Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: WAR IS NOT CONSERVATIVE
Source:
The Internet
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 31, 2011
Author: n/a
Post Date: 2011-12-31 11:04:28 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 12000
Comments: 34
War not conservative (Rep. John J. Duncan) By Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.) - 11/18/09 12:04 PM ET There is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan. The Center for Defense Information said a few months ago that we had spent over $400 billion on the war and war-related costs there. Now, the Pentagon says it will cost about $1 billion for each 1,000 additional troops we send to Afghanistan. One Republican Member from California told me recently that we could buy off every warlord in Afghanistan for $1 billion. Fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. Conservatives who oppose big government and huge deficit spending at home should not support it in foreign countries just because it is being done by our biggest bureaucracy, the Defense Department. We have now spent $1.5 trillion that we did not have--that we had to borrow--in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years is long enough. In fact, it is too long. Let's bring our troops home and start putting Americans first once again.
Poster Comment: Hopefully the chickenhawks of this country will look at this.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#1. To: All (#0)
War Is Not Conservative; You Need Head Examined Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 21:47 Yet when you watch the recent Republican Presidential debates, nearly all of the candidates on the stage tout this dangerous rhetoric over and over. In the most recent debate last night, I listened to 6 out of the 8 candidates on stage (minus Ron Paul and John Huntsman) say that the United States needs to “further involvement” within the internal affairs of numerous Middle Eastern countries. Rick Perry said we should declare a no-fly zone over Syria. Herman Cain and Rick Santorum both implied outright that we should initiate an attack on Iran. Newt Gingrich said we should covertly overthrow the regimes of both of these countries. For Michele Bachman, nothing is off the table, especially military action. And Mitt Romney sounds like he would like to do all of the above. These candidates also have indicated that we need to stay almost endlessly in Afghanistan and Iraq to “see the mission accomplished”. What mission? And almost all of them again unilaterally endorse “crippling” economic sanctions on these same foreign nations, which of course, is another way of saying blockade—or an act of war. Our country is currently involved in many overseas conflicts, and it has been for some time. But most disturbing is that ever since this pattern began, whereby our country goes to war when it feels like it—unconstitutionally, without a proper Declaration from the Congress (as mandated by Article I Section 8)—our nation’s government has practically been engaged in one long continual state of war for over 60 years! And this is seen today as nothing unusual! Only a sugar-coated understanding of American history provides this wide-spread acceptance by the public that all of these endless wars are “good” and “just”. Much of this propaganda has been rooted in fear and emotion, and certainly not logic. These past wars have been sold to the public with warnings about the need to stop the world's next Hitler. The sales pitch runs something like this, “Well, there’s a boogey man out there, and you have to give us the power to stop him. Don’t believe us? Well, just take my word for it.” The latest boogey man has become the “Islamic Fascist”, the “Terrorist”, or the Iranian “Radical”. And thus, a major question exists—when did the conservative position become the endorsement of war and fear mongering? If you look back in history, taking the nation to war actually used to be the radical, liberal position! Although the ideas of foreign intervention and Empire had already begun to foment, Woodrow Wilson became the champion of the tag line, “Make the World Safe for Democracy”. Wilson was one of the more significant leaders of the “Progressive Era”—a radical shift in American history that helped place the final nails in the coffin of the American Republic. Wilson’s foreign policy ideas of more intervention coincided directly with massive domestic intervention into the market economy. Woodrow Wilson presided over the establishment of the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Banking System, centralizing power in Washington—permitting bureaucratic authorities to directly confiscate personal income, and giving the power to the federal government to debase, and counterfeit our currency. Wilson also championed the change in how US Senators were chosen, shifting the process from one of appointment by the various state legislatures, to a direct popular vote from the public at large—ending one of the last true checks the individual state governments had over federal power and mob rule. Simultaneously, the Wilson Administration played national nanny, banning alcohol across the entire nation after it was deemed by bureaucrats as “immoral for the public” (giving rise to the organized cartels of the Prohibition Age). It’s safe to say, these ideas are not “conservative”. This domestic intervention, and the erosion of private property rights, gave Wilson and others like him only increased and ever-heightened power. The Wilson Administration went on to ignore the advice of our country’s Founders—who eerily warned of the entangling political alliances of Europe—and by 1917, the United States fell into the blood-soaked trenches of Europe. Over the course of just one year, 100,000 Americans had lost their lives during World War I. And for what? If we look back on the prevailing thoughts of this day in age, the conservative opinion was to stay out of the war. Show restraint, show wisdom. After all, war is bad for the economy. Only peace, trade, and commerce brings prosperity. War can only bring the destruction of lives and resources. What’s more is that the entrance of the United States onto the battlefields of Europe ended the teetering back-and-forth stalemate, and provided a one-way victory for the British Empire: Winner take-all, and Loser pay-all. It’s important to note that in this day-of-age, it was never a foregone conclusion that the United States would ever “side” with the British—or the French, in any war. In fact, many Americans had just as much in common with the Germans. By the end of the 19th century, a huge influx of immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe had poured into the United States. And up until this time, the United States was still very wary about the British Empire—just as Germany was (after all, we had already fought two wars against it). It is very likely, that in the absence of American intervention, the European powers would have had to deal with a cease-fire and the end of hostilities in their own way. Resources and lives had depleted on both sides so severely, that neither was in a position to dictate any terms of surrender, and certainly not unconditionally. But this was not to be. The “Woodrow Wilson-plunge” pushed one side clearly over the top—but needless to say; all of the European powers lay in utter bankruptcy after the war. Out of hatred and frustration, the Allies forced inconceivable war reparations onto the Germans—who were perhaps the most bankrupt of all. The war reparations—payments to the Allies for being the losers—were