NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question to all the conservatives that support the Iraq war but are against social welfare.

Why is the former good but the latter bad when:

*both cost vast amounts of your precious tax money
*Iraq money is being used to secure the welfare and freedom of Iraqis

You say that money shouldn't be given to the poor, that they all should have to earn it or starve. But why does it not go this way with freedom? Why must money be earned, but freedom does not have to be? By the welfare logic, the Iraqis should have to fight for their own freedom rather than be given it. Why can freedom be given away at taxpayer cost - to foreigners - but welfare and food can't be given away at taxpayer cost to your own countrymen?

It seems to go against everything conservatives stand for.

PS.. When answering this thread do not make assumptions about my positions on the relevant issues. Answer the questions.

I've asked a similar question before in an Iraq debate thread with no answers so I shall await those answers to your question with interest.

no replies? I thought the title was reasonably inflammatory!

no replies? I thought the title was reasonably inflammatory!

*Insert reply here*

Okay I'll take the conservative side of this argument.

*devils advocate*

I, as a conservative, support spending our tax dollars to help out the less fortunate around the world because they are not responsible for their misfortune and can do nothing to better their own situation without our help. I don't think that our own citizens are being forced into their unfortunate situations and therefor can fend for themselves.

I, as a conservative, support spending our tax dollars to help out the less fortunate around the world because they are not responsible for their misfortune and can do nothing to better their own situation without our help. I don't think that our own citizens are being forced into their unfortunate situations and therefor can fend for themselves.
Sure they are. They allowed Saddam to take power. It's not as if revolution is impossible. Ever heard of gun-running?

Sure they are. They allowed Saddam to take power. It's not as if revolution is impossible. Ever heard of gun-running?

*Conservatives Advocate*

Yes, but then innocent people would have gotten killed. This way... errr strike that.

They didn't allow Saddam to take power, the US did, so now we have to clean up our mess. Gun-running? Is that how revolution is done? I thought it was done thru gun-shooting.

wow it's not easy to come with arguments for the opposing view.

*Conservatives Advocate*

Yes, but then innocent people would have gotten killed. This way... errr strike that.

They didn't allow Saddam to take power, the US did, so now we have to clean up our mess. Gun-running? Is that how revolution is done? I thought it was done thru gun-shooting.
Not at all. The US didn't install the Ba'ath party in power in Iraq. It's not the US responsibility and more than a welfare bum's poverty is the responsibility of the rich.

Gun running is the illegal aqusition of guns from a foreign source, common in revolutions. The guns are then shot at the authorities!

"conservative advocate two"


Saddam was a threat to our security, we must spend our tax dollars so that we can be kept safe. It will also be safer for us to fight for the Freedom of Iraquis. By giving them freedom, we will stop them from disliking us, and stop them from sending terrorists against us.


(gee, i find two errors on my own argument :( )

Not at all. The US didn't install the Ba'ath party in power in Iraq.

Highly debateable you filthy commie liberal bleeding heart scum *really getting into this conservative thing now*

It's not the US responsibility any more than a welfare bum's poverty is the responsibility of the rich.

I'm not rich - yet my tax monies goes to the bums regardless. If you want the end homelessness then do it with your money not mine. I could care less about those lazy bastards. They put themselves into poverty.

Gun running is the illegal aqusition of guns from a foreign source, common in revolutions. The guns are then shot at the authorities!

Who is going to run-guns to the Iraqis? Bush Sr. told them to revolt and that we would help and we never did because the Democraps in Congress blocked it. The Republicans have nothing but the best interests at heart for all the people around the world who REALLY need help. The dirty poor Americans living on the streets can kiss my ass.

I am the master conservative *celebration*

Conservative Advocate #3:

I am incensed that anyone could possibly say that the freedom granted to our Iraqi allies can be equated to the burden placed on our people by the wilfully unemployed.

There is no price too high to pay for freedom, something the welfare bums ought to bear in mind when they put their filthy hands into my back pockets.

(did that work?)

I'm not rich - yet my tax monies goes to the bums regardless. If you want the end homelessness then do it with your money not mine. I could care less about those lazy bastards. They put themselves into poverty.
If you want to liberate Iraqis go and join an anti-Saddam militant group or give your money to them; just don't use my goddam tax tollars to free those docile Iraqi "people"!*

Who is going to run-guns to the Iraqis?
Al-Qaeda. They hated Saddam. Also the Iranians. Kuwait. Israel. Saddam had many enemies.

Conservative Advocate #3:

Alright I'm getting sick of this. I'd like to hear from some actual pro-war conservatives. Cornlieu, Caddilac-Cage, where are you?

I am incensed that anyone could possibly say that the freedom granted to our Iraqi allies can be equated to the burden placed on our people by the wilfully unemployed.

