dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:zOKdndScRdL3djjanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and get rid
of
>> a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>
> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we were
there, it
> was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's the ticket. Revisionist
> history.
I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then
immediately leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to disband
the Iraqi military and let them meld back into society with no chance of
gainful employment. The second was to not wait until we could come in
from the north through Turkey and therefore seal off the escape routes
out of Baghdad. There are several vying for third.
> Establi****ng a democracy had nothing to do with the original invasion
and
> came up as a reason for the invasion long after we were already in
there.
> About the time that the whole WMD thing was proven wrong, as I recall.
If establi****ng a democracy wasn't part of the original plan then what
was the original plan?
> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole conservative
thing.
> I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to become more liberal as the
party
> becomes more conservative. There are a couple of things about the
> conservatives that I just don't understand.
I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean to the
left on many social issues. I am also for a strong national defense and
a proactive position on fighting terrorism and sealing our borders. I
don't care for the Republican party trying to enforce morals on the the
m*****. Much of the social issues need to be left up to the States to
address or on the local level. Religion based issues like gay marriage
and abortion needs to be left out of the party platform, IMO. OTOH, the
left needs to quit targeting religion to exclude it from the public arena.
> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less
> government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought that's what it was
> about.
I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend money
just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting bigger by the
year and more intrusive. This is on all levels and not just the Federal
level. I see it here where I live all the time. IMO, local governments
are far worse in this regard than State and local governments. The sad
fact is we just roll over year after year and let them get away with it.
We are on a slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't
want this and if it happens we will all suffer for it.
> But then we come to the "social issues," for which conservatives seem to
BEG
> for federal involvement. How does that mesh with conservative political
> beliefs?
It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than Republican.
It is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a decent candidate
because they have a great platform to run from.
> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a mom and
dad,
> 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the numbers tell me?
>
> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a Republican,
or
> can I continue in my agnostic ways?
No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades. I just
don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their congregations.
This is why I think you and I are really Libertarians at heart.
> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left me?
Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become a
Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the Republican
party has become.
|
