Why Aren’t the Dems for the War in Iraq? Thursday, December 4th, 2008
Posted by carltonstedman in objectivism, politics.add a comment
For some reason, this wasn’t converted correctly, going to WordPress, and was listed as unpublished. This was originally written up back in April of 2008, in my old blogger site (link). Anyway, here it follows.
One thing certainly seems clear: the Democrats and their supporters (I’ll just call them all “liberals”) really seem to think the USA should get out of Iraq, as soon as possible. I don’t think this is up to too much debate, but the problem I have is this: why do the liberals want to get out of Iraq?
First, think about this: the liberals clearly, focus a lot on so-called “social policies”. They are all for increasing funding to public education, getting a national health plan, pro-welfare and the ilk. Another way to put it: the liberals are socialists. This is really a better name, since they aren’t really “liberal” in the root way of the word, like liberty, pro-freedom; that doesn’t really seem to be the policy of the “liberals”, so let’s call them socialists.
Why do the socialists want to get out of Iraq, then? Socialists are all about the “rights” of the majority, the “common good” reaching some sort of averaged level of wealth and health. This “golden mean” is really a fallacy (I’ll expound on that at some later date), but that’s not my issue here. Certainly, a socialist in principle would be all for the global “common good”, and definitely for improving average conditions in Iraq, the whole “Operation: Iraqi Freedom” deal. Clearly, the only reasonable stance for someone that advocates socialist principles would be in favor of staying in Iraq and pouring USA efforts into attempting to improve the lives of Iraqis.
So, why aren’t the Dems for the war in Iraq? The answer is really simple: they’re big hypocrites. Don’t get me wrong; so are the “neo-conservatives” that are for staying in Iraq, which is against any really conservative principles (my meaning: anti-socialist, pro-capitalist).
By any rational standpoint, the war in Iraq has been an utter and complete failure. The only possible justification for war is protecting America citizens against physical attack and harm. What has the war in Iraq done, but drain the pockets of hard-working taxpayers, against their will? It has accomplished nothing in protecting American citizens from physical attack or harm and is therefore a complete failure.
There is a justified war to be fought in the present, and this is against people that actually present a physical danger to American citizens: Islamo-fascist terrorists. The USA should not waste American lives by going in on foot, but just bomb by air known terrorist locations throughout Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations we know to be harboring terrorists, destroying synagogues, weapon factories, cells, training camps and more, without even asking the UN (which shouldn’t even exist). The USA could just about destroy all terrorist opposition in a few weeks. This is the justified action of the military in protecting America against known physical danger, attack and harm.
Although, this is unlikely to happen, due to the socialist mindset and unwarranted respect for nations harboring terrorists and paying homage to the socialist institution of the UN. Instead, the USA will just fight war after war, converting nation by nation in imperial fashion, sacrificing untold trillions of dollars and millions of American lives. That is exactly what would happen with a Democratic president (and I’m not sure McCain would be much better).
