A2K Has 47 Conservatives

Why do people thus denigrate the humble pun?


It's a GOOD pun...it's a GREAT pun.....it creates pleasure and laughter.....

But..I am to go to hell for it.

Well, I'm pretty sure all the conservatives knew they were joining something.

People who actually care about the well-being of people they do not personally know are seldom found to be conservative. Persons whose horizons stretch beyond their own small world often find themselves standing with other freethinking people.
Joe(It is a joy to be around such people.)Nation

Nah, Shewolf, we're still Conservatives, but for once one of the Commentariat has made a good point. There are some conservative and liberals who HAVE forgotten the Burkean definition of "conservative" and who seem to believe that to be a Conservative is to be foaming at the mouth dedicated to a particular sort of rapid change. Its an easy trap to fall into.

However, things are almost never as simple as folks, especially the Commentariat would have it. If Conservatives, out of the blue had insisted that the U.S. launch a world-wide military effort to replace dictatorships with Democratic governments, that would certainly be in conflict with Burke's definition. It didn't happen that way. The US was attacked repeatedly by radical Islamic terrorists since before the end of the Cold War. Our citizens and soldiers were murdered, mostly with impunity. Like 18th century pirates the terrorists weren't, and aren't, officially directed by any particular national government. They were/are encouraged, supported and given safe haven by many "Islamic" governments in Southwestern Asia. The U.S. and world rightfully demanded retribution for 9/11 and that the radical Islamic terrorism threat be terminated. But, how could that be done? Only Afghanistan was relatively open in its complicity for that one attack, though the terrorists were/are covertly egged by radical elements within even "friendly" Islamic nations. Can't attack our friends, now can we. Afghanistan was a pretty tough target, but it clearly was complicit and home to the most notorious of the terrorist leaders and groups. Iraq, with its long history of aggression, use of WMD, open support for terrorism, and the fact that it had been in violations of Cease Fire conditions for many years, made it a secondary target for military action against the political center of gravity of Radical Islamic Terrorism. Saddam had to go and if at all possible conditions within Iraq had to be altered to reduce its role in supporting international terrorism. Taking Saddam out wasn't all that hard, even though many Liberals and radical Leftists gloomily predicted causalities on the order of D-Day, Anzio, and Iwo Jima combined to begin with and ending with most of Southern Asia made radioactive for a thousand years.

Wishful thinking by Left and Right alike that the War on Terrorism could be concluded before Christmas with the utter destruction of Al Quea and Bin Laden alone wasn't realistic. Military doctrine is conservative, and we still haven't completely mastered a truly effective/efficient means of combating de-centralized terrorist cells who hide and operate within a polity that generally do not support their terrorist tactics. Peaceful Iraqi citizens want stability, security for themselves and their children, an infrastructure capable of supplying minimal needs, not necessarily an Islamic World. The Terrorists attack the U.S. forces and propagandize their successes in kill out soldiers to undermine American support for the serious inroads we've made against Islamic terrorist organizations. They murder, terrorize and promote disunity among the general Iraqi population because instability and chaos supports their tactics. The Terrorists may appear weak and disorganized, but in reality they are a very difficult target.

What is our best bet for bringing stability to Iraq, and reducing the reach of international Islamic terrorism? Leave Iraq and the region to be reclaimed by supporters of radical Islam? Support the infant and still inefficient Iraqi effort to establish a secular government on democratic principles? One approach calls for the US to "hand over a victory" to our enemies while retreating to some sort of isolationist policy. What are the likely outcomes of that approach? Will the U.S. and its citizens be more secure and prosperous with an Radical Islamic Iraqi government, or less secure? Will abandoning the Iraqi People AGAIN, enhance or hurt our reputation for remaining loyal to our pledges?

How about the other approach, stay the course. That is, do what we can to help the fledgling Iraqi government restore stability and government in their unhappy land. Attack and kill every Islamic terrorist under arms that we can find, even knowing that our military will both take casualties and kill some number of innocents. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't constantly seek new and better doctrines and approaches to fighting the kind of dirty war that our enemies have chosen to prosecute. In earlier times, "insurgents" were "suppressed" by the most brutal application of force, but no one is willing to go down that road. Frankly, its difficult to imagine any doctrine for fighting this sort of enemy that won't take a very, very long time and be very, very costly. On the morning of 9/12, I doubt that hardly anyone in the world truly understood the ramifications of the fight against a determined group of religiously motivated terrorists covertly supported by a small group of governments. That this war, so unlike all other modern wars, is being fought in a world made small and vulnerable by widely available technology, makes simple solutions an oxymoron.

I think most Conservatives have some trouble understanding the complexities of this war, and like everyone else would like it all to be made simple and resolvable before the end of the commercial. This isn't a war to replace all world governments with Constitutional governments like we have here, it is instead a war to defeat an enemy who seriously threatens our very existence. Many Liberals and the Radical Left insist that there is no threat, that the peace loving people of the Middle-east are merely defending themselves against a Capitalist conspiracy led by Israel to enslave Semitic countries so that their oil can be stolen. If disbelieving that crap makes one a Conservative, then there are probably more conservatives in the United States than Liberals. That doesn't mean that Conservatives are pleased or satisfied with what is happening in the War on Terror, because few of us are. We continue to support the administration's efforts because it is far, far more preferable than anything proposed by the political opposition.

Back to the subject of this thread. A2K has many more liberals and radical political supporters than it has conservatives, of any description. Constant vilification of the President and his administration is the norm. Anyone who has the temerity to disagree with those who advocate replacing the existing economic/political system of the United States are ridiculed, insulted and attacked. A number of A2K members are avowed Anarchists, Communists, and Socialists, no criticism of their politics is tolerated by other contributers. After all, it is their right to dissent and no Conservative to my knowledge has ever suggested otherwise, even though their political and economic theories often support the destruction of the Constitutional government that now exists.

Its a pretty safe bet that this post will bring out a slew of attacks on myself and my conservative politics.

Hmmm, that sounds like a victim/victimizer dichotomy. Instead than contributing to a polarized vision, I wonder why that is? Why are not more conservatives participating in a2k? Where are they, do they not like computer? Are they turned off by predominantly liberal views of politics on the threads in this forum? If a reasonable discussion (as in not black and white, Good vs. Evil, 'them' vs. 'us') is possible, I would find that interesting.

I think dealing with the utter lack of logic and upside down thinking exhibited by liberals causes them to die from high blood pressure related illnesses.

now THAT is logical bravo.

Dag, there are a few on the left that I honestly feel would deserve, as well as even enjoy a logical debate-free discussion on such a matter.

Sadly, I am unable to help...all that I can offer of a glimpse into my tiny world is a few crudely drawn pictures on the wall of my cave.

Oh, Dag. JamesMorrison could toss out a three page essay in the time I could compose and spell check a sentence. I believe he was disappointed in most of the responses.

I like conservatives (with a small c) they're funny people.

I'm a member of The Socialist Worker Party myself.

We're funny people too, that's why we get along with the connies.

x

Is this the political whiners thread?

Is this where i come to complain about dozens of people by reducing them in my diatribe to a monolithic cypher of everything i despise in political philosophy?


























Cool . . .

My cave happens to be located in a monolith....my tribe did not die though....and yeah Cypher would be one hot cave babe.

By an odd coincidence, there are also 47 members in the whiney twerps group.



"Members." Get it?

I use my member to make petroglyphs.

In the snow, or does it have a pointy end?


Or...even worse...does it have little FINGERS at the end.



Ewwwwww.....

In the snow...pictographs...yes.

On rock...just good old fashioned blunt paleolithic mass.