Bush is too liberal (1 Viewer)

[dsanthony]

I have to admit that I was still a liberal during the first Gulf War, and opposed it. 10 years of experience taught me my mistake. I supported, and still support the current Prez's decision to invade Iraq and remove Hussein. Supporting how he has handled the occupation of Iraq is more difficult.

Bush showed himself to be an idealist and a liberal, in regards to Iraq. I, and others, knew that installing a democracy on a medieval religious people like Iraqis would be impossible. Bush's blind faith in democracy to solve all ills was foolish and misguided. His father would have known better.

Bush's best option would have been to be a king-maker. He should have found the most powerful US-friendly figure in the IRaqi govt or military, and tasked him with reshaping the govt. Instead, he attempted to dismantle the state structure and rebuild it as a democracy. It seems Civil War may be the result.

I'm against a quick removal of US troops from Iraq. If the fleding govt collapses, chaos will reign. Possibly the best plan would be to partition Iraq into three ethnic/religious states--Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite. That also has it's troubles, but I do not believe any govt will be able to stop the bloodshed and unite the IRaqi people.

I'm not concerned with the argument that the Iraq war has "inspired" more terrorists in the ME. These people need no inspiration. I believe the battle of cultures between the West and ME radicals was inevitable. People often forget that the first act of muslim terrorism in the US occured way back in 1968... when a pro-Palestinian man murdered RFK, because of the Kennedy's support for Israel.

We're in this fight now, and we have to win it. I'm speaking of the larger war against radical Islam. Iraq may be a lost cause, but we must hold the line there for a while longer. If Dems win and we pull out quickly, radicals throughout the ME will be empowered.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why can't we (and the United Nations) make Iraq (3) separated autonomous countries:

• Shia
• Kurdistan
• Sunni

What would be so wrong with that?

 

[Francaisforever]

That's very easy to respond. Because the Iraq oil fields are in areas dominated by Kurds or Shiites. The Sunnis would get basically nothing from the "old Iraq"'s oil revenues. This is why, the Sunnis definitely don't want to see a partition of Iraq. It is also in the interest of the US to keep Iraq in one piece. Privatizing the oil industry is the best option to have the US and UK oil companies to reap the benefice of the "war on terror" in Iraq. I don't see them getting much on the Shiites side in case of partition.

 

[Unfit4Command]

Why can't we (and the United Nations) make Iraq (3) separated autonomous countries:

• Shia
• Kurdistan
• Sunni

What would be so wrong with that?

What would we do with Baghdad with a plan like that?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

It's an interesting concept, Bush as a liberal. In a way he is. A bit of an idealist. He's been described as a "big government conservative," but seriously, "big government" didn't use to go with "conservative". Reagan really is dead.

 

[tecoyah]

Reagan really is dead.

.....And I for one....Miss the Guy

 

[Hoot]

Oh, I get it...since Bush is such a failure as a president, you want to label him as a liberal?!:rofl

Bush is no liberal..but I'll grant you that Bush is no conservative, either.

Bush is more of an imperialist.

 

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

Bush showed himself to be an idealist and a liberal, in regards to Iraq. I, and others, knew that installing a democracy on a medieval religious people like Iraqis would be impossible. Bush's blind faith in democracy to solve all ills was foolish and misguided. His father would have known better.

If Bush was more Conservative, this war would be faught much more efficentiely and a road to victory would be much clearer.

As for Blind Faith In Democracy: For some reason I find it hard to subscribe to those thoughts. But, I do believe that we are Pushing Iraq towards Democracy way to quickly.

Bush's best option would have been to be a king-maker. He should have found the most powerful US-friendly figure in the IRaqi govt or military, and tasked him with reshaping the govt. Instead, he attempted to dismantle the state structure and rebuild it as a democracy. It seems Civil War may be the result.

A constitutional monarchy similar to Thailand and Israel then. I suppose I could subscribe to that idea.. but then again I also see a movement in Iraq that wants Government and Religion to be mutually exclusive. Secularism. It's a Sunni Party I believe.

I'm against a quick removal of US troops from Iraq. If the fleding govt collapses, chaos will reign. Possibly the best plan would be to partition Iraq into three ethnic/religious states--Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite. That also has it's troubles, but I do not believe any govt will be able to stop the bloodshed and unite the IRaqi people.

Yeah, it would be such a let down to the Iraqi people who do not wish to do have civil conflict and truly want to give a democracy like ours a chance, if we just left after all of the things we've done there. The outcome of a successful Iraq will be such a great victory for the Middle East, as it will hopefully be an inspiration to other Middle Eastern Countries who generally subscribe (there's that word again) to the Muslim Faith. We all can debate all day and night the reasons for being in there and why we should leave and all sides will have troubling truths, but, we can't say to Iraq "Sorry, we took a big risk and now we feel that it isn't worth it anymore.". This will cause more resent towards the West and will cause more chaos and terrorism and another legacy of hateful tyranny in Iraq if we left adruptly.

