
the resorting to personal attack at this point (i.e., asserting that I enjoy pointing out when the US is at fault, and so forth) tells more about the one who wrote it, than anyone else.
There are no reasonable grounds on which to assess me as being hostile to my own country. "Loving one's country" is a different thing than blindly casting about for a rationale, for each and every action of one's government.
Please try not to conflate the two.

I suggest to you some serious reading especially about US activities in South America, before continuing this.

Nationalizing the means of production is always wrong and always leads to the repression of the people.

Nationalization is not "wrong" because it is not a moral issue. It is an economic expedient.
and sometimes a passably useful corrective measure for problems caused by the opposite extreme.

Archangelwolf

03-09-2007, 01:00 AM

palerider

03-09-2007, 03:07 AM

Patently incorrect.
Check out "Conservative Exodus" to learn HOW incorrect.

The exodus project is a web site. For all the press it gets, it could well be one person. I do agree with most on the site, but not their positonon the war and my support for the war has nothing to do with transforming the government, it has to do with removing a brutal tyrant. One doesn't, however, refuse to support what one wants to happen just because the people who initiated it did so for different reasons than your own.

Not even vaguely relevant: if those who support preemptive war do so because of distress about people getting killed, then why did they not shepherd troops into Rawanda and why not now into Darfur ?

I thought, that we should have ended the killing in Rawanda and believe that we should be in Darfur today. In fact, I favor building a great big evil tyrant wheel with the names of all who could be considered as such on it and every 6 months or so, give it a spin and whoever's name it lands on. Kill them. My bet is that after a year or so, they would either seriously reconsider how they treat their people and their neighbors or dissappear under the largest rock they could find. It is time to put an end to needless suffering at the hands of psychopaths and few nations in the world have the strength to do it.

Well, what was it then ? I asked that question of you several days ago. I think we all know that oil is a very real form of wealth.

I don't know, but I do know that back when the treaties were being signed, oil was a non issue. Are you under the impression that we only sign treaties with wealthy nations that can give us something? We don't get any oil directly from Kuwait anyway. Crude oil is sold, by auction, on the open market. The only people who were getting oil directly from the source were our "allies" who had helped corrupt the oil for food program.

Whether they are dragged kicking and screaming, or bombed into submission ...it is not our place to be imposing a form of government on other nations by strong arming them or threatening them with bombs. More significantly for the thread topic, it is not consistent with conservative values to do that.

It is perfectly consistent with conservative values. Or is it ok with you for dictators to kill people in their millions so long as it is just "those people over there" who are being killed?

present what is known as a *false dichotomy*: it is not "EITHER preemption OR isolation".

Then present a viable middle alternative in the case of someone like saddam who had flaunted for over a decade every restriction placed on him by the world community and those he had not flaunted, he had, with the help of our "allies" thoroughly corrupted.

There are occasions when one has little choice but to engage an enemy and if one doesn't recognize that, one finds himself blindsided.

They had water and schools before this administration falsified reasons to go in there. Perhaps you think the US should go clear the way for entrepeneurial opportunities in several OTHER countries in the Middle East now by similar means ?

Unfortunately, little girls didn't get to go to the schools. Is that ok with you. You are fine with little brown girls being treated like animals in a brutal society? It is ok with you for little brown girls in a far off society to be hauled into rape rooms and raped in front of thier fathers in order to make a political point and bring their fathers back into line?

Economic opportunities are no more than a side benefit to removing a psychopathic murdering dictator. Saddam and his ouster, and preventing someone like him from assuming his power was my reason for supporting the war.

To the extent that those are an answer to my question, those were secondary consequences of our efforts towards something else.

You asked where in the world you should be looking to see people who enjoy freedom as the result of military action by another country. Those are places you should be looking (and to history) so you might recognize that military action, and the threat of military action is just about the only way that people actually become free.

I have seen videos which show how much "better off" the Iraqis are. Also, Anyone who thinks US actions in South America had something to do with "freedom", is looking only from the viewpoint of corporations.

McDonalds in South America? I wasn't aware that they had much of a presence there outside of the tourist areas on the coast. The efforts in South America were about communism supported by the soviet union via castro. Maybe you don't mind having half of this hemisphere being communist, but Mr. Reagan did. It was not tolerable. And to let it happen would have been strategic suicide.

I suggest to you some serious reading especially about US activities in South America, before continuing this.

I have. Maybe you aren't aware of how profoundly involved in south america the soviet union was.

Nationalization is not "wrong" because it is not a moral issue. It is an economic expedient. And metimes a passably useful corrective measure for problems caused by the opposite extreme.

