Quote:
Originally posted by DavePlays
But - If we had been at war - my definition of war - I would have supported the "President" - as the Commander and Chief of the military. You are damned right I would - and I think at THAT time, party politics needs thrown out the window, and just like now, I hope everyone would send the same message to our soldiers.
|
I'm sure you would. The "I'm just following orders" and "I will blindly follow my leaders" attitude of some people is frightening. There is nothing wrong with taking principled opposition. While I support the war, I don't expect everyone in the world to agree with me. I would like them too, but they're not and don't think anything less of them until they do something like burn the flag or spit on a soldier.
Believe it or not many traditional conservatives, who consider themselves fiercely patriotic, oppose the war. They would consider themselves true conservatives. They would not consider you a true conservative. Pat Buchanon said, "The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globablist, interventionist ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with."
Here is a sampling of traditional or some call them paleoconservatives who have serious reservations or outright oppose war in Iraq.
Pat Buchanon, Robert Novak, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts and Georgie Anne Geyer, Lew Rockwell Jr., Alan Reynolds, Joe Sobran and Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul (R-Tex), John Hostettler (R-Ind.), et al.
As much as I disagree with Pat's political positions, he's right on many things. And I admit that my views as defined today are neo-conservative. I do support intervening in Iraq. I oppose isolationism.
And even though I disagree with the traditional conservatives, who am I (or you) to say they don't support our troops because they have a different position than the president they probably voted for? I haven't walked in their shoes.