A true conservative's views

Avoid the democratist temptation of the internationalists
With the Cold War ending, we should look, too, with a cold eye on the international set, never at a loss for new ideas to divert US wealth and power into crusades and causes having little or nothing to do with the true national interest of the United States. High among these is the democratist temptation [free the world], the worship of democracy as a form of governance and the concomitant ambition to see all mankind embrace it, or explain why not. Like all idolatries, democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process[political pragmatism] for a love of country. The true national interests of the United States are not to be found in some hegemonic and utopian world order. Bush holds global democracy as a goal. This is a formula for endless conflict. "
Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p. 13-17&34-35 Sep 1, 2004

Interventionism is the incubator of terrorism
In the presidential campaign of 2000, we failed to make foreign policy the issue. But what I said then retains relevance:
How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution.... Have we not suffered enough--from Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam--not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on US soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire?
America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.

 

Sounds like the new Democratic view.

What a line of horse ****.
I don't think we have a say either way. The agenda of terrorist is to project and press upon the world there way of life. To be pacifist to terror will not abolish tactics such as terror but admit defeat.

And hugo are these your ideals too or are you just cuting and pasting for debate purposes?

What's your take on the issue?

 

I don't think it's horse ****.. who the hell likes being told what to do with threats attached?

 

The fact is the foreign policy of George W. Bush is a derivation of the liberal idealistic policies of Woodrow Wilson. The fact is Iraq is an artificial nation that never would have come into existance without the West drawing a border that ignored demographics and cultures. The fact is most of the world is not ready for democracy. The fact is imposing democracy at gunpoint seldom works. We have ended Saddam's threat (however mild it was), now we either impose a ruthless despot or leave the situation to the Iraqis and move on.

The war against fundamentalist Islam can only be defeated by moderate Islam. Our troops in the Middle East provide propaganda fodder for the fundamentalists. Our national interest does not coincide with spending 100s of billions of dollars and precious American blood to attempt to spread democracy on people still stuck in the Dark Ages.

 

Well said, and since we've been trying to "spread democracy" to the middle east since the 50's, it appears our methods have failed. Miserably.

 

Actually Ike was smart enough to impose dictators. It worked for more than a generation. That is the best you can expect in the ME. We need another Eisenhower.

 

But eventually regular people get wise to the game.. and pissed.

Now we reap the rewards of our predecessors..

 

The people of the ME ain't regular people. They are always pissed regardless of the situation. Ruthless dictators are the only ones capable of keeping their societies stable. I agree it is usually best to let them pick their own dictators. That way it is harder for them to blame us for the fact they are phucked up.

 

hahahaha.. they are regular people. I'd be chronically pissed too if I had ruthless dictators telling me what to think my whole life ..

 

Re: A true Conservatives views

Yes well said. I like how you put things when you decide to.
We think very much the same.

But I don't believe it's not only democracy that we try to impose on others but tolerance. Socialism or democracy, what ever but when you have totalitarian regimes you deal with warped single minded dictators. These people in the hands of the wrong war fair can only lead to total deviation not only for America but for the world. We need a world police in order to survive as a prosperous civilization.

 

Radical Islam existed long before American involvement in the middle east.

Case in point:

Iraq prior to the war with Iran had some of the most modern and free attitudes ever seen for Muslims. The difficult war had a populace unhappy and even angry. Control was slipping and the "return" to more fundamental Muslim beliefs was implimented. Prior to this "return" women had more rights in Iraq than any other Muslim controled Nation.


Islam from it's beginning has always been a very agressive religion designed for strict control over it's people. America cannot increase or decrese the basic trend of their religion, sure, many people can twist things and "claim" their acting certain ways because of things like troops being on their soil, but no matter what they have to say, I as a reasonable person ( at least in my own mind ) cannot justify any reason to exclusively target children or other innocents in my persuit of any agenda.

To me, this is a defining factor, sure, all war includes the unfortunate deaths of innocents, but when the innocents become your target of choice, that is when I call you a monster to the highest degree.

 

I disagree.
I believe in democracy. I believe it works and is the only way to have a world peace. It can work anywhere. Of course you can't change old habbits over night. I think in a decade or two democracy can take root anywhere on the planet.

 

I was agreeing with you up until you wrote this.

You say "regardless of the situation" but can you tell me a time when people in the middle east (in particular, in Iraq) actually had it good?

 

Mesopotamia until Alexander the Great conquered them. I'm not sure how things were under the Persian, Byzantine or Ottoman empires.

 

There was a flourishing cultural exchange between Empires, but as for the quality of life at that time, I'm sure they all still lived in a hot, sand-blown country with limited resources.

 

If that were true, it wouldn't have become the, "Cradle of Civilization".

 

The river valleys were bountiful... Tigris and Euphrates.. Still are I'm sure..

 

Not only that... but they do live there by choice... It's not like they can't move away.

 

You know how you cure world hunger? Give them luggage and tell them to move were the food is! It?s sand out there. Nothings gonna grow in sand! Do you know what it?s gonna be 100 years from now? SAND!!

 

Democracy, without a large dose of respect for imdividual liberty, is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. That is why elections lead to so much violence and bloodshed in much of the world.