Nationalization of the means of production is always wrong and always leads leads to the repression of the people. Observe Chavez in South America right now. He nationalized oil production (the only real wealth the nation has) and now less than 5 years after he is ruling then nation by fiat.

palerider

03-09-2007, 03:09 AM

People are dying in Iraq exponentially. It is becoming catastrophic. Terrorism has risen over 600% since the invasion of Iraq.

We are aiding and abetting the cause of the terrorists with our occupation in Iraq. Any other argument is supplementing that fact.

http://forums.lubbockonline.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=000013

Arch.

If you look at history and the amount of killing that saddam did, as reported by organizations as liberal as human rights watch, fewer people have died as a result of this war than saddam would have killed just carrying out business as usual.

Lilly Marlene

03-09-2007, 03:31 AM

palerider -
just stopping in and don't have time to address all your replies right now ...but did want to deal with this one:

Unfortunately, little girls didn't get to go to the schools. Is that ok with you. You are fine with little brown girls being treated like animals in a brutal society?

I really have to wonder what you're hoping to accomplish by insinuating that anyone's stance on the Iraq War is based on the color of the Iraqis' skin.
IF that were the issue, then I would certainly expect you to be agitating for a deployment into Africa, where many of "the little brown girls" routinely suffer clitoridectomy AS WELL AS not getting to go to school.

I hope you're seeing the point; if you choose to "play the race card" vis a vis Iraq, it will come back to whack you in the head.

As we all know, this administration did not take us to war for the sake of those little girls.

It is ok with you for little brown girls in a far off society to be hauled into rape rooms and raped in front of thier fathers in order to make a political point and bring their fathers back into line?

It would not be okay with me, whether they were brown, white, black, or yellow. But that is not the reason we went in there and as apologetics go, that one is not going to work.

More late tonight hopefully.
Lilly

palerider

03-09-2007, 09:12 AM

palerider -
I really have to wonder what you're hoping to accomplish by insinuating that anyone's stance on the Iraq War is based on the color of the Iraqis' skin.
IF that were the issue, then I would certainly expect you to be agitating for a deployment into Africa, where many of "the little brown girls" routinely suffer clitoridectomy AS WELL AS not getting to go to school.

As I have said. I favor bringing the might of the US to bear on any ruler, or group that feels it has the right to opress its people and kill and torture them at will.

Those who most loudly protest the war seem to protest based on the reason we are there and not the fact that people who were oppressed now have the opportunity to be free. To say that you prefer that we weren't there is to say that you really weren't that concerned about what was going on there and would just as soon see them continue to be oppressed.

I hope you're seeing the point; if you choose to "play the race card" vis a vis Iraq, it will come back to whack you in the head.

Not me as I have made it abundantly clear that I favor going after any dictator or group that oppresses either its people or its neighbors.

As we all know, this administration did not take us to war for the sake of those little girls.

The reasons this administration gave are irrelavent. What is important is that the rape rooms are closed down and the people there have an opportunity to live like free people rather than the subjects of a brutal psychopath. Are you one of those who would reject a good thing being done just because you don't agree with the reasons that the one who is doing gave?

It would not be okay with me, whether they were brown, white, black, or yellow. But that is not the reason we went in there and as apologetics go, that one is not going to work.

Never mind. I see that you are one who would rather see people continue to suffer than to see their suffering lessened because you don't like the reasons that the one who is lessening the suffering gave for doing so.

Lilly Marlene

03-09-2007, 03:02 PM

Hello -
I probably will not get in late tonight after all because of some new plans so let me try to answer the rest of your post now, just touching on some of the points because I only have a half hour.

The exodus project is a web site. For all the press it gets, it could well be one person.

I rather doubt it ...unless you believe that one person instituted all those several alternative political parties as well !
In addition, you may find this instructive:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

I do agree with most on the site, but not their positonon the war and my support for the war has nothing to do with transforming the government, it has to do with removing a brutal tyrant.

The brutal tyrant to whom you refer has been removed for some time now, yet we are still there. And whether or not it is your reason for supporting the war, note that this administration certainly DOES refer to transforming the Middle East (to have US-styled elections, and in other respects to reflect our sort of government).

I thought, that we should have ended the killing in Rawanda and believe that we should be in Darfur today. In fact, I favor building a great big evil tyrant wheel with the names of all who could be considered as such on it and every 6 months or so, give it a spin and whoever's name it lands on. Kill them. My bet is that after a year or so, they would either seriously reconsider how they treat their people and their neighbors or dissappear under the largest rock they could find. It is time to put an end to needless suffering at the hands of psychopaths and few nations in the world have the strength to do it.

