Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alexamenos
I think a person so-inclined could make the case that this is backwards -- politicians generally use the means and goals of government to preserve their power. They frequently rationalize their actions as "I must make sure I stay in office so I can serve the people better", but it's a rather transparent rationalization, imo.
cheers
|
"rather transparent rationalization"
I presume that you are indicating that I am clearly a WASP (white anglosaxon protestant) and political conservative and that I am rationalizing my support for the current administration.
Actually, I am partially native American and otherwise anglosaxon. I am not protestant in the strict definition. One of my six sisters is married to a very good African American man who graduated from Notre Dame. My father is currently in a common law arrangement with a nice African American woman. One of my other sisters has a caucasian/African American child. I do not blindly support any party. If McCain or Giuliani wins the nomination for the Republican party, then I may very well vote for a Democrat for president. I'd rather have a Democrat who runs as a Democrat in office than have a Democrat running as a Republican in office (Giuliani and McCain could switch parties without changing their platforms the same way Lieberman could change parties without changing platforms). I don't want a McCain in office who the Republicans would feel required to support as he pushes for Democrat party ideals. I would rather have a Democrat in office pushing for Democrat ideals. Then the debate is honest. I dislike Hillary primarily because she is campaigning with a platform that looks like Giuliani's or McCains. She has moved to the center in what she is saying and putting forward as her platform. Anyone who believes that she is honest should re-examine. Anyone who believes she has become a centrist has been hoodwinked. Should she win, then she will push for far left agendas because that is who she is.
And, I'd rather have Hillary in office than McCain or Giuliani. Like I said, I want honest debates and straight forward approaches. I know who Hillary is. I know who Gore is. I know who Huckabee is. I significantly don't like fence sitters like McCain who can't seem to take a firm stance either way.
As to the war in Iraq, it happened and is still happening. So, who cares about debating the past.
The future is about a successful or at least workable solution that allows the Iraqis to run their own country without us. We are obligated to play a role in preventing a chaotic collapse. We would suffer great security loss if we leave Iraq ungoverned because then Iran would take over. Think about that. If we aren't there and we have left a shadow of a democracy (which favors Shiites by numbers), then Iran is in control because they are Shia. Who is going to prevent that if we are not there?
Do you want to move Iran's significant military capability into Iraq next to Syria? Do you want Turkey to fight in North Iraq (which they will because they hate the Kurds and can't afford for the Kurds to gain a permanent autonomy)? If we step out and hand Iraq to Iran (which is exactly what would happen), then Russia gains control in the area to our loss (Iran's largest ally next to China, guess where the economy/oil will go). How do you maintain protection of Israel (most significant US ally next to Britain, great military significance, great security significance to Europe)?
The only reason politicians are talking about pulling troops out "now" and not funding the war is because they want to make you happy and get your vote. Do you remember earlier when the Republicans got tired of constant complaints like this and put it up to an official vote to then entire House of Reps? The vote was for or against immediate removal of US forces from Iraq. The vote was only 2 for leaving and every single other US representative voted against leaving.
Get a clue. The noise in Washington is only smoke. They want your ignorant vote. Use your brain.