Quantcast

Categorized | News

If You are Conservative, You Must be Anti-War

If you hold conservatism as a value, you must maintain an anti-war stance.  The current state of American militarism is in clear opposition to the conservation of foreign and domestic wealth, property, freedom, safety, and life.  As the modern war-justifications from the shrinking crowd of neo-conservative fear mongers grow in absurdity, as our President spreads American branded death to Libya, it is important for peaceful conservatives (true conservatives) to speak more loudly and more frequently in examination of the incredibly liberal destruction of our American prosperity and safety, which has been brought upon by the stupid ignorance of war.

If your conservatism creates within you a desire to conserve the safety of the homeland, then to find an appropriate defense solution it is necessary only to look at the liberal destruction of life which has been heaped in the name of the American citizenry; by taking notice of American-caused death one may find the foundation of American safety: peace and non-imposition.  On the financial back of the U.S. taxpayer 9 innocent little boys (all under the age of 12) were inadvertently slaughtered by airstrike in the Kunar province of Afghanistan on the 1st of March.  The accidental nature of the too-many tragedies such as these gives no solace to the victimized Afghans; rather, hatred is inspired.  The apology from our military representatives went understandably unaccepted by official Afghan response, and more importantly this apology (like all others) finds rightful disgust from the mangled people of Afghanistan.

Despite the impersonality of their proximity and our extreme unfamiliarity with their culture, these Muslim strangers have the same ability to care for one another as the Westerners with whom we may more easily relate.  Take a moment to sincerely imagine your own innocent little child or loved one destroyed by an uninvited foreign force.  Envision your dear significant life form explosively ripped in half.  For such imposition upon your life, what might you find cause to feel?  Would the stated intentions of your invader give you comfort, or would you hope to find some vengeance after the destruction of your known world?  There is no lawful system of justice available to those who must endure such grand suffering.

The hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners who our administers of “defense” have killed and the Africans who will now find their demise by the force of unexacting American attack all leave behind multitudes of loved ones; the result is anger which naturally expounds.  It is puzzling that after their careless support of destruction the political and militant purveyors of these deadly war perversions find reason to exclaim an increase of American safety.  As hundreds of terrorists are killed, as “strategic” targets are eliminated, millions of feelings of hatred are formed and sustained; Americans now have far more cause to fear the wrath of terrorism.

The sorrow of these circumstances increases as it becomes clear that this depletion of American safety also has an extraordinary cost in American prosperity.  As the death piles on, as our safety continues to falter, the debt of the people grows still more.  Alternatively, consider the potential of a conservative policy–upon a conservation of life we could also find the conservation and increase of domestic wealth and prosperity, rather than what is the presently liberal use of American financial property for the extraordinary destruction of our interventionism.  The cost of the destruction is great, and the cost of the reconstruction (in the name of the impossible “winning of hearts and minds”) is greater.

And as the killing continues, as we are put in greater danger, as we are robbed of our wealth, our most basic freedoms suffer too.  Certainly debt is a freedom oppressing element of war in and of itself (present and future generations are lawfully obligated to forfeit their property for payment), but along with war comes the frightening contraction of our Constitutional and human rights.  We are now unable to deal freely with our fastest mass transporters (commercial airlines); instead, travel is made much more costly and slowed on a grand scale–as we are unreasonably searched and digitally disrobed the economic effect is vastly and exponentially stifling.  Additionally, as a result of war inspired “Patriot” Act provisions many law enforcement agents are now free to act in ways against the people they “serve” which previously required permission from a more deliberative authority.  And what is the excuse for these oppressive perversions of human liberty?  It is all in the name of fighting terrorism–the terrorism which our own deadly imperialism and occupation has inspired.

To support war is not only impractical and senseless–it is absolutely not conservative.  After recognizing the liberal use of force and finance which must be used for the administration of the violence and maintenance necessary for war, one will see clearly the absence of conservative principles in such incredibly destructive endeavors.

3 Responses to “If You are Conservative, You Must be Anti-War”

  1. Is this tongue and cheek? Is there a set of circumstances under which a conservative would defend /his/her/their lives, interests and/or ones they love? Where is you love limits? Where is you compassion limits? Yes, our economic condition is among our greatest threats and is the one presently looming largest. But, you cannot attend to even that which you believe is your single greatest threat at the expense of the next several threats. If you do, you will never survive to enjoy the fruits of you effort.

  2. Wayne says:

    The only reason to go to war is self defense – PERIOD. The Democrats traditionally were the warmongers. How it crept into the GOP is beyond me.

  3. Logic 101 says:

    This argument is invalid. It’s based off of a logical fallacy, a fallacy of composition, wherein you infer that something is true of a whole based on the fact that it is true for some of the parts. You article can, essentially, be summed up as this:

    Premise 1) War decreases safety, leads to American deaths, and slows airport security checkpoint lines.
    Premise 2) High safety standards, alive Americans, and fast airport navigation are conservative Principles.
    Conclusion) All conservatives must be anti-war.

    That line of thought also brings us to this:

    Premise 1) The right to bear arms decreases safety, leads to American deaths, and slows airport checkpoint lines.
    Premise 2) High safety standards, alive Americans, and fast airport navgation are conservative principles.
    Conclusion) All conservatives must be against the right to bear arms.

    That doesn’t seem quite right, now does it?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: