Because of course, it is the hallmark of moderation to accuse those who disagree with you of being traitors to their country.

To make a clarification point, classical liberals are not for advocating humanitarian policies. What classical liberals advocate is for peace, justice, security, life, liberty, and prosperity. Not humanitarian policies. That is for the UN in order for them to exploit girls and boys.

I would like you to name which of those the war has actually brought about in Iraq.

I have forwarded the proposal that if 150 million Americans needed to die to preserve your Constitution, you would favor words on paper over the lives those words are designed to protect.

It truly amuses me to hear that argument from one who thinks it has been perfectly justifiable to throw away thousands of American lives in Iraq AND is willing to see the Constitution degraded. I suppose that’s the right-wing equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.

Fake liberals said something about Sunnis hating Shia so much that they would never be able to work together. They did this to drive the civil war rhetoric into Iraq. That was before Sunni Syria openly allied with Shia Iran.

Yes, and the Germans and Russians were “allies” before Germany invaded. And for the record, Sunnis and Shiites still hate each other. At least, those who are in charge of deciding whether the fighting goes on or not.

Not that I got any straight answers, just attacks against my (presumed) positions.

And your patriotism, intelligence, sincerity, etc., etc. Get used to it around here.

All in all I find it amusing that the kind of close minded rejection of anyone who disagrees with the thinking of the dominant group which Neo experienced within her liberal crowd during the time her own mind was changing is so extreme here.

Extremists will always find those of moderate bend too extreme to tolerate.

to the death’s of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis

Since when did you care about hundreds of thousands in deaths or lives?

Do you care about Venezuella? Do you care about the lives of Americans that would be sacrificed for your ideological fanatic beliefs in the “US Constitution”? No, you do not.

And anyway, your whole defense hardly even alludes to the supposed humanitarian

To make a clarification point, classical liberals are not for advocating humanitarian policies. What classical liberals advocate is for peace, justice, security, life, liberty, and prosperity. Not humanitarian policies. That is for the UN in order for them to exploit girls and boys.

This distinction is something they always use against people like you, Stumbley. Or rather, the lack of a distinction.

I’d be willing to let terrorists blow me (and others) up in defense of the Constitution

I have never forwarded the proposal that you would let yourself be blown by terrorists on purpose. I have forwarded the proposal that if 150 million Americans needed to die to preserve your Constitution, you would favor words on paper over the lives those words are designed to protect.

Why should I be blamed for your choices in beliefs, Xan?

Sorry, but it’s not liberals that have trouble understanding the nuances of Iraqi culture.

Fake liberals said something about Sunnis hating Shia so much that they would never be able to work together. They did this to drive the civil war rhetoric into Iraq. That was before Sunni Syria openly allied with Shia Iran.

In the scant couple of weeks since I discovered and posted a few comments on neo neocon in which I had the temerity to express a view other than complete agreement with the conduct of the war in Iraq and support of Musharraf in Pakistan, I’ve been compared to Benedict Arnold, called a traitor and accused of all sorts of idiocy. I’ve also read comments that find little or no difference between Stalin and Hillary Clinton. A number of posters see no difference between Communists, Islamofacists, the MSM and liberal Democrats. While I made no comments about President Bush it has been assumed that I equate him with Hitler. In fact, so far I’ve said very little about my personal political philosophy, although I have asked a number of admittedly leading questions. Not that I got any straight answers, just attacks against my (presumed) positions.

All in all I find it amusing that the kind of close minded rejection of anyone who disagrees with the thinking of the dominant group which Neo experienced within her liberal crowd during the time her own mind was changing is so extreme here.

It amuses me that compared to someone who, in response to the death’s of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis says “war is hell” I’M the one who has no conscience.

X assumes that you get nightmares from serving in Iraq. As opposed to honor, glory, and pride. Those things aren’t achieved in war, after all. At least, that is what the Left assumes.

No. Pay more attention. I am merely analogizing to the Iraqis who are not so happy about being “liberated”; as there are Iraqis who are happy to be free of Saddam, so are there Iraq war vets who are proud to have served and are healthy and happy. Of course, there are also nearly 4,000 dead soldiers, who we cannot be polled about their feelings about the war.

He values the Constitution, which translates as he values himself.

Since your side has already concluded that I’d be willing to let terrorists blow me (and others) up in defense of the Constitution, I’m not sure how that statement makes any sense.

Just like X speaks for Americans when he says the Constitution is more important than the lives that Americans have, so does X seek to speak for the Iraqis. X is one large platform of cultures and nations, dontcha know S.