conceptually impossible for the Germans to actually pay from the get-go. In fact, a mere 5 years after these impossible payments were forced upon Germany—by none other than the full weight and force of American intervention—hyperinflation began to run its course through the German economy, as the German government had tried turning to the printing-press to finance its deficits. The German paper currency became utterly worthless. Piles of German Marks lined the streets and sidewalks of Berlin—simply discarded as worthless trash. Complex exchange came to a grinding halt. The German people were forced into localized barter to survive. Inflation had completely destroyed what was left of German commerce and trade—and in from the chaos and the starvation rolled the beginnings of the Third Reich. Blaming the Jews, and the Bankers for all of their miseries—Power had increased in Germany, it had not diminished. In other words, another boogey man was found. But oh, how history has been perverted! You won’t find this interpretation of events in a school book today—and most college professors probably still lecture that World War I was America’s first step towards glory and taking our rightful place in the world, or something along those lines (though the real result was sacrificing our sovereignty at the altar of the soon-to-be United Nations). And those who dissent from these flawed policies of today are quickly scorned as “unpatriotic”—or perhaps a naive “isolationist”. But what truly isolates our country is the continual military intervention throughout the globe. Trade and commerce never isolates—sticking our nose in someone else’s business does. And our financial well-being depends on how quickly we can re-learn this lesson. It is certainly true today that one's comprehension of our country’s history will likely determine one's present view on foreign affairs. So look at the results of nations from the past that started down the path we have already long followed—these consequences are not pretty. We cannot have a sane fiscal policy discussion without realizing that our foreign policy is unsustainable—and that the unintended blowback from our continual meddling in foreign affairs has manifested a strong resentment towards the American policy of intervention and dictation, one that is still being played out. We can still choose a different ending—but it will take a shift in attitude and popular culture, along with a firm grasp of economics—to voluntarily correct our road towards peace, and prosperity. As James Madison wrote, “The loss of liberty at home will always be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.”
> “The people we call neo-cons are not really conservative, are they? Hawkish progressives is more like it.”
Conservatism and War http://www.tomwoods.com/war/ A great many books and articles on the moral and strategic imperative of nonintervention have been written; my aim here is simply to introduce the reader to some of the key ideas. A few of my own pieces on the subject: Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder? Russell Kirk on Militarism by Thomas Woods Daniel P. McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative magazine, gives a good overview of the correct conservative foreign policy in this extended interview (part one deals primarily with domestic issues): Beyond this, one can profit a great deal from reading Ron Paul’s books, including his recent New York Times bestseller Liberty Defined, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, and his #1 New York Times bestseller The Revolution: A Manifesto. My own work on the subject includes the military chapter of Rollback (read a summary here) and the book I co-edited with Murray Polner, We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now. Another good introduction is Bill Kauffman’s Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle American Anti-Imperialism. And finally, read these essays with an open mind and you will never think about war or the state the same way again: Anatomy of the State by Murray N. Rothbard War, Peace, and the State by Murray N. Rothbard
A popular definition of conservatism is "no or little deviation from historical traditions". We have a long historical tradition of waging wars both foreign and domestic, so waging war is definitely "conservative".
What is a logical fallacy? All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true.
You won't even post the definition of conservatism you are using. You want to have it both ways.... sorry. We have had many, many wars throughout our history starting with those waged against the aborigines. We place our warriors on pedestals upon return home and we even celebrate Veteran's Day. Hence it's a conservative tradition not to be deviated from according to the conservative norms.
What is it with you on the left, that you require a definition of every word used. Very Clintonesque. Pick whatever definition that you'd like to use, since you follow no logic in making your assumptions, the outcome doesn't really matter. You responded to post #10, but I doubt that you read it. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. The traditional conservative position throughout the history of this country, up until the leftist neoconservatives started changing it in the '70's, has been anti-war. I can't help it if you believe otherwise, and to be completely honest, I really don't care, but just for giggles, I'll spell out your 'logical fallacy' for you. Hence it's (war) a conservative tradition not to be deviated from according to the conservative norms. If you've read much at all about our country's history, you'd know that it was those with left leaning views, including the old left and the new conservatives (neoconservatives) who hold pro war positions. ( And I'm talking about foreign wars. Remember, we're talking foreign policy here. ) History is FULL of examples. Conservatives have always been anti-war, so like post #10 outlines, if you start with a false premise, your conclusion is likely to also be false. To attribute the pro-war stance to historical conservatism is beyond absurd and shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of history.
That Clinton episode evidently went over your head. Why are you afraid to agree on definitions?
Why are you disrupting my anti-war thread with complete nonsense? Are you pro-war? What will I have to define next? The word 'argument'? The word 'war'?
There are no replies to Comment # 19. End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: All (#1)
#3. To: All (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: All (#3)
(Edited)
Come Home, Conservatives — To the Antiwar Conservative Movement by Thomas Woods
The Conservative Case Against the War: A Review by Thomas Woods
No Patronizing, No Sloganeering by Thomas Woods
The Justice and Prudence of War: Toward a Libertarian Analysis by Roderick T. Long
#6. To: We The People (#5)
#10. To: mininggold (#6)
A popular definition of conservatism is "no or little deviation from historical traditions". We have a long historical tradition of waging wars both foreign and domestic, so waging war is definitely "conservative".
#13. To: We The People (#10)
#15. To: mininggold (#13)
(Edited)
You won't even post the definition of conservatism you are using. You want to have it both ways.... sorry.
#17. To: We The People (#15)
What is it with you on the left, that you require a definition of every word used. Very Clintonesque.
#19. To: mininggold (#17)
Why are you afraid to agree on definitions?
Replies to Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]