Replies

So,you're saying that those of us who are Conservatives,but disagree with Pat/Isolationists/the anti-war crowd and have been ACTIVELY Conservative,not to mention politically involved and news/current affairs junkies to boot,for 30 or more years,don't REALLY know what we're talking about and only became "aware" AFTER Pat went off the cliff PUBLICLY? Is THAT what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read my post again. It seems to me that Churchillbuff's brand of conservatism goes back to a time when conservatism was different from what it is today, back to a Goldwater kind of conservatism, a time when knee-jerk, reactionary lock-step was not something to be desired. Nor was nation-building. This wasn't isolationism; it was pragmatism and good common sense. It was a time in which people argued not just to "win," but to explore and expand ideas. And if I'm not mistaken, that's what he is referring to when he mentions independent thinking. This Iraq war is anathema to all of that.

Before you take it upon yourself to put the rest of us in "our place",it would behooved you to consider the fact that you don't know WHO you're responding to.You don't understand the WoT at all,and obviously,the logic of our going into Iraq escapes you completely. THIS IS PART AND PARCEL OF GOING AFTER AL QAEDA AND ITS TENTICLES.

And you don't know who you're talking to either, I might add. You're right about one thing: the logic of going into Iraq escapes me completely. But it's not because I don't understand the "war on terror." In fact, I'd like to see the U.S. concentrate more on the war on terror and less on Iraq, but it's too late for that now.

Barry Goldwater was NOT the progenitor of Conservatism;just the standardbedarer of that one window in time.And after closer scrutiny,not to mention his rapid lefty fall afterward,an idol with feet of clay up to his neck.

It is hardly pragmatic to revere principles and/or ideas,which doom a person/party to utter failure and loss after loss. It is hardly pragmatic and good common sense to ignore the smoke and wait for the raging inferno.When you see someone dousing a roaring fire with gasoline,it behooves one to act;not to wait for said gasoline to hit the bonfire.

At least you admit that you don't understand warfare and tactics.Still, you and a few others mewl about going after al Qaeda,without acknowledging the ancillary sources,which Iraq was one of.

Al Qaeda and terrorists in general,are all over the globe.There ARE cells in Germany,France,Morocco,Spain,England,America,all of Scandinavia,throughout the Middle-east,Japan,and you name it.We can't be everywhere at once.We are NOT "ignoring"/failing to go after them,by also being in Iraq.And claiming that Iraq is diverting us from the WoT,is spurious,disingenuous,and just plain old silly!