and generally meddle in their lives, why do they support the US gov't going around the world telling other countries, other peoples (Iraq, China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba....) how to run THEIR lives, what kind of gov't THEY should have, what kind of society THEY should have, what kind of economy THEY should have, what kind of civil liberties THEY should have.....don't tell people at home how to live their lives, but it's critical for us to tell others around the world how to live theirs, how to handle their resources, how to trade on the world market......
2007-11-17 06:53:25 · 11 answers · asked by amazed we've survived this l 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
steelegr...- so, you don't support regime change and national building in Iraq, Afgan., or Iran?
2007-11-17 08:15:57 · update #1
Steelegr... - Iraq posed no threat to the US, did not attack the US, did not have WMDs, and Saddam hated, would not put up with, and killed terrorists...so why, if not for resources, are we there remaking Iraqi society, politics, gov't and the economy...in short, nation building at the cost of lives and $1.6 TRILLION? you could BUY all Iraqs oil for that and kill nobody.
2007-11-17 10:19:17 · update #2
That is called a straw-man argument. I don't know any Conservative that supports any of those things, myself included.
Edited: Getting despots out of power and defending this nation from madmen does not satisfy any of these items you condemn Conservatives of supporting:
" how to run THEIR lives, what kind of gov't THEY should have, what kind of society THEY should have, what kind of economy THEY should have, what kind of civil liberties THEY should have"
I in fact do not support the US Military being policemen for the world community. I support only that which protects this country. Afghanistan did that, Iraq may have, Iran is the single largest supporter of Islamic Jihadists and they are in fact at war with my country, that is a defensive posture. I could care less about the swords that guys like Castro and Chavez swing. They are ineffectual little nothings and do not threaten my country and its people. The Soviet Union was the greatest threat this nation ever faced and we had to defeat them to assure our way of life, now let that gangster ridden nation stew I could care less, except that those gangsters may sell nuclear weaponry to our real enemies and then they are a problem. The fact is it isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be. I could care less about other nations politics, civil liberties, economy, or anything else as long as they don't pose a threat to my country and my countrymen.
Edited again: If he didn't support terrorists how do you explain Abu Nidal living and operating in Baghdad?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/
It is well known that major weapons systems were moved to Syria in the days before the invasion. Here is a link from Salon (not a Conservative news source)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/21/wmd_conspiracy/
You will see that Greenwald doesn't provide evidence to refute any of the claims but just uses President Bush's moronic statement and claims that nullifies all of the other evidence.
If he didn't possess WMDs what killed 100,000 Kurds?
The fact is his major weapons systems were supplied to him by Russia, Germany and France and agents of their intelligence services helped move those weapons to avoid complicity. Why do you think those "allies" did not support our invasion? Because they didn't want to get caught dealing with a rogue nation.
You're just guessing when you make those statements but I have friends and family who have served in Iraq and they know that you are not being told the truth.
2007-11-17 07:29:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because we import more than we export, and send billions of dollars in aide to these countries it would be hypocritical to allow leaders that are dictators to spend the money on increasing their power base as opposed to helping the citizens that are the intended beneficiary. If we don't send aide and protection, the rest of the world accuses us of ignoring the needs of the poor. To be politically oppressed is regarded as being worse than economically oppressed.
2007-11-17 07:33:28 · answer #2 · answered by C R 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
that's how america is. we walk around always talking about how great we are and go and force countries to live the way we live whether they want it or not. and then get mad when things like 9/11 happen. obviously we are not the greatest if our government let that happen. and they had warnings.
2007-11-17 06:59:27 · answer #3 · answered by complicated 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
When they attack us, yeah we have EVERY right to defend ourselves. And before someone comes up with the Iraq didn't attack us rhetoric, remember the WTC attack in 1993.
2007-11-17 07:00:27 · answer #4 · answered by dovesong44 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Because that is different, "those" people are not Americans
2007-11-17 06:56:43 · answer #5 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They have become neo-conservatives.
2007-11-17 07:14:55 · answer #6 · answered by cynical 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We want them to be sub serviant to US... And they will be, or we'll drop them from the face of the earth... Now go buy your starbucks and sulk over your $10 cup coffee while you ponder how intelligent you are.
Your secrets out... You're not.
2007-11-17 07:01:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
Those other countries are not protected by the US constitution.
2007-11-17 06:59:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
That is a different situation if you are going to make comparisons you must use like subjects.
2007-11-17 06:57:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
It's called protecting American interests you genuis...lol
2007-11-17 06:57:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