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see proceedural conservatives as turncoats, while procedural conservatives see substantive conservatives as provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic or fanatical.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.
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? 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.
Is it? It worked quite well in the case of the Japanese. Other examples can be cited as well.
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.
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.
The people? Or a few clerics and their followers enhanced by friendly press coverage?
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.
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?