There is no price too high to pay for freedom, something the welfare bums ought to bear in mind when they put their filthy hands into my back pockets.
Many welfare recipients are not wilfully unemployed leeches.

Why is there no price limit on freedom fighting but there is on welfare? They both cost a lot of money.

If you want to liberate Iraqis go and join an anti-Saddam militant group or give your money to them; just don't use my goddam tax tollars to free those docile Iraqi "people"!*


Al-Qaeda. They hated Saddam. Also the Iranians. Kuwait. Israel. Saddam had many enemies.


You win. I always knew your side was right but I am a conservative Republican and we don't go against our main party line publicly for fear of lynchings. I will still tell my friends I am for the Iraq war but in my heart I will acknowledge the truth of the dissenters are being correct on this issue.

bump

I have a question to all the conservatives that support the Iraq war but are against social welfare.

Why is the former good but the latter bad when:

*both cost vast amounts of your precious tax money
*Iraq money is being used to secure the welfare and freedom of Iraqis

You say that money shouldn't be given to the poor, that they all should have to earn it or starve. But why does it not go this way with freedom? Why must money be earned, but freedom does not have to be? By the welfare logic, the Iraqis should have to fight for their own freedom rather than be given it. Why can freedom be given away at taxpayer cost - to foreigners - but welfare and food can't be given away at taxpayer cost to your own countrymen?

It seems to go against everything conservatives stand for.

PS.. When answering this thread do not make assumptions about my positions on the relevant issues. Answer the questions.
I'm for the Iraq war, but I'm also for well-run social programs.

The problem with most of our current social programs is 5-fold.

First, the way they are often run now they destroy people's self-respect and their human dignity. A hard-working person who becomes unemployed has to go to beg for their own money from a faceless government bureaucracy, and hope that the government will return their own money.

Second, these programs tend to be extremely wasteful, as the government tends to become mired in bureacracy and waste becomes rampant.

Third, it gives the government more power over our lives. Government power comes at the expense of the citizen's freedom. Once you give a government a power it is highly unlikely that anything short of revolution will ever return that power to the populace, so we should be very wary of granting governments new powers.

Fourth, most social programs promote dependence upon the government, and very similar to #1 it is dehumanizing and degrading to be jobless and dependent on the dole for a person's livelihood.

Fifth, people on a social program are not producing and goods or servicess. This harms society as a whole.

In capitalist economics it's all about choice and freedom, and poorly run social programs tend to remove choice, freedom, and basic human dignity.

But those in Iraq have no choice as Sadam would kill anyone who opposed him then would imprison or kill their family. The Iraq war is about giving the Iraqis the chance for freedom, basic human dignity, and choice. If they chose to graps it or not is their choice, but we are bound by honor and morality to help them.

That is how it is justified. But all that being said, I do support well-run social programs.

You don't understand. Welfare is BAD , UNLESS it is for a foreign nation

It's quite simple.

There's a massive difference between being under the heel of an oppressive dictatorship - and one which would happily harm us in the west, and only hasn't because of sanctions which are harming the Iraqi people more than Saddam - and people who have through laziness, misfortune, or any other contrivance come to be unemployed. In addition, by doing Iraq this way we can at least try to create a proper, democratic government, which will almost certainly help everyone far more than any revolution or civil war would have.

Incidentally, I'm Libertarian. I am fully behind social welfare programs, but I do not believe the government has a moral right to make people contribute to these programs, any more than they can morally say 'You must give $100 a year to the Red Cross', or 'If you do not donate £120 to the BBC per year, you may not own a TV, even if you never view BBC channels.' By doing such things through the private sector, it greatly helps people on both sides, because the best route will be to get people into solid work quickly, and furthermore one can dictate where, if anywhere, their resources go. In addition, charity workers are almost invariably there because they believe in the cause; civil servants tend not to be.

So, not stricly a conservative view, but one which does seem to coincide with them on the matter.

EDIT: Incidentally, if we take a stereotypical anti-war, pro-welfare idea of Democrats, how can that be reconciled? Surely Iraqis are just as deserveing of help as Americans? We're all Human, they just happened to be unlucky enough to be born in an oppressive country.

I'm for the Iraq war, but I'm also for well-run social programs.

The problem with most of our current social programs is 5-fold.

First, the way they are often run now they destroy people's self-respect and their human dignity. A hard-working person who becomes unemployed has to go to beg for their own money from a faceless government bureaucracy, and hope that the government will return their own money.

Second, these programs tend to be extremely wasteful, as the government tends to become mired in bureacracy and waste becomes rampant.

Third, it gives the government more power over our lives. Government power comes at the expense of the citizen's freedom. Once you give a government a power it is highly unlikely that anything short of revolution will ever return that power to the populace, so we should be very wary of granting governments new powers.