Maybe you can recall another great nation who assumed they had the strength to right all the world's wrongs or do anything else they wished on the globe ...colonizing many other nations in the process.
That's right:
Great Britain.
Why did the sun set on Great Britain, palerider ?
Because she extended herself beyond her capacity, spread herself too thin - forging on to build an empire that she could not defend.
Why don't we take a lesson from those - our cousins - and start recalling what Washington and Jefferson said about foreign entanglements ?

It is perfectly consistent with conservative values. Or is it ok with you for dictators to kill people in their millions so long as it is just "those people over there" who are being killed?

There will never be a time when someone is not enduring oppression or murder somewhere on the globe. The American people have not consented to be the world's policeman, with their blood and tax dollars.
Second,
those may be YOUR reasons and they are noble ones, but they are clearly not the motives that drive Bush, Cheney, et al.

Then present a viable middle alternative in the case of someone like saddam who had flaunted for over a decade every restriction placed on him by the world community and those he had not flaunted, he had, with the help of our "allies" thoroughly corrupted.

The middle alternative would be to maintain a ready defense strategy against him in case the need should have arisen (which would have been a very remote possibility in my opinion).

Now I already talked to your point about the little girls and I saw your answer. Swell, you wish to steer troops to anywhere on the globe where people are experiencing what you consider oppression (I say 'what you consider' because apparently these people think no school and clitoridectomy for women is right in the sight of God).

In my view, the problem with your recommendation is that

* We simply do not have the resources - human or otherwise - to do what you would like, without coming to ruin.

* We also do not have the will (consult the latest polls to see what percentage of Americans who now think the Iraq War was an expensive kiss-off).

*We very plainly do not have the right ...to go butting in to everybody else's business.

That last point was illustrated well by the anecdote I related, about the people of ONE Middle Eastern country staunchly resisting attempts by their leader to permit driving by women...

Whence do we get the right to go in there and say, "Your religious traditions are wrong - women should get to drive and be educated because that is the western way and we have the muscle to insist on it".

Economic opportunities are no more than a side benefit to removing a psychopathic murdering dictator. Saddam and his ouster, and preventing someone like him from assuming his power was my reason for supporting the war.

Well, which is it ?
Is it the supposed "economic benefits", or is it the removal of Sadaam, or is it the WMDs ?
See what I mean when I mention "casting about for a rationale" ?
There is no reasoning adequate to justify our occupation of Iraq and that is why there are so many rationalizations.

You asked where in the world you should be looking to see people who enjoy freedom as the result of military action by another country. Those are places you should be looking (and to history) so you might recognize that military action, and the threat of military action is just about the only way that people actually become free.

People only become free if they passionately will it and do it for themselves. Otherwise, they might get a semblance of freedom, but they are not truly ready for it - so they will fall under the spell of the next charismatic person who comes to the microphone with an offer of security.

Assuming the countries you named are "free" in the sense you mean, it was a secondary result of the US pursuit of other interests ...yet you are now calling upon this 'freeing of nations' as a primary goal of our so-called interventions.

McDonalds in South America? I wasn't aware that they had much of a presence there outside of the tourist areas on the coast.

Actually I was talking about something more prevalent than just one corporation: I was talking about the long history of exporting so called "cash crops" out of Latin America by corporations.
Cash crops would be things like chocolate, coffee, geraniums, stuff like that.
The rich equatorial soil has been utilized for these luxury items when it could/should have been growing staples to feed the people.
In fact,
for most of its history with Europe, the interior of Latin America has been neglected noticeably in favor of building seaports and roads OUT of the continent, to take those goods to market.
And,
probably needless to say, very few natives of Latin America were the beneficiaries of these transactions.

The efforts in South America were about communism supported by the soviet union via castro. Maybe you don't mind having half of this hemisphere being communist, but Mr. Reagan did. It was not tolerable. And to let it happen would have been strategic suicide.

One question:
Do you agree that the majority of Cuban people were better off after Batista was displaced by Castro ?

Nationalization of the means of production is always wrong and always leads leads to the repression of the people. Observe Chavez in South America right now. He nationalized oil production (the only real wealth the nation has) and now less than 5 years after he is ruling then nation by fiat.

I wonder then why the people love him so much (as they certainly seem to love Castro, even though they probably regard him as kind of a boring old grandpa by now).
Hmmm ?
Why did the people fight so hard on behalf of Chavez at the time of the little "coup" episode ?
And -
exactly why do you continue to insist that it is "wrong" to nationalize a resource ? "Wrong" strongly implies a moral value.
How is this issue a moral one ?
And if it is,
then do you think water should be privatized also ?
After all,
oil can be essential for heating to maintain life, just as water is essential to maintain life.

I hope to be back over the weekend sometime, but if not then have a great weekend everyone,
Lilly