Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Conservatives hate nation building. Neocons support it. George Will and many Republicans (including John McCain) flipped out at Clintons bombing of Serbia, because with Kosovo we were interfering with the internal politics of a sovereign nation and the US has no strategic interest in Serbia. All true, but irrelevant arguments to a Neocon.
Of course the far left didn't like it because to them war is always wrong.
Conservatives rationalize Afghanistan because they supported Al Queda. Neocons didn't need Al Queda as an excuse to go in (the Taliban was the only excuse they needed). Conservatives use oil, the war on terror and WMDs as an excuse to invade Iraq. Neocons don't need an excuse (Saddam provided all the excuse they needed). Many conservatives, like Buckley, Buchanan and others were against Iraq because they didn't believe we had strategic interests.
Again the liberals were against it because they are against all wars.
|
Do neocons care about any of the following?
-- cost
-- feasibility
-- effective execution
-- results
-- dead American soldiers
I'm just wondering. You talk about being "for" and "against" war like it's a board game.
Getting rid of Saddam is fine. I'm happy to see him gone, will be happier to watch him die (my rabidly anti-death penalty views have an exception for genocide).
Yet, I would not have traded 3000 dead and 10000 maimed American soldiers for that. I wonder if most Americans, if they'd been given a realistic assessment of the costs before the war, would have.
