Any true libertarian or conservative would be against any foreign actions unless there was a direct attack on America.
We live in a very liberal society, as a whole, so it's tough to guage the terms.
I guess the trouble is that there was a direct attack on america, and it wasn't fully resolved. That's the only reason why I support the war, though there are reasons why i don't. i don't know if Iraq is exactly the best target, so I hope in this case that our sinister government is witholding facts about the recent criminality of Iraq.
1) Republicans: ... typically isolationist geopolitically
This hasn't been true for about 60 years now.
Quote:
2) Democrats: ... typically interventionist geopolitically
Also not really true. Until Clinton came along the Democrats had been anti-interventionist since the fall of Saigon.
Quote:
The emergence of the neo-conservatives has made this less clear, since they're in favor of US military dominance in the ME but care little for domestic policy...
John Richard Neuhaus and Bill Bennett aren't known for their views on foreign policy. They are neocons whose portfolios are mostly filled with social and cultural commentary. And neocon foreign policy is about more than the ME. The Weekly Standard (a neocon publication) pushed hard for our intervention in Kosovo and has been very hawkish with respect to China.
I had an interesting conversation yestday with an older gentleman in my neighborhood who is very much against the war, but he's a very conservative Republican. It was an eye-opener, because his arguments against the war were from a conservative point of view.
He said things like "not 50 Iraqi lives are worth even one American life," and "why do we have to take care of the rest of the world - who cares if they have a dictator."
He seemed to have a partially isolationist perspective, which I would think may exist among some conservatives. He didn't mention this, but I would think that a religious pro-life perspective wouldn't be consistent with this notion of trading off Iraqi and American lives in order to save future lives. I wouldn't think that that type of cost-benefit analysis would be appropriate when we're dealing with human lives.
I know there are lots of liberals that support the war for "liberal" reasons - e.g., to have a more liberal democracy in Iraq, and improve human rights there, etc.
So I'm just wondering if any conservatives here are against the war, or if you know any conservatives against it.
Yeah...why do some of these people insist that trading lives is OK in this situation but when it comes to medical research, embryos are sacred even if destroying them could help save millions? Oh wait, hypocrisy. Of course, both sides of the ridiculous aisle are hypocritical in their own way.
Comments
The word liberal, is more tricky, it means change and is a reference to liberty.
For US liberal is refering to more welfare and in general more equality, for french it refers to more liberty in the economic system : less state.
One word two differents meaning in two differents countries. You can't understand or reduce a political party to just his name.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I believe the terms we are looking for are "classic liberalism" and "modern liberalism"
And "patriot" and "unamerican." Can't forget those.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
Any true libertarian or conservative would be against any foreign actions unless there was a direct attack on America.
We live in a very liberal society, as a whole, so it's tough to guage the terms.
I guess the trouble is that there was a direct attack on america, and it wasn't fully resolved. That's the only reason why I support the war, though there are reasons why i don't. i don't know if Iraq is exactly the best target, so I hope in this case that our sinister government is witholding facts about the recent criminality of Iraq.
Originally posted by midwinter
1) Republicans: ... typically isolationist geopolitically
This hasn't been true for about 60 years now.
2) Democrats: ... typically interventionist geopolitically
Also not really true. Until Clinton came along the Democrats had been anti-interventionist since the fall of Saigon.
The emergence of the neo-conservatives has made this less clear, since they're in favor of US military dominance in the ME but care little for domestic policy...
John Richard Neuhaus and Bill Bennett aren't known for their views on foreign policy. They are neocons whose portfolios are mostly filled with social and cultural commentary. And neocon foreign policy is about more than the ME. The Weekly Standard (a neocon publication) pushed hard for our intervention in Kosovo and has been very hawkish with respect to China.
Some other neocon publications:
First Things
Commentary
Some plain, old, garden-variety conservative publications:
National Review
the WSJ editorial page
Originally posted by BRussell
I had an interesting conversation yestday with an older gentleman in my neighborhood who is very much against the war, but he's a very conservative Republican. It was an eye-opener, because his arguments against the war were from a conservative point of view.
He said things like "not 50 Iraqi lives are worth even one American life," and "why do we have to take care of the rest of the world - who cares if they have a dictator."
He seemed to have a partially isolationist perspective, which I would think may exist among some conservatives. He didn't mention this, but I would think that a religious pro-life perspective wouldn't be consistent with this notion of trading off Iraqi and American lives in order to save future lives. I wouldn't think that that type of cost-benefit analysis would be appropriate when we're dealing with human lives.
I know there are lots of liberals that support the war for "liberal" reasons - e.g., to have a more liberal democracy in Iraq, and improve human rights there, etc.
So I'm just wondering if any conservatives here are against the war, or if you know any conservatives against it.
Yeah...why do some of these people insist that trading lives is OK in this situation but when it comes to medical research, embryos are sacred even if destroying them could help save millions? Oh wait, hypocrisy. Of course, both sides of the ridiculous aisle are hypocritical in their own way.