Sorry, but it’s not liberals that have trouble understanding the nuances of Iraqi culture. It’s the right who thinks that empowering various Sunni tribal chieftains and warlords is the equivalent to democracy.

You don’t know jack about war tactics, strategy, and logics either, X. So what are you spamming about “war is hell”. You have no conception of what that means, except in relation to Leftist ideology.

Since we’ve never had a discussion of war tactics or strategy (only politics) I’m not sure how you would know that. But you don’t have to be a Napoleon to understand that war kills people, and you don’t have to be Thucydides to understand that in the past, many, many wars have been waged that were completely unnecessary.

You don’t have the requisite philosophical understanding to predict what I will or will not do in terms of arguments, X. So why are you even trying? Is your own position not strong enough?

No, actually, I’m making fun of your pseudo-intellectual arguments, which are highly predictable (liberals hate America, and the troops, yada yada.) It seemed appropriate at the moment.

Stumbley, are you a lawyer? Your argument is the hallmark of great lawyering, where you pick and choose from the facts and law at hand to make an argument that, when viewed by someone with common sense, makes NO sense. We didn’t go to war because of a Clinton resolution, or because of UN resolution (remember the last one we didn’t get from the UN?) You forget that all of those things were aimed at controlling the WMDs-and yes-removing Saddam from power. But NONE of them involved us invading to do either of those things, a tiny, inconvenient fact of history that you gloss over. That impetus didn’t come about until we were struck on 9/11, and until Bush and his administration convinced a majority of Americans that Saddam had deadly WMDs (smoking gun…mushroom cloud…sound familiar?) and that he was preparing to use them on us.

And anyway, your whole defense hardly even alludes to the supposed humanitarian cause that you trumpet even now, and argument which ALSO became handy after the WMDs were not found. So really, your response missed the point.

Whatever your arguments for staying in Iraq are, you must acknowledge that 1) we did NOT go to war for humanitarian reasons and 2) we went to war premised on the threat of WMDs that never existed.

If you cannot admit to these basic facts, then you cannot expect to make a reasonable argument for why we should stay in the country.

Stumbley, fake liberals don’t pock or a fauk about human progress and the protection of the weak. So I don’t see the use in trying to nudge their consciences, Stumbley. They don’t have any, not in the form that we know of at least.

It is a simple philosophical difference that makes every difference.

Hey, Stumbley, why don’t you ask some of our vets what it feels like to get up in the morning after a long night of having nightmares about what they’ve seen/done in Iraq?

X assumes that you get nightmares from serving in Iraq. As opposed to honor, glory, and pride. Those things aren’t achieved in war, after all. At least, that is what the Left assumes.

Iraqis sure were better off before, eh?

Like I said, X doesn’t give a damn about the Iraqis. Or the Venezuellas. Or Americans, even. He values the Constitution, which translates as he values himself.

Well, since many Iraqis also happen to think they were better off before the war, than I suppose that makes them “sad humans” like me.

Just like X speaks for Americans when he says the Constitution is more important than the lives that Americans have, so does X seek to speak for the Iraqis. X is one large platform of cultures and nations, dontcha know S.

“War is hell”; for you that sums up the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis-X

You don’t know jack about war tactics, strategy, and logics either, X. So what are you spamming about “war is hell”. You have no conception of what that means, except in relation to Leftist ideology.

Any minute now Ymarskar will trot along and lecture you about the value of human life over principle.-X

You don’t have the requisite philosophical understanding to predict what I will or will not do in terms of arguments, X. So why are you even trying? Is your own position not strong enough?

X’s ideas have been dealt with indepth by me and others. The idea that there is no defense to policies that you disagree with is an idea that has already been covered and eviscerated.

this country would still have international support

See. What did I tell people about that international law thing. It is only excuse for the use of violence in the Left’s view, for the Left has no real experience with violence except dishing out emotional violence. They need, thus, emotional support to attack others, even others like Osama Bin Laden.

This simply verifies the point. It is fine to talk about theory and theoreticals, but nothing beats facing the truth from multiple members of the Left right here, right now. Such people are real, not just words on paper lambasting Leftist ideology.

Oh, but I guess I’m just a sad human.

The sad part, X, is that you are stuck in this idiotic MoveOn trope, that has been debunked here, there, and everywhere. If you can’t remember 17 UN resolutions, a “regime change” resolution by Clinton and his Congress, then you are indeed a sad–nay, ignorant–human, intent only on perpetrating a discredited and trite meme. You are not worth arguing with, since facts do not seem to take root in the sludge of your “mind”.