It all comes down to the goals they want to achieve.
In the Preamble to the Constitution, there are five goals (values) of the US government: "establish Justice, to ensure domestic Tranquility, to provide for the common Defense, to promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty"
Conservatives think the most important are "to ensure domestic Tranquility" (meaning to promote conformity with 'traditional' ways) and to "provide for the Common Defense". Many conservatives (mostly neo-cons) want group rights (conformity with 'traditional' values) and a large government to ensure domestic tranquility (by enforcing those conservative majority beliefs).
To achieve those goals of tranquility and defense, many conservatives also believe that it is sometimes necessary to take the fight overseas, "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" (to use the famous quote). So, the process of spreading democracy is just the means of achieving their goal of domestic tranquility at home.
For the record, liberals think it's more important to "promote the general Welfare, and ensure the blessings of Liberty". They want individual rights and a large government to promote the general welfare, by providing social programs. Thus, they believe that further activity in Iraq will neither ensure liberties at home, nor promote welfare at home, and would rather spend the money here.
So, it basically comes down to which sets of Constitutional values each group thinks are most important, and what means they use to achieve those values.
2006-08-07 06:37:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Good question.
I'm a conservative and I don't feel it's the government's job to try to make every other nation a democracy. We need to be armed and ready to go in case communist nations do decide they want a piece of us, but we shouldn't try to make everyone else a democracy.
As for the war in Iraq, I don't think we had a clear goal to start out with and that's why people are getting upset. Technically, this isn't even a war. Congress has to declare war. I think if President Bush had gone through the proper channels to declare this a true out-right war with a clear defined purpose Americans would be a lot happier. I know I would be, anyway.
2006-08-07 07:47:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by irishharpist 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It comes under "defend the country." We are attempting to send a message to Iran by surrounding them with democratic nations all around them (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebennon) to quit their nuclear aggressions. They obviously aren't getting the point, however. We are dropping a not so subtle hint that they are next if they don't back down, assuming we ever get a lasting foothold on the neighboring countries.
2006-08-07 06:51:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by obviously_you'renotagolfer 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Those duties follow serving the people of the USA. This government is of, for, and by the people. We're all in this together.
2006-08-07 06:41:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by debop44 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Y'know, deficit-spending BILLIONS of dollars and lives to invade a neutral country like we have done in Iraq, and now claiming we did it to free the oppressed, blah, blah, sounds like a feel-good, bleeding-heart liberal antic to me.
2006-08-07 06:40:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mr. October 4
·
0⤊
0⤋