Fourth, most social programs promote dependence upon the government, and very similar to #1 it is dehumanizing and degrading to be jobless and dependent on the dole for a person's livelihood.

Fifth, people on a social program are not producing and goods or servicess. This harms society as a whole.

In capitalist economics it's all about choice and freedom, and poorly run social programs tend to remove choice, freedom, and basic human dignity.

But those in Iraq have no choice as Sadam would kill anyone who opposed him then would imprison or kill their family. The Iraq war is about giving the Iraqis the chance for freedom, basic human dignity, and choice. If they chose to graps it or not is their choice, but we are bound by honor and morality to help them.

That is how it is justified. But all that being said, I do support well-run social programs.

I'm not from the U.S. so I don't know what your social programs are like but I would like to address the points you made.

1. You say an unemployed person has to beg for their own money, does this mean that if a person in the U.S. loses a job they are not entitled to unemployment insurance?

2. If the program is mismanaged than I agree.

3. How does giving someone unemployment insurance give the government more power over people's freedom?

4. In extreme cases of libertarian economies people who are unemployed beg on the streets, deal drugs, prostitute themselves or steal to survive. Is that less degrading than turning to the government for a handout?

5. Again this depends on how the social program is run. If unemployed people are simply given a hand out then you are correct. But if unemployed people are given scholarships to upgrade their skills then it advances society as a whole.

6. Even a poorly run social program has a choice, no one is forcing you to apply.

Regarding the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein has already been removed from power. If he was the problem, why are U.S. soldiers still in Iraq?

It's quite simple.

There's a massive difference between being under the heel of an oppressive dictatorship - and one which would happily harm us in the west, and only hasn't because of sanctions which are harming the Iraqi people more than Saddam - and people who have through laziness, misfortune, or any other contrivance come to be unemployed. In addition, by doing Iraq this way we can at least try to create a proper, democratic government, which will almost certainly help everyone far more than any revolution or civil war would have.

What is happening in Iraq doesn't qualify as a civil war or a revolution?

Incidentally, I'm Libertarian. I am fully behind social welfare programs, but I do not believe the government has a moral right to make people contribute to these programs, any more than they can morally say 'You must give $100 a year to the Red Cross', or 'If you do not donate £120 to the BBC per year, you may not own a TV, even if you never view BBC channels.' By doing such things through the private sector, it greatly helps people on both sides, because the best route will be to get people into solid work quickly, and furthermore one can dictate where, if anywhere, their resources go. In addition, charity workers are almost invariably there because they believe in the cause; civil servants tend not to be.

Do you believe the citizens of a civilization should be coerced to paying taxes in order to fund law enforcement and the military?

So, not stricly a conservative view, but one which does seem to coincide with them on the matter.

EDIT: Incidentally, if we take a stereotypical anti-war, pro-welfare idea of Democrats, how can that be reconciled? Surely Iraqis are just as deserveing of help as Americans? We're all Human, they just happened to be unlucky enough to be born in an oppressive country.

Personally I think the Democrats are just as hypocritical as the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, but if emancipating the people of the world from evil dictators is really the U.S. government's main objective why do they support coups against democratically elected leaders like Daniel Ortega and Jacobe Arbenz? And why don't they take out dictators like Mugabe?

Let us put it this way.

Social Welfare: Often goes to people who don't need it because "it is enough".

Iraq War: How would you like to watch Saddam have your children put into meat grinders to die slowly, and then be put in yourself, to die slowly?


Social Welfare: Almost always mismanaged.

Iraq War: We just took down a violent dictator and implemented democracy. Win-win in my opinion.


Social Welfare: If these people really, REALLY, wanted a job that much, why not go be a factory worker? Tons of factories, which is a no-skill job, meaning you can start getting yourself off your feet. Not to mention there are tons of private charities out there (usually run by a church) to help the truelly needy.

Iraq War: Do you have any idea how hard it is to get weapons for an uprising in a dictatorship? Not easy at all.


Now, to play the double edged sword.


Social Welfare: When managed correctly, can help many people.

Iraq War: Has cost America a lot of money and many people have lost their lives.


The second edge is very weak and can't puncture much.

Sorry, but I'll have to say, yes for the War, no for Welfare.

I think everyone is missing the big picture here. This isn't so much about the welfare of the average Iraqi. It is about corporate welfare. The US has spent over $175 Billion dollars of US taxpayers dollars to help secure the future of the oil under the sands of the Iraqi desert. Oil that will help drive the US corporate engine as world supplies diminish.

I have seen conservatives on these boards rail against the people in the US living in poverty. Almost 1 in 5 US children live in poverty and among the 17 OECD countries, the US ranks dead last in poverty rates. Why waste money on them when the people in Iraq can attain "freedom". It is kind of ironic that many Iraqis are trying to kill their wannabe benefactors?

