Following the Thread

Okay, I'll step up, since you've offered no ideas either. There's only so much running in circles that one thread can make without it becoming tiresome to read (and participate in, for that matter).

You really need to learn how to follow a topical thread. Let me recap: Andy and I posted articles on Lieberman's comments on Iraq, you made some non sequitur and marginally ad hominem comments about Lieberman, but dodged the actual content of his remarks, I challenged you to offer some substance, you dodged again. The ball has always been in your court.

For what it's worth, I happen to agree, in the main, with Lieberman. I'm not happy about the fact that we are in Iraq, but since we made the mess, it is up to us to clean it up. Progress is being made there. All of you folks in the "I hate Bush, no matter what" school will find dozens of ways to discredit that, but if you talk to people who have actually been there (as I have) or if you actually go there yourself (as Lieberman has), a completely different story emerges. It's all well and good for you to throw verbal bombs in ruffled, self-righteous, liberal indignation, but without a basis in reality, you're engaging in little more that armchair quarterbacking.

First off, the Iraqi troops - the ones that we're so effectively training - need to start taking care of policing some Iraqi cities and other important sites by themselves. Hopefully, explaining target dates for turning over such responsibilities will illustrate to the insurgents that we are, in fact, interested in leaving, not in setting up permanent shop for US oil companies.

Hello? Is there anybody in there? You have just described exactly what is going on in Iraq. This sounds like you agree with Lieberman as well. I don't see anything in there that says, "bring the troops home now." So what's your beef?

On one hand, your rational view of the legitimacy of the war itself is commendable; you'd probably explain it as being related to conservatism in some way.

Ah, so now you're going to assume both sides of the debate? Your prescience is amazing. Actually, my objection to the Iraq war is based almost completely on constitutional grounds with strong support from the writings of the founders. Since most liberals prefer to use the US Constitution for a door mat, I guess that makes my objections founded in conservatism by default. But that's your argument, not mine.

But then you still seem to be swayed in the opposite direction, which can be best explained by your lingering mental block of thinking and being overwhelmingly supportive of 'Republican' - not necessarily conservative - agendas.

You're trying too hard, Strother. You ended up outsmarting yourself. But let's turn this around since you're the one with the cut and run attitude. The basis of our system is an agreement by majority rule with regard to our country's actions. You tacitly agree to that condition by participating in the system and reaping its benefits. You also have the option of voting with your feet, so when you neglect to exercise that option, you are also tacitly agreeing to the conditions. We have done something you and I pretty strongly disagree with, albeit for very different reasons. You have adopted the attitude that since you were opposed to the action in the first place, the consequences of that action have no bearing on what you perceive to be our ongoing responsibilities. That's a very typically liberal attitude, by the way. My stance is that we created the mess, now it is up to us to clean it up, regardless of how much I disagreed with the circumstances that led up to the mess itself. Not only is my position not inconsistent, it is also adult and humanitarian. And that position has nothing to do with 'Republican' principles. It is all about the very first principle of what is called conservatism: personal responsibility.

Your argument strains at a gnat yet swallows a camel.

How many murderous Hussein-like dictators have been installed worldwide, only to create self-serving kleptocracies while we sat idly by (or even encouraged and aided them)?

What's your point? I already have said the so-called Bush Doctrine is garbage. That has nothing to do with our responsibility to finish what we started in Iraq.

Do we have a responsibility to help citizens of those nations who suffer from similar results of US causal relationships?

Ethically and morally, yes. Realistically, no. There comes a point of diminishing returns. At some point, countries around the world will have normalized and absorbed the effects of outside intervention. But this is just a straw-man. We're not talking about things we did years ago and under other Administrations. And we're not talking about simple meddling. We're talking about an immediate and decisive action we took: we invaded and occupied another country, removing its government and its capability for defense.

I guess so, since Bush's 3rd or 4th reason for invading Iraq was to protect its citizens and take out its murderous leader we supported over the years.

Another straw-man. And it illustrates that you really do not understand the Bush Doctrine. You ought to try understanding something before opposing it.

And calling for real solutions isn't whining, it's asking for something other than status quo, which isn't working.

But you (and your pals in the Michael Moore fan club) are not calling for real solutions. This much is obvious since every solution offered is rejected. You folks are in the business of hating Bush and the neo-cons. The war in Iraq is just another handy method for you to express your intense dislike of Bush and all he stands for. Even people of your own political persuasion are rejected when they attempt to offer solutions that don't fall in the narrow vein of "Bush must disappear." Lieberman offered solutions, you called him "gung ho." You're not looking for solutions, you're looking for someone to tell you what you want to hear.

So we owe no special consideration to members of the military who prefer to die for just, sensible wars, not to mention to their families?

See me later after you've served. This statement shows that there is a vast chasm between your understanding and reality. Members of the military do not "prefer to die for just, sensible wars," but there is no possible way for me to make you understand that unless you have been there.

Honoring the members of our armed forces means putting them into harm's way only when necessary to defend our country and/or way of life.

Indeed it does, but that is a rule for those who would put them in harm's way. Here's some really bad news for you, Strother: the vast majority of people serving Iraq believe with all their hearts they are fighting for a just cause. Some believe it so strongly they have volunteered to do it even after their duty is fulfilled. And here's more bad news for you: By and large, they absolutely do not appreciate armchair liberals spouting off about duty and honor.

I assume that the other side of that would be pulling them out of harm's way when they're not defending our country and/or way of life - we're not doing either of those things right now in Iraq.

So are you trying to sneak up on a cut-and-run solution? If so, stand up straight and spit it out, son. I already stated my opinion on that solution, so no need to cover that ground again.

...some poll says like 80% of Iraqi citizens are confident about their future, while 62% of Iraqi troops feel confident about their future.

A wonderful example of what I said before. Almost two-thirds of the Iraqi military is confident about their future, yet you have managed to turn it into proof of futility. The only question is, did you come up with that yourself, or did you grab it from somewhere else?

And do we really want to have Iraq dependent on us forever? If not, at some point, we're going to have to leave.

Who said we wanted Iraq dependent on us forever? Not me. Not Lieberman. I don't even think you can extract that form any of Bush or Cheney's remarks. Nope, this is just another straw-man.