Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheldonrs
Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?
And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.
Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!!  |
Bush was not a conservative. Socially, he was conservative, but in his foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan, and his fiscal irresponsibility, he was anything BUT conservative.
Yes, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, and yes, they were in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we have to go to war with all of Afghanistan. And it doesn't mean we have to build up their country and spend 10 years there, either. In 3 months, we should have been in and out.
We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.
Jefferson was a real case study in never being satisfied. He wasn't satisfied with his wife, he also wasn't satisfied with his farm, his state, the federal gov't, the way the war was being fought, etc. He stated he didn't like slavery, but kept a number of slaves, all his adult life.
So why would he be satisfied with the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or much of anything?
You can find opinions against the constitution, all over the place, especially in the liberal and/or progressive followers. The problem is, if you made a Constitution that the liberals and the progressives really liked, your country wouldn't last 50 years.
FDR was a great progressive and liberal, and thought he should be able to "pack" the Supreme Court, to get what he wanted approved.
Was his idea a good one? I don't believe so. Lots of examples like this.
Read
"The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy.
Romney is trying, for political purposes, to distance himself from Obama, on foreign affairs. And that's hard to do, because Obama has followed the path that Bush begun, very closely.
Romney will not be staying in Afghanistan, and we won't be going to war with Iran. It's not in our best interests to do that, if that makes sense to you. It IS in our best interests, to ACT LIKE we may choose to go to war with Iran.
Why? Because the Mullah's have still not decided on whether to pursue nuclear weapons. We want to "nudge" them away from doing it, with a bit of saber-rattling (something they understand very well).
It is FAR better to threaten them now, than face the alternatives, (either a war, or Iran with nuclear weapons), later. Also, the Iranian "rial" has gone right into the shitter, so they are starting to get civil unrest against their gov't, and they have a LOT less $$$ to spend on things like a nuclear weapons program.