I think this question is somewhat disingenous. I think we can all acknowledge that there is a big difference between 'poverty' in the US and the atrocities that occured under Saddam. It's a bit silly to say that giving people money for nothing is the same as trying to free them from a murderous tyrant.

Moreover, most Conservatives in America do support some limited form of welfare- few would want people to starve. Most conservatives would allow for a (fairly low) basic standard of living, it's just this standard is lower than what an American liberal would prefer.

There is a big difference between freedom and cash, amigos. (I'm not actually Hispanic nor do I speak Spanish; I just felt like saying that.) The people were deprived of freedom, and they couldn't start a revolution, for as soon as you started organizing one Saddam clamped down. Homeless bums aren't prevented from getting a job.

Let us put it this way.

Social Welfare: Almost always mismanaged.

Iraq War: We just took down a violent dictator and implemented democracy. Win-win in my opinion.

-snip-

Sorry, but I'll have to say, yes for the War, no for Welfare.
I notiec that your reasons against welfare are mainly due to its pragmatic problems, but your arguments for the war are mainly idealistic. There have been plenty of fuckups in the management of the war, just as there have been in welfare.

Disclaimer: I support both the war and social welfare programmes.

There is a big difference between freedom and cash, amigos.In terms of the war, there's not. Both welfare and the war cost billions to the taxpayer.

The people were deprived of freedom, and they couldn't start a revolution, for as soon as you started organizing one Saddam clamped down.
Pssst. In every country where a revolution has successfully happened, the previous governemnt would not have allowed it to openly organise without claming down. Iraq was not a unique situation. Revolution was far from impossible.

Homeless bums aren't prevented from getting a job.
They are if there are no jobs to go around. There is also the matter that the overwhelming majority of employers will not hire someone if they don't have a home address. It's funny. To get a home you need to have a job. To get a job you need to have a home.

It is kind of ironic that many Iraqis are trying to kill their wannabe benefactors?
Even a tiny minority looks like 'many' in a country of millions. The insurgency does not have widespread public support, due largely to the fact that most of the people killed by these fanatics are Iraqi Muslims.

What is happening in Iraq doesn't qualify as a civil war or a revolution?

Pretty much, unless you stretch it to the very limits of the definitions.

Do you believe the citizens of a civilization should be coerced to paying taxes in order to fund law enforcement and the military?

Yes, but because these institutions are present for the sole purpose of supressing as many other forms of coercion as they can. In addition, I fully approve of a fully armed populace who can defend themselves against violent crime, and I believe in neighborhood watches where people actually look out for each other.

Personally I think the Democrats are just as hypocritical as the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, but if emancipating the people of the world from evil dictators is really the U.S. government's main objective why do they support coups against democratically elected leaders like Daniel Ortega and Jacobe Arbenz? And why don't they take out dictators like Mugabe?

Limitation of numbers, for one. Not even the US has the manpower to take down EVERY dictator in the world. In addition, there's still a chance, albeit remote, of taking Mugabe out before a real genocide begins. As for the old revolutions against democratically elected leaders, that's because most (All?) of these happened during the Cold War, when Communism was a far bigger threat than some remote, barely-imagined future which could be predicted with no accuracy at all. No amount of ideals are going to save you when you get nuked. However, now the US has felt the repercussions of such actions - to this end, they are trying to restore Democracy and bring it to places which never had it.

Pretty much, unless you stretch it to the very limits of the definitions.

in·sur·gen·cy ( ĭn-sûr ' jən-sē ) n. , pl. -cies . The quality or circumstance of being rebellious. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.

Is this an adequate definition of "insurgency"? If not please supply one.

Yes, but because these institutions are present for the sole purpose of supressing as many other forms of coercion as they can.

So if there are people protesting the war in Iraq, police arrests are required even though there is no violence involved?

In addition, I fully approve of a fully armed populace who can defend themselves against violent crime, and I believe in neighborhood watches where people actually look out for each other.

Does this mean you approve of organizations like the Nation of Islam, KKK, Neo Nazis and the Black Panthers arming themselves and organising rifle clubs?

Limitation of numbers, for one. Not even the US has the manpower to take down EVERY dictator in the world. In addition, there's still a chance, albeit remote, of taking Mugabe out before a real genocide begins. As for the old revolutions against democratically elected leaders, that's because most (All?) of these happened during the Cold War, when Communism was a far bigger threat than some remote, barely-imagined future which could be predicted with no accuracy at all. No amount of ideals are going to save you when you get nuked. However, now the US has felt the repercussions of such actions - to this end, they are trying to restore Democracy and bring it to places which never had it.

But the U.S., after removing democratically elected leaders during the cold war often replaced them with repressive governments who used coersion to limit political freedoms. Among the allies the U.S. supported during the cold war are the Mujahideen, Manuel Noriega, the Contras, and Saddam Hussein.