I'm not concerned with the argument that the Iraq war has "inspired" more terrorists in the ME. These people need no inspiration. I believe the battle of cultures between the West and ME radicals was inevitable. People often forget that the first act of muslim terrorism in the US occured way back in 1968... when a pro-Palestinian man murdered RFK, because of the Kennedy's support for Israel.

I agree whole heartedly with that statement. The opposition against us by Militant Islam look at our past as unforgivable. We can never redeem ourselves. All we can do is remain enemies and for us to be weak to them is to be cruel to ourselves. People that believe that one of the reasons why we should pull out of Iraq because it has sparked more terrorism,.. do they take into consideration that leaving would add to this "new" wave of terrorism in Iraq?

We're in this fight now, and we have to win it. I'm speaking of the larger war against radical Islam. Iraq may be a lost cause, but we must hold the line there for a while longer. If Dems win and we pull out quickly, radicals throughout the ME will be empowered.

I do not believe that Iraq is a lost cause because we have yet to see how the Generation of the Children who lived through this change will be like. Take to consideration that when Iran entered into the Information Society, many Iranians expressed opinions that were not in favor of Radical Islam, and more and more we see the Iranian people deviating from such a harmful mentality, even when it's illegal for a muslim to change faith as it is punnishable by death.

now for a question, how would a real Conservative Handle this War if he had inherited it?

 

[Iriemon]

If Bush was more Conservative, this war would be faught much more efficentiely and a road to victory would be much clearer.

How could the war be fought "much more effieintly" with a clearer road to vicotry?

Yeah, it would be such a let down to the Iraqi people who do not wish to do have civil conflict and truly want to give a democracy like ours a chance, if we just left after all of the things we've done there. The outcome of a successful Iraq will be such a great victory for the Middle East, as it will hopefully be an inspiration to other Middle Eastern Countries who generally subscribe (there's that word again) to the Muslim Faith. We all can debate all day and night the reasons for being in there and why we should leave and all sides will have troubling truths, but, we can't say to Iraq "Sorry, we took a big risk and now we feel that it isn't worth it anymore." This will cause more resent towards the West and will cause more chaos and terrorism and another legacy of hateful tyranny in Iraq if we left adruptly.

Why can't we just say: We accomplished what we promised years ago, we are leaving in 6 months, it's now up to you to determine what kind of society and government you want.

I agree whole heartedly with that statement. The opposition against us by Militant Islam look at our past as unforgivable. We can never redeem ourselves. All we can do is remain enemies and for us to be weak to them is to be cruel to ourselves. People that believe that one of the reasons why we should pull out of Iraq because it has sparked more terrorism,.. do they take into consideration that leaving would add to this "new" wave of terrorism in Iraq?

Do you think if we tried harder we could convince more Muslems to support and join Militant Islam?

now for a question, how would a real Conservative Handle this War if he had inherited it?

I thought Bush was a real conservative, he is certainly not a liberal (hell no!) and not a moderate.

But I give up. How would a real conservative handle the war.

 

[Navy Pride]

I believe President Bush is a Social Conservative and a Fiscal Moderate.........

I would love to see the Republicans nominate a clear Conservative in 2008 along the lines of Milt Romney or George Allen......

 

[dsanthony]

I believe President Bush is a Social Conservative and a Fiscal Moderate.........

I would love to see the Republicans nominate a clear Conservative in 2008 along the lines of Milt Romney or George Allen......

That's the first time I've heard Romney called a "clear conservative".. in fact his MA liberal tendencies will likely cost him the nomination.

 

[Navy Pride]

That's the first time I've heard Romney called a "clear conservative".. in fact his MA liberal tendencies will likely cost him the nomination.

If you only knew how I was defending you in the basement against that liberal Captain America and his cronnies........

Lets see Romeny is

1. Pro Life
2. Anti Gay Marriage
3. Pro 2nd Amendment
4. Pro tax Cuts
5. Pro small government
6. Pro fighting the war on terror and in Iraq
7. Pro Defense and military
8. Pro states Rights
9. Anti stem Cell research


I could go on..........I would call that pretty conservative my friend...

Why don't you tell me why you think he is a liberal....

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Unfit4Command
What would we do with Baghdad with a plan like that?

Why would we need to do anything with Bagdad?

 

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

How could the war be fought "much more effieintly" with a clearer road to vicotry?

I don't know. Good thing I'm not making any decisions.

 

[Tashah]

A constitutional monarchy similar to Thailand and Israel then.

Constitutional monarchy

Israel is a parliamentary democracy. King David and the Queen of Sheba are long gone lol.

 

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

Constitutional monarchy

Israel is a parliamentary democracy. King David and the Queen of Sheba are long gone lol.

What inevitable change in Israel's Government would happen if Israel found their Messiah?

Other than division between Orthodox and Reform since they wont agree about a single person being the Messiah.

I'm not an expert on Judaism or Israeli Politics so I cannot reference this right away from someone else, but, from what I understood, there is a law in Present day Israel that the Messiah would be King of Israel, once the Messiah is found.

Enlighten me on this subject if you would like to.

Also, if there is such a Law, it's would make Israel Monarchial enough for me since a King, once appointed, will have some kind of role in Government. Just my silly reasoning. I hope you don't think I'm too much of an idiot, Tashah.