If Conservatives are historically non-interventionalist, what are we doing in Iraq?

Question

jeremy...'did' 9/11? Dumb. How's being a left wing loon working out for you?

LOL @ Sharon...I'm more conservative than you'll ever be, babe. Get a clue and put down the Ann Coulter novel.

LOL@ Dead Marxist...so's Chavez and Castro. Are we going to "remove" them too? Next.

Answer 1

Neo-conservatives believe that intervention is justified for reasons beyond national security. Their foreign policy is their most radical break with traditional conservatism. Their defense of freedom, democracy, and other American values is used to justify intervention. Neoconservatives believe that we must intervene abroad in order to defend these values. Some quotations from the Project for a New American Century's Statement of Principles should demonstrate:

"But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. "

"We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities."

"we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad"

Neoconservatives are thus not isolationists, like traditional conservatives were often accused of. Also see writings by former Afghanistan and Iraq ambassador Zalmay Khalizad for more demonstrations of Neocon support of intervention.

Answer 2

All that changed for me on 9/11. Seeing those bastards fly those hijacked planes into the WTC made me realize non-interventionalist policy in the Middle East is a failure when protecting American lives on American shores.

Fight the enemy where he is so he doesn't follow you home. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and Saddam could not be left as he was, with the world's fourth largest army, twice the size of America's.

No liberals complained when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to support the Muslim population there. I guess it is okay for a Democrat President to intervene, but not a Republican.

Answer 3

someplace alongside the line, somebody the two a) lied or b) made an basic mistake, approximately Saddam having WMD. If it grew to become into #a, that man or woman merits a great form of blame. If it grew to become into #b, that man or woman nonetheless merits some blame, yet no longer as much as though that they had intentionally lied. That man or woman then instructed persons down the chain of command. the certainty that we acted on fake education is itself info that greater verification could desire to have been finished. the certainty that it wasn't...nicely, somebody is in charge for that. yet, once you get further down the line, anybody is in simple terms following orders, so i'm in no way blaming the low-point people. Given who grew to become into in ability on the time, in certainty, a great form of the folk defined above have been conservatives. So, by way of the two errors or fabrications, conservatives made the case for a conflict against a sovereign u . s . which posed no threat to us. They confident legislators, the two liberal and conservative, to vote in prefer of it. My factor is, i do no longer think of each man or woman's particularly blaming the legislature - they have been duped in simple terms such as you and that i've got been. anybody is blaming the administrative branch, the CIA, or whoever dropped the ball long formerly the legislature have been given in touch. And it sort of feels a foregone end that the single(s) who dropped the ball have been the two an elected conservative, or somebody appointed by utilising an elected conservative. i don't know what you're speaking approximately so a strategies as Timothy McVeigh - i'm as liberal as they arrive and that i've got not heard of anybody blaming the militia or conservatives for what he did.

Answer 4

Attempted assassination of our President (elder Bush);
Attack on an ally (Kuwait);
Constant breaking of the cease-fire for ten years;
Paid mercenaries (suicide bombers) to attack civilians in Israel (another ally).

It's called ethics. It isn't about conservative. It's about what our Presidents saw being in the most powerful position and best informed job in the world. Both Former President Clinton and President Bush attacked Iraq for good reasons.

Oh, my party took over the non-interventionist role with Vietnam, fleeing to Canada, etc.

I support the fleeing to Canada, but believe that such an act should be permanent to be meaningful. If one does not support a war, one should have the option of leaving the country, forever, rather than submitting to the draft.

Answer 5

Our administration consists of neoconservatives not conservatives. We have not had a conservative administration since before Nixon.

Do you have the educational background to comprehend the difference?

If we were not meddling in the affairs of other nations we would not be in the mess we are in today.

Answer 6

These new-age wanna-bes have no clue as to the origins of the conservative party.

Just listen to them rant as though they know what they are talking about. Neo-cons wish they were conservatives but lack the knowledge and the soul of true conservatism.

Its funny listening to the newbies respond with garble that they perceive to be conservative.

Answer 7

GW and Co are historically war-mongers. War declarations are simply a coverup for control and profit of crude oil resources. Just look at the 5 yr share $ of HAL and 1 yr share $ of KBR in the NYSE. Its obvious why the US is STILL in Iraq.

Answer 8

Sadaam Hussein masterminded a plan to have 19 men, 15 of them Iraqi, fly planes into tall buildings in NYC. Around 3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11/01.

Answer 9

Our current president is not a conservative...he is a neocon...one of the big differences between the two is that conservatives, like Reagan, were non-interventionalists.

Answer 10

It is not an "intervention".

"Intervention" would suggest entering an ongoing dispute as a 3rd party. This is not the case. Saddam was an enemy of the USA and our national interests required his removal.