then north korea, when uncle sam says so?
then what? cuba, palestine, vietnam, mogolia…
oooooh shit
george says boo and tony jumps…
but tony sees the problems for what they are and knows that george isn’t saying boo for no reason…
-Imp
Am I just confused, or is getting rid of all those countries you listed actually one step closer to making the world one big hippy love festival like in that Lennon song? Isn’t that what libs are all shooting for, in the end?
Anyhow, it seems to me that the anti-war folks are being more conservative in a way here, in the sense that they don’t see a need to spend money and lives on reforming Iraq or Iran or the others. Back in the day, weren’t conservatives isolationists, and wasn’t it the liberal democrats that wanted us involved in World War II (with the help of Uncle Joe)? I’m no historian, that’s just what I’ve heard.
Impenitent, you’re apparently a pretty conservative guy, can you explain how going to war in this case fits under a conservative mindset? This is an honest question, from one conservative to another (I assume).
getting rid of the countries is not what the hippies want, they want us to become the other countries… and no, libs are for running everyone else’s life under the umbrella of one world socialist government…
no, I am a republican not a conservative… there is a difference…
going to war is the justification for peace… peace through superior firepower is the only way to have real peace… the anti war folks are defenseless targets for oppressors, nothing more…
the blanket statements about democrats and republicans in the past do not totally fit… conservatives wanted to make money selling war materials abroad…
but promoting “liberalism” world wide is great… just look what it has done for germany and japan… they are too busy running their own internal political affairs to build armies… mind you they would if they needed to, but our presence in each keeps their need/ability to arm at a minimum…
-Imp
Uccisore, I’m not completely sure you were attempting to make a comparison here but please don’t compare WWII to the Iraq war. They have very, very little in common. If anything Iraq falls closer to Vietnam than any other US war. We can debate this if you disagree.
The difference is conservatives actually stand for something while you just tow the party line like a mindless sheep.
Hmm reminds me of something I’ve read before…
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Keep up the “good” work Imp.
I realize the details are different, and that perceptions of Vietnam affect how lots of people view the current situation. My comparison only went so far as to say back in WWII, it was the conservatives that wanted to stay out of world affairs, and the liberals who wanted to save the day. I don’t really want to debate anything, I don’t know enough about it to hold my end up. I’m just asking if that understanding is right, as far as it goes.
Gotcha, well actually both the republicans and the democrats didn’t want to get involved in WWII. The vast majority of the country, regardless of party affiliation was isolationist. This all changed after Pearl Harbor of course. After that, both parties got behind the war, but I believe some republicans–a minority of them–still opposed it.
i hear you. all the points you covered and not, were spread all over the tv in the past few weeks. i got so bored of watching election debates and voting broadcasts. petty squabbles of politics, nietzsche just can’t be wrong.
this is what gets me: the tories and lib dem supported the war, they said saddam was a good enough reason on its own - you know, just to differ labour a little. later when the dossir is found to be sexed up, the tories and lib dem accused labour of misleading britian to war, as a responce, tony started to emphacise the point about saddam… this is all politics, whatever their policies for the future, all politics to win votes. who actually gives a toss about the long run wellfare of the nation? which chancellor dares to say: “i’m gona rise tax and interest now, expect some unemplyment, but it’s for achieving the long run growth”?
labour’s been doing shitily, the number of resigned cabinet ministers shows. while howard being a jew and kennedy being a scot, blair’s pretty little face saved his ass again…
pathetic
While that may be true about the Tories, I am fairly certain the Lib. Dems. were against the war from the get-go. That was their main appeal as a party.
they did? who cares! they don;t have no appeal, i mean, kennedy’s goldfish face has got no appeal
trust your mechanic…
-Imp
Hello Uccisore and Imp,
Finally! Someone who asks the questions I’ve had!
I agree with this line of logic. Allow me to ask something:
Could it be argued that the Cold War resulted in no real war precisely because the superior firepower brought both countries to a standstill? Not that it was a very comfortable one but just a thought…
Also, Imp… could you post your joke to the answer you had on the How to Improve ILP thread?